Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see if you can read............
On Jan. 10, 2009, former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove wrote in the Washington Post that Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years.
David Axelrod, chief adviser to President Barack Obama, fired back on Jan. 15 in Post that Rove had it all wrong and that Bush had been the big spender.
"The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion," Axelrod wrote. "When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade."
His point was that it was Bush, not Obama, who got the country in a financial mess. He said Bush approved big-ticket items during his tenure that included tax cuts, a new prescription drug benefit for the elderly, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which allowed the government to spend up to $700 billion to shore up troubled assets and bolster various industries.
And now, Axelrod wrote, the Obama administration is stuck with the bill.
We wondered whether Axelrod's numbers were correct.
When we asked for his sources, the White House pointed us to several documents. The first was a 2002 report from the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, that reported the 2000 federal budget ended with a $236 billion surplus. So Axelrod was right on that point.
I think Bush is the man you should be asking that Question.
Bush isnt the one here claiming Clinton ran a surplus. I'm asking YOU, since YOU repeated there was a surplus.
See this is what I mean with you liberals. You go on and on, repeating LIES accepting them to be truths, and then when someone points out you are wrong, you change the topic, distract from the statement, or go on to attack the poster with "you must be a fox viewer" because you cant validate your own statements.
On ehas to look at the results clinton also ionherited form reagan. A econmy that was in shambles under Carter . He actaully completed what mnay presidents had tried to do;wi the cold war.Then when he left office the growth wa high in the country verus the failures of Cater. VClinton and democrats called it the peace dividend. Clinton laso unlike our sureent poresident realsied that the real revnues came form increased grwoth continuing;so he left wall street alone. But he also setup the housding failure in his loan changes that allowed too many to buy without have the ability to actually keep the houses.The last two years Bush was presaident the democrats insisted in not auditing Fannie and freddie with Barney Frank even saying in refusing to consider it that we could always bailout them out ig need be;which we are still continuing to dump bailout money into.Te affordable housing acts were selling people something they could afford and in the end laeving mnay worse off than before.
Wow. The libs are getting pretty desperate as they feel their power eroding.
Thank God for the Tea Party freshman congressmen who are finally making Washington face the rampant, out of control spending.
It is sad and shocking that there are some citizens who continue to digest the propaganda pablum from Washington and actually support "buisness as usual".
If these representatives are considered "radical", then the definition of the word has been changed to "sane". The insane spending which has gone on for decades (under dems and republicans) is a path to self destruction. It is good that some congressmen who have some common sense (probably because they have not been in Washington very long) and are trying to save the nation.
Yeah, thank God for the radical Republicans who will turn this into a dystopian 1950s America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Calculating Reagans all 5 times, didnt exceed ONE increase by Obama. Are you math challenged?
I didn't know Reagan was president in 2011. Nice try weaseling out of this one.
You are a lot of talk but never once have backed up your lies with a source let alone a reliable one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquabluesrq
Bush inherited 09/11.
That's more insane than most of what i've heard here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro
So the CBO are wrong and lying?
I guess that when you have extra money it's not a surplus anymore.
California was ruined by illegal aliens and liberal policy. Liberalism is a disease. We in the tea party will make sure it doesn't spread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's more insane than most of what i've heard here.
