The Clinton Surplus Myth...

Obama voted for the FY2009 budget...

 

[/QUOTE]


You may lie until your keyboard melts. And it will still be lies. The liberal plan of telling a lie enough times will make it true is a failure like all the rest of liberal fantasies.

And you inserting FY 2000 into a discussion that had nothing to do with FY 2000 is just another lame liberal attempt at deflection and avoidance of facts. obama is all alone as the ONLY president to have a deficit over $500 billion dollars. And he is not only the ONLY president to have a deficit over $500 billion, he is the only president to have a deficit over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. obama's LOWEST DEFICIT is MORE than $500 billion more than second place (which also belongs to Democrats)

THERE IS NO DEFENDING THIS INSANITY AND INCOMPETENCE BY THE RAGING BUFFOON, OBAMA.

 

What I wrote was no lie at all. You can lie till the goats come home bleating "It's Obaaaaaaama's fault" but it won't change the facts.

Nonpartisan analysts agree that Mr. Obama inherited a bad hand: the 2009 deficit was a projected $1.2 trillion when he took office because of Bush-era policies and an economic crisis that slashed tax collections and increased spending for jobless aid and other safety-net programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/u...-surface-in-debate-and-facts-behind-them.html

U.S. Recession Worst Since Great Depression, Revised Data Show

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNivTjr852TI

Every word I wrote was based on verifiable facts.

 

I just did again and it stands unrefutted again.

They didn't start until after revenues began to fall and didn't got into full effect until 2003 and then revenues began to boom.

It was spend happy Clinton who was prevented from blowing the surpluses with his higher spending request.

You tried to just above blaming him for the slowdown in revenues.

When you make up your mind what your position is let me know, you're flip flopping back and forth shows you can't.


ME>> Tell me had Gore won the election are you asserting the recession would not have occurred along with the resulting loss of revenues?

And why not, the surplus was already falling to half the previous year before Bush was elected and the recession started within weeks of his taking office. By what miracle was the recession not going to occur simply because Gore was elected?

ME>> So do you also blame Obama for the results of the 2009/2010 recession when he WAS in the Federal Government and vote for and supported those Budgets?

Why not when they were Democrat budgets for which he as a Democrat Senator voted while on the other hand you blame Bush for the slowdown in revenues that started while he was Governor of Texas.

Why is it irrelevant that Senator Obama voted for those huge deficits and support the budgets that produced them?

 

Obama supported the budget resolution...he voted for it and it's amendments...WHAT OBAMA INHERITED IS A BUDGET RESOLUTION HE VOTED FOR...

 

Did he support and vote for that budget that produced that deficit? Yes he did. Oh I forgot................that doesn't count. Yet you blame Bush for the deficits in 2001 even though he was the Governor of Texas when that budget was passed.

Care to reconcile your positions?

 

You didn't hear? Iriemon says that is irrelevant.

 

You have this bizarre notion that your unsupported say-so refutes anything.

Sure. Because we saw what deficit hawks were when Republicans got one of there own in the WH.

What a joke.

"Slowdown in revenues"? (*)(*)(*)(*), there you go again. There wasn't a "slowdown" in revenues when Bush passed his tax cuts. They tanked by hundreds of billions.

Year - Revenues
2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.2 <- Bush takes office, pass tax cut.
2002 1,853.2
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1

Source: CBO.gov.

And yes his tax cuts and military build up were at fault.

I haven't flip flopped once.

False presumption. The so-called recession was not the reason revenues tanked hundreds of billions of dollars, because GDP never decreased, and went up at least 3% every year.

False presumption. The budgets since the Dems took Congress did not cause the recession.

This did:

They were caused by the Great Recession

 

Not as much as your notion that just denying the facts refutes them. They remain unrefuted still.

Yep as we came out of the recession and the economy took off brought the deficits back down three years in a row down to a measly $161 billion. Then Obama and Reid and Pelosi got hold of the purse strings and increased it almost TEN TIMES.

Yes what a joke.

