The Bush Presidency: A Retrospective

[DiamondDave]

Clinton did have a Surplus. If you do the math based on how Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & Bush 2 calculate whether THEY had a surplus or deficit, Clinton had a SURPLUS.

Please answer us this question numb nuts. What was Reagans Deficit and what was Clintons and what was GW Bush's?

Reagan had =

Bush had =

Clinton had =

I can't wait to see your numbers.

Did I already state that our government has not run in the RED at any time in recent history???

Nope


But nice try

Next time start looking at the FACTS behind Clinton's intra departmental spending and how he attempted to hide his true expenditures within there, where it does not show up in the 'budget'... so he could perpetuate this myth.... he was no better than any other President in terms of balancing the budget or inappropriate government spending....

 

[sitarro]

What if what Europe thinks is right and Bush is wrong? Then it does matter what Europe thinks. What if the rest of the world agrees with Europe? Would that matter?

Clintons? You mean the people who won the Kosovo war without one US casualty? Sounds good to me.

Also, the World Trade Center got hit in 1993 and we didn't have another terrorist attack in America by Bin Ladin the rest of Bill's presidency.

Just like Bush did a great job because he didn't get hit again after 9-11, Clinton did a great job by not getting hit again.

Europe, give me a fucking break. A continent full of little countries with people who start dying off if the temperature hits 90 degrees. Now they are freezing to death and shutting off plasma TVs, really? With the abysmal television stations they have there, why would they bother with HDTV anyway........ oh that's right, to watch American movies. These are the people that should lead?

New Zealand, what a bigger joke, they still have a hard time figuring out how to make fire. A bunch of sheep rapers. Let's be sure to listen to sheep and child molesters.

 

[sealybobo]

Did I already state that our government has not run in the RED at any time in recent history???

Nope


But nice try

Next time start looking at the FACTS behind Clinton's intra departmental spending and how he attempted to hide his true expenditures within there, where it does not show up in the 'budget'... so he could perpetuate this myth.... he was no better than any other President in terms of balancing the budget or inappropriate government spending....

Wrong again. I wanted you to show the rest of us just how much better Clinton was than the other 3, but you won't because you know you are wrong. And Bush was the kind of "supplimental or descretionary spending". Spending outside of the budget.

In other words, you'd probably shit if you knew what Bush's deficit really is.

So because you won't compare Reagan & Bush to Clinton, I'll do it for you. Rough numbers.

Reagan $50 billion in debt
GW Bush, 1 Trillion in Debt

And compared to those two, using all the same voodoo economics and fuzzy math, not doing anything special for Bill,

Clinton had a Surplus.

 

[sealybobo]

Europe, give me a fucking break. A continent full of little countries with people who start dying off if the temperature hits 90 degrees. Now they are freezing to death and shutting off plasma TVs, really? With the abysmal television stations they have there, why would they bother with HDTV anyway........ oh that's right, to watch American movies. These are the people that should lead?

New Zealand, what a bigger joke, they still have a hard time figuring out how to make fire. A bunch of sheep rapers. Let's be sure to listen to sheep and child molesters.

You should hear the way they talk about you.

 

[sitarro]

He is a sad little failure who knows he is and is now trying to put a spin on his screw ups.



There is a line in the sand that says when attacked, you still keep the values that your country was founded on.

He is a coward. He threw out our values for convenience and a false sense of security.

There is a difference about trying to be popular and just telling everyone else to screw themself because you know everything.

Who's the little faggot in your avatar boy?

 

[DiamondDave]

Wrong again. I wanted you to show the rest of us just how much better Clinton was than the other 3, but you won't because you know you are wrong. And Bush was the kind of "supplimental or descretionary spending". Spending outside of the budget.

In other words, you'd probably shit if you knew what Bush's deficit really is.

So because you won't compare Reagan & Bush to Clinton, I'll do it for you. Rough numbers.

Reagan $50 billion in debt
GW Bush, 1 Trillion in Debt

And compared to those two, using all the same voodoo economics and fuzzy math, not doing anything special for Bill,

Clinton had a Surplus.

CLINTON DID NOT HAVE A SURPLUS.. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE..... IT IS A MYTH

Clinton cut the budget in many areas that he wanted to (Namely crippling the military).. and worked with the REP congress to reduce some spending on the FORMAL budget... however his intra-departmental spending was ASTRONOMICAL and showed how he was trying to portray the myth of the surplus... he was no better at the OVERALL and TRUE spending, than any other President....

