Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly?

John H

Bush the Second absolutley outperformed
Bill Clinton in the national debt category.
Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as it
increased in *eight* under Clinton.

Had we continued to run the surplus that prevailed when Clinton left office,
the debt would have decreased. Instead we decided that wise fiscal policy
involved reducing the government income via tax breaks to billionaires while
increasing government outgo by rubber stamping every spending bill passed by
the Republican controlled house and senate.

By the way, did you know the US government has been writing bad checks since
October 14? That's the day we exceeded our debt ceiling, but the
administration wanted to keep that fact hidden from the public until after the
election:

***********

The Republican-controlled Congress put off dealing with the debt ceiling before
adjourning last month, preferring not to force members to vote on the
politically sensitive issue of adding to the national debt before the
elections. The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion Oct.
14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep
financing the government's operations.

*********

Excerpted from:

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...ation_pressure
s_congress_to_raise_debt_ceiling/

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly?

John H

Bush the Second absolutley outperformed
Bill Clinton in the national debt category.
Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as
it
increased in *eight* under Clinton.

Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush than
it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to
reflect changing conditions in the economy.
When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was
because we were running a surplus.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

As well as failure to monitor cash flow and adjust the master game plan to
reflect changing conditions in the economy.
When Greenspan suggested a tax cut, back during the Clinton years, it was
because we were running a surplus.

If you're going to use Greenspan's remarks to validate your argument, then
you also need to include Greenspan's remarks in February of this year:

"I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts
that are in dispute at this particular stage"

He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he
promotes tightened spending.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead,
he promotes tightened spending.

Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term? Or, do
you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax
overhaul" he's been talking about?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:34:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead,
he promotes tightened spending.

Great, so do you think the President will listen to him this term?

Yes. A 1% bump in discretionary spending is tantamount to a cut if GDP is
growing at better than 3%.

Or, do
you, like myself, think there will be a tax *increase* hidden in that "tax
overhaul" he's been talking about?

There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:17:11 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There won't be a tax increase. However, there will be certain loopholes
(like the SUV deduction) that will be eliminated.

Ah yes, the not a tax increase tax increase. ;-) Actually, it's my
understanding Bush wants to study a potential complete tax system
overhaul, perhaps a flat or national sales tax.

"I am in favor, as I've indicated in the past, of continuing the tax cuts
that are in dispute at this particular stage"

He does *not* favor raising taxes to lower the budget deficit. Instead, he
promotes tightened spending.


Fine, Greenspan and I agree that the budget is being mismananged. Cut taxes as
much as you want- no problem- but for every dollar cut in income there has to
be an equal reduction in spending or else....or
else we'll get exactly what we've got right now, a situation clearly out of
control.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly?

John H

Bush the Second absolutley outperformed
Bill Clinton in the national debt category.
Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years as
it
increased in *eight* under Clinton.

Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush than
it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

So, you are admitting that the current state of the economy IS Bush's
fault. I'm glad you finally realize that.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yeah, you'll notice, of course, that the national debt always declined
during Democrat administrations. Or am I reading it wrongly?

John H

Bush the Second absolutley outperformed
Bill Clinton in the national debt category.
Bush the Second was able to increase the debt as much in *four* years
as
it
increased in *eight* under Clinton.

Discretionary spending (aka--pork-barrel spending) was lower under Bush
than
it was under Clinton. The debt is a result of decreased revenue from a
recession, and increased military and homeland security spending.

So, you are admitting that the current state of the economy IS Bush's
fault. I'm glad you finally realize that.

Yes, Bush can take credit for 3 straight years of solid GDP growth, and 15
straight months of net jobs growth.