Yes when you have the facts on you side all you have to do is state them, slowed the growth, that was on a steep uphill soar to double digits, down to 7%. There you go again trying to deny it.

I added in the context you tried to ignore

Fault for what a slowdown/recession that began before he was elected...............how so?

Yeah that never happens in a recession

Did it ever go down in a quarter? From 2000 through 2002 avg 1.75% 2001-2002 avg. 1.16%

They caused the massive growth in spending and the deficit and the debt which is one of the factors keeping us from a full recovery. And yes the Democrat failed housing scheme contributed also. And then Obama's failed stimulus added to the problem.

 

You have a bizarre notion that your unsupported say-so are "facts".

Wow. That was only $400 billion worse than what he inherited. And he only had to pump up a housing bubble to do it.

You have a bizarre notion that your unsupported say-so are "facts".

You have a bizarre notion that your unsupported say-so are "facts".

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

 

One may debate where need ends and desire starts, but to pretend that government spending even remotely approaches that cutoff is preposterous.

 

............that you keep playing games ?
You know exactly what the point is. the government spends way too much and its tools keep telling us that we need to pay more.

 

we can start by looking at this
http://irvineforcongress.com/images/site/Libertarian.pdf

 

The problem with politics, on both sides, is a memory span of about 3 nanoseconds...

 

We propose to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, NASA, the National
Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Small Business Administration. Amtrak, the Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Transportation Safety Administration would all be privatized [e.g. eliminated]. [Also eliminate:] Over $130 billion in food subsidies from the Agriculture budget, Over $104 billion in block grant programs from the Department of Health and Human Services, Almost $60 billion in the Department of Transportation, from terminating the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration.

Plus another 5% accross the board cut on top of that.

Mass elimination or reduction of safety net programs that help the elderly, poorer and middle class so that the 1% can pay a lot less taxes and buy bigger megayachts.

Welcome to libertarianism. Ideology of the trust fund babies.

 

hyperbole much ?

 

In the more than 40 years since the Libertarian Party was founded, it has "grown" to less than 300,000 members and has successfully elected ONE person to the lower House of a state legislature. In Nov. Johnson will get less than 1 percentage point of the election.

Are you just once again trying to deflect attention away from the failed buffoon obama?

 

And the supported facts remain unrefuted dispite your bizaar notiong that ignoring them does so.

He inherited a declining surplus and slowdown and recession and had a peak deficit of only $400 billion a almost a fourth of the Obama/Democrat deficits and brought that down to a measly $161 billion almost a tenth of the Obama/Democrat deficits.

Really prove it was all due to the housing market.

And the supported facts remain unrefuted despite your bazaar notion that ignoring them does so.

I asked how he was responsibile for a slowdown/recession that began before he was elected................waiting.

The quarter he was sworn into office so how is he responsible?

Yep, refute it if you can.

 

You have a bizarre notion that your say so is supported facts.

You said that before. It was just as false then.

I didn't say it was all due.

You have a bizarre notion that your say so is supported facts.

Who said it was?

Tax cuts and huge spending increases.

Refute what?

 

I;m going to make a simple point. Regardless of whether the Clinton Surplus is a myth or not it set the stage for surplus revenues to pay down the national debt. When Bush proposed tax cuts, now referred to as the Bush era tax cuts, he promised to pay down the national debt had those cuts not taken place and the promise fulfilled the national debt would have been between $2-$3 trillion in 2009 when he left office. The net difference is about $7-$8 trillion in national debt. We can talk about Obama but the greatest change to the national debt was under Bush based upon what he promised and what we ended up with. Without the Bush era tax cuts instead of a $16 trillion debt today, even with all of the spending under Obama, the national debt would be about a $5 trillion debt which is what is was when Bush took office.

Bush really screwed the pooch when it comes to the national debt and there is no denying that by anyone.

 

When you want to debate the issue let me know, until then my facts and statements remain unrefuted.

 

You have a bizarre notion that your baseless, unsupported, false say so are "facts." There is nothing to debate or refute.