Did I support Bush's spending and governmental expansion? Nope... in order to expand defense and HS, he should have had cuts in many other areas... but he did not... and that is one major beef I have ALWAYS had with him...

But nice try, asshole

 

[Gord]

Clinton had a Surplus.

National debt:

1993 - $4.411T

1994 - $4.693T

1995 - $4.974T

1996 - $5.225T

1997 - $5.413T

1998 - $5.526T

1999 - $5.656T

2000 - $5.674T

2001 - $5.807T

Please point out the surpluses and the fuzzy math you use to get them.

Or maybe you could lend me your Daily Kos decoder ring?

 

[sealybobo]

CLINTON DID NOT HAVE A SURPLUS.. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE..... IT IS A MYTH

Clinton cut the budget in many areas that he wanted to (Namely crippling the military).. and worked with the REP congress to reduce some spending on the FORMAL budget... however his intra-departmental spending was ASTRONOMICAL and showed how he was trying to portray the myth of the surplus... he was no better at the OVERALL and TRUE spending, than any other President....

Did I support Bush's spending and governmental expansion? Nope... in order to expand defense and HS, he should have had cuts in many other areas... but he did not... and that is one major beef I have ALWAYS had with him...

But nice try, asshole

You refuse to admit that every GOP president spent more than Clinton. Bitch.

 

[sealybobo]

National debt:

1993 - $4.411T

1994 - $4.693T

1995 - $4.974T

1996 - $5.225T

1997 - $5.413T

1998 - $5.526T

1999 - $5.656T

2000 - $5.674T

2001 - $5.807T

Please point out the surpluses and the fuzzy math you use to get them.

Or maybe you could lend me your Daily Kos decoder ring?

You guys are fucking morons. If you don't know how it works, move on. Based on how every president comes up with their numbers, Clinton had a surplus.

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.

"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.

Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.

Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

 

[sealybobo]

Fact is, the last time things were this bad, it was Bush 1 who was president. And he has no one else to blame either, because Reagan was president for 8 years before him.

Although no doubt some moron Republicans will try to say Bush 1's problems in the early 90's were due to Carter.

Fuck, you guys blame Carter for the current housing crisis, so I wouldn't put anything past you, no matter how retarded it sounds. You'll swallow anything and say anything. Just look at Rush Limbaugh, your leader.

 

[Gord]

You guys are fucking morons. If you don't know how it works, move on. Based on how every president comes up with their numbers, Clinton had a surplus.

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.

In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.

"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.

Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."

That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.

Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.

"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

You quote the biggest liar in history as your evidence?!?



OK mister math genius - explain to me how Clinton had surpluses, but the national debt continued to climb...

 

[sitarro]

CLINTON DID NOT HAVE A SURPLUS.. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE..... IT IS A MYTH

Clinton cut the budget in many areas that he wanted to (Namely crippling the military).. and worked with the REP congress to reduce some spending on the FORMAL budget... however his intra-departmental spending was ASTRONOMICAL and showed how he was trying to portray the myth of the surplus... he was no better at the OVERALL and TRUE spending, than any other President....

Did I support Bush's spending and governmental expansion? Nope... in order to expand defense and HS, he should have had cuts in many other areas... but he did not... and that is one major beef I have ALWAYS had with him...

But nice try, asshole

Excuse them Diamond, they tend to be forgetful little people, they never remember the preceding word that put surplus into context....... projected. The supposed "surplus" that the Clinton apologists always talk about, was PROJECTED over ten years if everything kept going better than perfectly............ they act like nobody was alive when this fact was happening.

 

[DiamondDave]

You refuse to admit that every GOP president spent more than Clinton. Bitch.

In total governmental spending Clinton was no different than any other President... and that was WITH destroying the military

And do not forget, that the myth of the "surplus" is debunked even before looking at the interdepartmental spending by Clinton.... Clinton added over a trillion in national debt, with the debt going up each year, and that was just on the "on the books" reported national debt... but he also added close to another trillion in intergovernmental spending.. and this was without a war, and with actually gashing military spending

And lest you forget that I have NEVER called for support of anything that spends more than we bring in... DEM or REP...

