Anyone know the embarrassing disparaging difference between the Clinton/Gore budget surplus & Dumbyas deficit?
141842
You came only to bash, not to find a real answer. If the democratic faithful were as active as they are vocal, perhaps they could win some congressional power and seat a president. You can help them, volunteer for your party and spread a message of positive solutions or just sit on your hands and whine.
265141
I would use PBS Frontline and NOVA like you suggested. They are neutral, and just report the truth, whether you like the truth or not, it's still the truth!\n\nThe deficit is 21 trillion dollars, and we owe out of that money bonds, to China and Russia.
76894
Definitely Clinton.  During the Clinton years our economy was great (imagine operating with a budget surplus rather than deficit!) and he isn't a warmonger.
1116696
See you can see they are still all pissed on here... they say the "facts are out there" about Iraq.. .and then they cite a bias blog that has no links to any real facts... \n\nThey say we have no plans... yet Clinton balanced the budget and was close to to making real progress on the debt (which they say was because of a Republican congress, but oh the democratic congress didn't have anything to do with the success in the 80s?)... \n\nnow they are getting close to doubling the debt and Iraq is in shambles and WE have no plans? \n\nIn short... they cite blogs, we site stats... then they get mad when we don't believe the blogs and then they won't talk about stats... \n\nThey think Rush is telling the truth, with no evidence... we like evidence and links... \n\nThey are mad because that's all they have left... it's all they can do... they try to encite fear with "they are dangerous to this country"... look back in history... sound familiar?\n\nmymadsky: Kerry had a VERY DETAILED PLATFORM that dealt with many of these issues... perhaps you should pay attention... I don't see Bush's plan anywhere.... who has the plan again?
872839
They are only on the same page ("B") in the encyclopedia.\n\nAnywhere else, they're ideologically very different people.
584903
Not exactly correct.  Most of welfare expenses are not associated with "money".  They are the benefits of welfare such as "free" housing, medical/dental care, USDA commodities giving to schools, child care subsidies, educational grants going to mostly state colleges as well as the administration of the program itself.\n\nFree of course is a joke because it is the amercian tax payer who is paying for it in the way of significantly higher taxes.  You want to complain about the deficit - social spending ie WELFARE is by far the single largest budget item which the goverenment spends our taxes on.  Reduce social spending, apply the savings to the deficit and its gone in no time.  BTW - That's EXACTLY what bill clinton did.  He signed america's largest ever reduction in social spending and bingo - budget surplus.\n\nSince I answered your question, here is one for you.\n\nExactly how long and by how much would you be willing to pay your next door neighbor who came over and asked you to cover their bills.  $500 for a  week? $2,000 for a month? $30,000 for a year?  \n\nDon't you think it gets a little rediculous when the real number is in the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS and has been going on in some families for GENERATIONS.
695441
You are horribly uneducated.  If you call increasing our national debt by billions of dollars per year being economically sound, what happens when the bottom falls out.  I would hardly call this economy booming.  You also fail to mention that Bill Clinton operated with a budget surplus while Bush operates with a huge deficit.  This may be because of the war, but the war was Bush's main cause.  Oh andby the way how is that war coming along.  There is nor end in site and it could be decades before we are able to withdraw.  When Clinton dealt with Iraq he did it with surgical precision and took care of the situation in Iraq without having any type of extended conflict.  The main difference is that the rest of the world repected Clinton, but no one respects Bush.  You also fail to mention that since our commander in chief took power, not one, but two countries have began enriched uranium programs.  In case you don't know what that means, it means they have the power to make nuclear weapons.  One leader directly said they did it because of our president's attitude toward him.  That is good leadership.  Also, since NAFTA there has been a net increase in American jobs, my college international business teacher stresses that fact all the time.  So while we have lost low paying jobs we havce gained even more higher paying jobs.  Look it up, it is a fact.  Clinton did not fire those workers.  Poor business management fired those workers.  They were fired because they were overpayed by incompetent bosses.  Don't blame a president for that.  And you can thank Bill Clinton for the lower prices you enjoy because of NAFTA.  So good question, actually it is not a good question because you are comparing apples to oranges and your facts are wrong.  Congratulations.\nP.S. and G.W. wants to cut educational spendning, so if you want to go to college someday, he wants to make sure you have to pay more.\nP.P.S. and your wonderfol president wants it to be legal to essentially "spy" on you and every other citizen.
609310
It is so ridiculous that congressmen are using statistics when debating on immigration, our economy and the illegals. I saw a show yesterday on MSNBC and they covered the false statistics being thrown by politicians; in particular that it costs 8 billion a year to "support" public assistance, health care, etc. which goes to illegal immigrants; researchers discovered that the same illegals are contributing $7.5 billion each year to our economy, so our tax money isn't funding that much in reality.  Why aren't they informing us about that?  For the same reason that there is the saying, "there are two sides to every story!" We are definitely contributing more money to the war in Iraq, than any other "program".
