no SmallBrain, No where in the list of causes is the name Clinton mentioned at all. You are trying to blame Clinton himself, or at the very least you are trying to associate Clinton to these causes by even mentioning "Clinton Era" and that is dishonest and misleading You also fail to mention that these causes also fall under the watch of Congress which has been control by Republicans since 1994. Republicans and their "de-regulation" mantra.
Getting the thread back on track (which is spending,not revenue), at least with respect to one quote (lie) in question, here's a little table from the Cato institute (crazy liberals!) charting Bushes spending increases.
Believe what you must. Others can draw their own conclusion. BTW, your are now on your third argument, i.e. Events which occured (sic) during the Clinton administration led to a period of poor economic activity at the beginning of the Bush administration. You forgot to add GWB's first month to the above argument. Or is that truth inconvenient?
Bush should be ashamed of himself for standing in front of some middle class factory workers and implying that his tax cuts helped them. Just remember his Treasury Secretary O'Neil quoted Bush as admitting that both tax cuts disproportionately beneiftted the wealthy.
I heard that on the radio, and I was thinking, gawd this man has balls the size of Volkswagens to be mean and lie like that, or he's blissfully stupid. On the other hand, most folks are too lazy to investigate stuff to verify the facts, so there is a low penalty for lying like this. He gets press saying "Democrats and taxes" and since the press reports uncritically what he says it's a net positive.
Liberals' logic 101: Billie gets $5 Tommie gets $6 Billie just received nothing because Tommie received more. Is it any wonder that no one listens to them?
Greenspan has come out in favor of cutting SS benefits. This means he wants those upper income tax cuts to be paid for by our SS tax dollars. This is because our SS taxes are much higher than that needed for SS benefits and the SS surplus is being used to pay for other things in the budget. It's an ingenious redirection of wealth from the first 90000 of everyone's income.
Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts Feb 25, 11:25 AM (ET) By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP) WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees. Without action, he warned, long-term interest rates would rise, seriously harming the economy. In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years. He said the prospect of the retirement of 77 million baby boomers will radically change the mix of people working and paying into the Social Security retirement fund and those drawing benefits from the fund. "This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources - demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible." But while Greenspan urged urgency, Congress is unlikely to take up the controversial issue of cutting Social Security benefits in an election year. Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement. Greenspan did not rule out using tax increases to deal with the looming crisis in Social Security, but he said that tax hikes should only be considered after every effort had been made to trim benefits. "I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver." While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four-decades, Greenspan warned that this situation will not last forever. He said financial markets will begin pushing long-term interest rates higher if investors do not see progress being made in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once the baby boomers begin retiring. "We are going to be confronted ... in a few years with an upward ratcheting of long-term interest rates which will be very debilitating for long-term growth," Greenspan told the committee if the deficit problem is not addressed. Greenspan suggested two ways that benefits could be trimmed. He said that the annual cost-of-living adjustments for those receiving benefits could be made using a new version of the Consumer Price Index called the chain-weighted index, which gives lower readings on inflation. He also said that the age for retirement should be indexed in some way to take into account longer lifespans. He noted that presently the age for being able to get full Social Security benefits is rising from 65 to 67 as one of the changes Congress adopted in the mid-1980s, based on recommendations of a commission Greenspan chaired. In his testimony, Greenspan said Congress should go further and index the retirement age so that it will keep rising. As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts to be paid for either by spending cuts or increases in other taxes. While that would erect a high hurdle to President Bush's call for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade, Greenspan again repeated his belief that spending cuts rather than tax increases were the best way to deal with the exploding deficit. While not ruling out totally the use of tax increases to deal with at least part of the looming surge in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Greenspan urged caution in increasing taxes. "Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," Greenspan said. "The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."
It's so silly that you are all arguing over this. Bush inherited an economy that was on the rocks; it was on the way down before the election. However, Bush did not really do anything help the situation. The slight good that I think his tax cuts could have done was totally and completely offset by the insane spending that he has advocated and requested (and not just on security/defense issues, either). That is exactly the reason I laughed when I read the bolded part of surrender's post.