But nice try

 

[sealybobo]

Excuse them Diamond, they tend to be forgetful little people, they never remember the preceding word that put surplus into context....... projected. The supposed "surplus" that the Clinton apologists always talk about, was PROJECTED over ten years if everything kept going better than perfectly............ they act like nobody was alive when this fact was happening.

Yes, and Bush projected a trillion dollar deficit.

We know how it works. The question is, do you realize that with the same fuzzy math, the people you vote for "project" record deficits. Not only do they project them, they achieve them too.

So stop asking for tax breaks. If your party will double the spending everytime they get into power, then don't expect tax breaks. And don't talk about fiscal responsibility.

 

[Munin]

I don't know what Bush actually managed to call an achievement:

Economy: well, you know he doesn't leave a good economy at his departure. Economically you could say he ruined the US (have you seen what happened to the National debt in 8 years?).

National Security: Well 9/11 isn't exactly something to be proud of, the fact that some people praise Bush for preventing nothing like 9/11 happend AGAIN while he was in office is simply strange because they act like it happening once wasn't bad enough for a president. Isn't 9/11 one of the biggest National security failures in US history?

National policy: How Hurricane Katrina was handled was truly humiliating for the US in general, it looked like a third world country.


Foreign Policy: Almost every Nation (people living in that Nation) hates the America ruled by president Bush, including America.


Iraq: Almost a total failure, from the moment the war wasn't declared yet to the point the US started occupying the country. The war was declared based on false accusations and false intelligence. How Iraq was handled further went from bad to worse: first of all they didn't have enough troops to occupy the country, secondly they disbanded the Iraqi army (leaving the only Iraqi people with military experience without a job), inaccurate bombing of Iraqi houses during the war caused many civilian casualties wich caused Iraqi hatred against the US, ...

=> and then oh yeah, the surge worked !!! : So when you use a strategy that you should have used in the first place (using enough troops: the US invaded Iraq with to few troops to effectively occupy it) it becomes a success? To me it seems they failed and then tried to fix something wich would not have been a problem in the first place if they handled Iraq responsibly (using enough troops to occupy Iraq).

Afghanistan: this is the only war that was justifiable, but because of Bush pulling troops to Iraq he actually managed to partly screw this up too by not being able to fully provide the troops, supplies, ... that are needed in Afghanistan (because he has an unjustified war in Iraq).

US laws: Well the fact that mr Bush got himself the power to put any American citizen in jail with torture service without a lawyer and a court-process says it all, doesn't it?


So is their anything of an achievement that compares to the size of his failures?

 

[sealybobo]

In total governmental spending Clinton was no different than any other President... and that was WITH destroying the military

And do not forget, that the myth of the "surplus" is debunked even before looking at the interdepartmental spending by Clinton.... Clinton added over a trillion in national debt, with the debt going up each year, and that was just on the "on the books" reported national debt... but he also added close to another trillion in intergovernmental spending.. and this was without a war, and with actually gashing military spending

And lest you forget that I have NEVER called for support of anything that spends more than we bring in... DEM or REP...

But nice try

Do you want to know how/why what you said is a lie/wrong?

Newt's Congress worked with Clinton. Who controls the purse strings? Congress does? Who gets more pork year after year, Dems or GOP? That's right, GOP. Even last year when WE had the fucking power, the GOP still got the majority of the pork.

So no way Clinton would have spent like a drunken sailor, because the GOP congress wouldn't have allowed it.

Now, to implicate your entire fucking party. Bush didn't veto one spending bill from 2000-2006. Only when the Dems got the power back did Bush use the power of the veto. That's never happened before. zero veto's in 6 years? WOW! Bush didn't veto one fucking bill. Do you know what that means? That means you can't fucking win this argument stupid.

So Bush and Delay RAPED the treasury when the GOP ruled Washington.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, and Bush projected a trillion dollar deficit.

We know how it works. The question is, do you realize that with the same fuzzy math, the people you vote for "project" record deficits. Not only do they project them, they achieve them too.

So stop asking for tax breaks. If your party will double the spending everytime they get into power, then don't expect tax breaks. And don't talk about fiscal responsibility.

Funny... a lot of conservatives don't call for tax 'breaks'... but many do call for equal taxation, cutting spending (especially in areas the government should not be spending money), and bringing in accountability

Do I support the expansion of our debt under anyone's watch?? Hell no... But I support less, the DEM agenda of more entitlements, more handouts, and punishment taxation systems .. as well as their increased spending in areas the government has no business spending in

 

[sealybobo]

I don't know what Bush actually managed to call an achievement:

Economy: well, you know he doesn't leave a good economy at his departure. Economically you could say he ruined the US (have you seen what happened to the National debt in 8 years?).

National Security: Well 9/11 isn't exactly something to be proud of, the fact that some people praise Bush for preventing nothing like 9/11 happend AGAIN while he was in office is simply strange because they act like it happening once wasn't bad enough for a president. Isn't 9/11 one of the biggest National security failures in US history?

National policy: How Hurricane Katrina was handled was truly humiliating for the US in general, it looked like a third world country.


Foreign Policy: Almost every Nation (people living in that Nation) hates the America ruled by president Bush, including America.


Iraq: Almost a total failure, from the moment the war wasn't declared yet to the point the US started occupying the country. The war was declared based on false accusations and false intelligence. How Iraq was handled further went from bad to worse: first of all they didn't have enough troops to occupy the country, secondly they disbanded the Iraqi army (leaving the only Iraqi people with military experience without a job), inaccurate bombing of Iraqi houses during the war caused many civilian casualties wich caused Iraqi hatred against the US, ...

=> and then oh yeah, the surge worked !!! : So when you use a strategy that you should have used in the first place (using enough troops: the US invaded Iraq with to few troops to effectively occupy it) it becomes a success? To me it seems they failed and then tried to fix something wich would not have been a problem in the first place if they handled Iraq responsibly (using enough troops to occupy Iraq).

Afghanistan: this is the only war that was justifiable, but because of Bush pulling troops to Iraq he actually managed to partly screw this up too by not being able to fully provide the troops, supplies, ... that are needed in Afghanistan (because he has an unjustified war in Iraq).

US laws: Well the fact that mr Bush got himself the power to put any American citizen in jail with torture service without a lawyer and a court-process says it all, doesn't it?


So is their anything of an achievement that compares to the size of his failures?

Who are you? I love you. Positive rep coming your way.

 

[sealybobo]

Funny... a lot of conservatives don't call for tax 'breaks'... but many do call for equal taxation, cutting spending (especially in areas the government should not be spending money), and bringing in accountability

Do I support the expansion of our debt under anyone's watch?? Hell no... But I support less, the DEM agenda of more entitlements, more handouts, and punishment taxation systems .. as well as their increased spending in areas the government has no business spending in

Is that the new spin you guys are putting on it? Equal taxation? Sounds good. Should have done it when you had the power instead of Bush's unfair tax breaks.

But I'm sure the Dems will fall for your spin and the rich you serve will get to share in the Obama tax breaks. You should have spoke up the last few years when you and i weren't getting anything from Bush's tax breaks but the top 1% are STILL getting Bush tax breaks. In fact, every year they get bigger and bigger, but also every year less and less people qualify to get them.

So I call for MORE entitlements, more handouts to people who NEED it. Spend the money on stuff 100% of us can use, not just the top 10%. Just because you approve of defense spending, doesn't give the GOP the right to bankrupt the country thru defense spending. GET IT?

Let me explain how Bush put one over on you. He spent more on defense than every other country in the world COMBINED. What do we have to show for it? You don't know? That's because Bush and his buddies stole half of that defense spending $.

And GOP defense spending makes welfare spending look like a grain of sand on a beach.

So don't say you are for lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, because that's just a lie. And your next leader, maybe Jeb Bush in 2016, will come in and cut spending that we all benefit from and only spend on the same good old boys his brother spent on. Stop being a fucking moron. They're fleecing you more than poor people ever did with welfare.

Do some research on where the money went from the first payment of the $750 billion bailout. Where did that money go? The people in charge (the treasury), didn't put any tracking mechanisms on the first payments to the bankers, and no one can say where that money went. They sure as hell didn't loan it out to the people, which is what they were supposed to do.

So no plan from the bankers needed but the Big 3 needed to show a plan?

$750 billion vs $10 billion? No plan for the $750 and you guys gave the Big 3 a hard time?

Your party is sinister. I don't know if you are a fool or if you somehow benefit. I doubt you benefit.

 

[Munin]

Who are you? I love you. Positive rep coming your way.

Thanks mate, but I m sure the Bush supporters will balance my rep