352436
It depends on how you define budget surplus.  If you ask any real economist, then the US hasn't had a budget surplus since 1960.\n\nTypically, politicians will define the budget as annual tax inflow, including Social Security tax revenue, and subtract from that number the annual total dollar outflow, including Social Security benefits.  The net result in the 1998-2000 for this calculation was a positive number so they called it a budget surplus.  There's a catch, though.\n\nFunds flowing in and out of the Social Security Trust Fund are by law supposed to be kept separate from the rest of government spending.  If we take away the Social Security Trust Fund, we actually ran a deficit for those years, except for 1999 where we had a .7B surplus.\n\nMost economists will say that we should have a budget surplus during the good years of the economy and a deficit during the bad years to try and revive the economy.  However, we've only had 1 surplus since 1960.  Not exactly optimal.\n\nIn 1982, Alan Greenspan recommended the increase in Social Security tax because we would need it to fund the Baby Boomers that are going to retire later on.  After a few years, this worked and Social Security was running a surplus to start stocking up for the later need, which is expected to happen around 2015 when SS is expected to run a deficit again.\n\nWhat has been happening every year is that instead of leaving it for later like we're supposed to in order to pay for later SS benefits, the government has been borrowing from that surplus.  For example, in 1998, the actual deficit (not including SS) was around 30B.  We "borrowed" the 99.2B surplus from SS to pay for expenses and then reported that as a 69.2B surplus.\n\nIf you actually take a look at the national debt numbers, you'll see it.  At the end of 1997, the debt was 5.37 trillion.  At the end of 1998, it was 5.48 trillion.  Obviously, if we really had a surplus, this wouldn't have happened.\n\nIt basically looks great for the politicians to report a better budget than what really happens.  But down the line, around 2020 or later, SS is going to go bankrupt because all of that savings that Alan Greenspan envisioned is getting spent every year.\n\nThe short answer is that he didn't really without using fancy accounting techniques, except in 1999, which was the absolute peak of the economy so tax revenue increased greatly.  It's nothing against Clinton.  Both Republicans and Democrats have been doing the same thing because it looks better for them if the budget looks better.  Down the road, it's the common citizen that is going to face the consequences for our spending today.
850523
Bill Clinton.  Not sure of his religion because he did not make a big deal about it.  When he left office the deficit was at 0 (zero).  He tried to get Bin Laden but the republican congress would not allow him.  Ken Starr spent how many millions of dollars to investigate a bj.  I read his book, very interesting reading from a very intelligent and articulate man.
318495
Bush has a business degree. Kerry has a law degree. You're comparing apples and oranges. Kerry was serving his country while Bush hid in Texas thanks to his daddy's influence.\n\nThat being said, yes, they're both idiots. Their IQs combined still would not equal that of Bill Clinton. Love him or hate him, he was the most intelligent president in the last 40 years.
726691
Neither is good or bad. You really need to get away from this shallow method of thinking.\n\nUnless you consider how the debts were incurred, what the economic and geopolitical conditions were, then you'll never have a clue as to understanding national debt.\n\nYou voted Democrat, didn't you? Obvious.
579475
As John Stossel says, "Gimme a break"! $10k is chicken feed, even Al Gore would ask for more than that. You've got 'Bash Bush of the Brain'.
1160948
The budget takes years to develop.  It started way before Bush was President, and yes Bush did add to it but it was already in a crises when Clinton was President.  As for asking a silly question as that maybe you should have been giving Clinton the BJ since you are so infatuated with it instead with the real facts.
13677
Incompetent, indecisive, wishy-washy.  More responsible for the tragedy in New Orleans than Bush or Fema.  Dodged a huge political nightmare because she's a woman and the liberal media both wants Billary to win in 2008 (can't have a female Democrat leader look bad, might reflect on Billary) and is desparate to stay in the good graces of the N.O.W. gang (and other groups like them).
1152357
I can understand why you were shocked.  The media has an agenda.  Every single Republican President since Nixon is labeled dumb and stupid by his opponants and by their friends in the liberal media.  When the truth comes out about Bush having a higher GPA than Kerry, all the mind-numbed sycophants on the left have to finally face reality. The truth hurts as they say, and in this case I'm sure it's particularly painful.\n\nBy the way, Kerry looks like a retarded orangutan in that picture.
83127
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/15scotus.html?ex=1289710800&en=bcebac31c5c1f0fb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss