DEMOCRATS AND THEIR POLITICAL GAMES
Yesterday British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he will begin bringing British troops home gradually from the Basra area in Iraq as Iraqi forces are taking control of security in that area. This announcement was met with mixed responses by both the White House , the media and especially Democrats in Congress.
The White House correctly stated that the troop decrease by the Brits fits in line with the strategy that has been in place since the beginning of Coalition presence in Iraq. Once Iraqi forces had the ability to handle security in any given area and eventually in the whole of Iraq Coalition forces whether British, Australian or American would begin leaving that area and redeployed home.
That is exactly what the Brits are doing. The Basra Region which is their area of responsibility has been calm without insurgent or terrorist attacks for some time and additionally Iraqi Security forces have completed training and are in sufficient numbers to handle any security problems that could develop. Therefore in accordance with the exit strategy the Brits are gradually going home.
According to the media and Democrats in Congress, President Bush is losing his strongest ally and this move by Blair is proof that the increase in US presence in Iraq is the wrong move. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took this opportunity to make this ridiculous claim by stating, "The announcement by the British government confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people about the President's decision to increase the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq." Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader also chimed in, "At a time when President Bush is asking our troops to shoulder a larger and unsustainable burden policing a civil war, his failed policies have left us increasingly isolated in Iraq and less secure here at home."
Other Democrats jumped on this political band wagon to gain their few moments in the press with a sound bite that would come out against the President. All the while each of these political animals knowing that their statements of the loss of British support and the false idea that Blair is leaving to stress that Iraq policy is a failure is an out right lie.
The Brits have been in the Basra region since the coalition distributed sphere influences after the initial invasion was complete. This region while having its problems is in no way as dangerous as the Sunni Triangle around Baghdad where the American troops are stationed and fighting. To even attempt to compare the two regions as similar and that Blair is leaving because of a failed Iraq policy is a blatant attempt by Democrats to once again play political games with the war and at the expense of our troops.
US strategy is exactly the same as the Brits. President Bush has stated over and over that Coalition forces would not be in Iraq one moment longer than necessary and this move by Blair proves this as fact. This decrease also proves that Iraq strategy is not the total failure that is being portrayed by the press and Democrats. For Pelosi and Reid to use this opportunity for political hay shows once again that their only interest is in opposing the President, undermining the war and making false claims of support for the troops as their words continue to express disdain for what our soldiers are doing.
Ken Taylor
The White House correctly stated that the troop decrease by the Brits fits in line with the strategy that has been in place since the beginning of Coalition presence in Iraq. Once Iraqi forces had the ability to handle security in any given area and eventually in the whole of Iraq Coalition forces whether British, Australian or American would begin leaving that area and redeployed home.
That is exactly what the Brits are doing. The Basra Region which is their area of responsibility has been calm without insurgent or terrorist attacks for some time and additionally Iraqi Security forces have completed training and are in sufficient numbers to handle any security problems that could develop. Therefore in accordance with the exit strategy the Brits are gradually going home.
According to the media and Democrats in Congress, President Bush is losing his strongest ally and this move by Blair is proof that the increase in US presence in Iraq is the wrong move. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took this opportunity to make this ridiculous claim by stating, "The announcement by the British government confirms the doubts in the minds of the American people about the President's decision to increase the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq." Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader also chimed in, "At a time when President Bush is asking our troops to shoulder a larger and unsustainable burden policing a civil war, his failed policies have left us increasingly isolated in Iraq and less secure here at home."
Other Democrats jumped on this political band wagon to gain their few moments in the press with a sound bite that would come out against the President. All the while each of these political animals knowing that their statements of the loss of British support and the false idea that Blair is leaving to stress that Iraq policy is a failure is an out right lie.
The Brits have been in the Basra region since the coalition distributed sphere influences after the initial invasion was complete. This region while having its problems is in no way as dangerous as the Sunni Triangle around Baghdad where the American troops are stationed and fighting. To even attempt to compare the two regions as similar and that Blair is leaving because of a failed Iraq policy is a blatant attempt by Democrats to once again play political games with the war and at the expense of our troops.
US strategy is exactly the same as the Brits. President Bush has stated over and over that Coalition forces would not be in Iraq one moment longer than necessary and this move by Blair proves this as fact. This decrease also proves that Iraq strategy is not the total failure that is being portrayed by the press and Democrats. For Pelosi and Reid to use this opportunity for political hay shows once again that their only interest is in opposing the President, undermining the war and making false claims of support for the troops as their words continue to express disdain for what our soldiers are doing.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:08 AM
43 Comments:
Just another example of the sophomoric rhetoric of the left. What is worse is the number of people who will parrot the assinine comments about this.
In 2004, the Brits had 40,000 troops in southern Iraq, mostly around Basra. Today they have about 7,000. They have been withdrawing troops for almost three years! Basra is quiet, yet you don't hear of that fact anywhere. They are only withdrawing 1,600 troops, or about a batallion strength element (with support). There are that many police officers in and around the superbowl game.
The Brits are carrying out the original plan. Protect the government while being formed, eliminate the hostiles, and then when the Iraqi authorities are prepared to handle an area, turn it over to them and leave.
The effort here is to undermine the President and make the resolve of Americans weak. Why do we tolerate this?
Yes, but if the lefties admitted this, they'd have to admit they were wrong. Won't happen.
I expect just about anything out of Pelosi and Reid anymore.
They act like the British are all leaving tomorrow. What do they not understand about a "Gradual" Drawdown?
That is the point isnt it? When the situation is secure you start gradualy drawing down the Troops and send them home.
Soon it will be our turn, if Pelosi and Reid can shut up about the Troops surge and let them finish this mission.
Ken, I've been to a couple of conservative blogs where the administrator feels that Blair is "cowarding out" because of public pressure. I hope that you are right here and that this is not the case. I'm really confused by the entire thing. Your post is the first one I've seen that has stated it this way. I don't disagree with you; after all, it makes perfect sense. I would just like to know for sure.
It's the lefties who've been right about this war all along, and the righties who won't admit it.
Mudkitty,
The lefties havent been right about a damn thing in a long long time.
They run for cover everytime something good happens in the war on terror, and pending on what is going on that particular day they were either with the President or bashing him.
I am so glad this President governs on what is right wrather than popular opinion.
And now, the Democrats are bashing each other, which is truly amazing.
And will provide us Reps with plenty of entertainment for at least the next year.
You guys are truly funny :-)
mudkitty...did you even read the post? What do you do? Conservative drive-by moonbatting? Why not post something more substantive, and to the point, or just clam up.
Gayle, I believe Ken and the others commenting have the right perspective on this.
Opportunity to make hay? Yeah right.
The Brits are withdrawing while Bush's wants to surge.
You rightwingeres can twist yourselves into pretzles trying to spin this to your benifit, but the American People aren't buying it.
Sad to see blogs that are so rabidly partisan. I thought that after six years of Bush failures, Republicans had started to tone it down-- realizing that they had made a huge mistake in electing an incompetant in their frantic effort to get any Republican into the oval office. Tone down the rabid anti-liberal rhetoric and try working WITH the other side to fix the problems, instead of widening the divide. Like it or not, the half of the country whose opinions you so despise are just as American as you.
Anyone who thinks that Basrah is in great shape should just read the Pentagon's latest Iraq Assessment (November 2006).
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/
9010Quarterly-Report-20061216.pdf
In November the DIA stated that Basrah was "not ready for transition" (p 31 of the report). You also have rising violence not shrinking violence.
The Brits are leaving Iraq because they recognize that there is no military solution for Iraq. They are tired of playing umpire between the rival Shia factions who are killing themselves in a battle for power. In addition, the Brits also need to shore up Afghanistan which is at risk of becoming an operational failure as al Qaeda and the Taliban regroup and have become much stronger.
By the way, last summer when the Brits turned over their camp in Amara to the Iraqis, the very next day after it was turned over the base was looted and lawlessness prevailed. Let's see what happens this time.
Sad to see blogs that are so rabidly partisan. I thought that after six years of Bush failures, Republicans had started to tone it down-- realizing that they had made a huge mistake in electing an incompetant in their frantic effort to get any Republican into the oval office.
Wow. Way to tone down your rhetoric, Mr. Reasonable. Your assumption is that President Bush is incompetent. I disagree. Hence, we are partisanly divided.
I see your side as the dividers, not the uniters. You folks need to come back to the center, and then we'll talk.
Like it or not, the half of the country whose opinions you so despise are just as American as you.
Ooooh....it's the "Don't call me unpatriotic" canard again. Why are liberals always so insecure that their patriotism is being questioned, even when it's not their patriotism that is being questioned, but their judgment? Cheney did not question Pelosi's patriotism. Get the full context and response. Name me a specific instance when President Bush questioned a Democrat's patriotism.
You folks are so insecure, because you cannot deny that if al Qaeda could vote, they'd vote in Democrats because you folks are weak on national security and the war on terror.
Am I being partisan? No. I'm being truthful. And deep down inside, you know it. That's why you always feel like your patriotism is being questioned. You don't hear Republicans whining about how you're questioning their patriotism by supporting a war which you folks thinks has made America less safe. That's because we understand that it's our judgment that is being questioned. And that's fair game.
mudkitty...did you even read the post? What do you do? Conservative drive-by moonbatting? Why not post something more substantive, and to the point, or just clam up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conservative drive-by Moonbatting! LMMFAO!!!!
Mudkitty,
Opportunity to make hay? Yeah right.
The Brits are withdrawing while Bush's wants to surge.
You rightwingeres can twist yourselves into pretzles trying to spin this to your benifit, but the American People aren't buying it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You mean YOU arent buying it. And YOU dont represent the entire population of the American people!
Of course you lefties will spin this to where "We are being deserted by the British" Our staunch ally. You guys are to much.
I guess you have no concept of the idea of "Gradual Drawdown". You know what we are going to do soon? When things calm down in Baghdad?
Was that not the plan? Does it have to be explained to you constantly? When the Iraqi Troops stand up we stand down!!
Along with our Troop surge of 21,000 there will be more than 300,000 Iraqi Troops flooding the entire Country with more being trained and getting ready to join in. They will be handling thier own Security. Do you honestly think Britain would pull thier Troops out "Gradually" unless they knew for sure the Iraqi Army will be there to fill in the gap?
What about Prince Harry? He is going to Iraq to serve! Doesnt sound to me like the British are leaving us high and dry.
Man you guys must be dizzy from all that spinning!
How convenient that Harry would be going to Iraq, just as the Brits are winding things up, and drawing things down. Blair finally sees the writing on the wall, as they say.
Maybe this would be a good time for the Bush Twins to sign on?
The so-called "gradual drawdown" (another word for "phased withdrawal) won't happen under Republicans, until the last dollar is sucked dry.
Kitty whines: "The so-called "gradual drawdown" (another word for "phased withdrawal) won't happen under Republicans, until the last dollar is sucked dry."
Yes, ultimately ... it's the availability of funds to support entitlement programs that worries the libs. They're scared they're not gonna get theirs.
Hate to tell you kitty, but the entitlement budget, just Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security alone, is more than twice that of the defense budget. Over one trillion dollars.
The typical lib philosophy is look out for number one and not give a damn about anything else.
Another thing the MSM won't tell you is deficit reduction is ahead of schedule with the budget projected to be in the surplus by 2012 if not sooner. If the Dems get their hands on it they will squander every penny in addition to raising taxes. Filthy creatures those dems are.
C'mon kitty ... your rebuttal please. More loud wailing and whining no doubt about money.
Darwin, it appears that you are ignorant of Bush's economic "accomplishments."
Do you have any idea what the annual budget SURPLUSES were during the last three years under Clinton and when Bush took office?
Do you have any idea how much the national debt has grown under Bush? How much foreigners now own of our national debt? And, how large the trade deficit have grown under Bush?
Fiscal discipline has not been a hallmark of the Bush presidency. That is why fiscal conservatives have largely abandoned him.
Tony Blair himself has said that the Brit withdrawal is due, according to previously established plans, to Iraqi forces being sufficiently trained, armed and staffed to protect Basra on their own. Bush said as much long ago as well.
However, as usual the left conveniently ignores those facts that don't fit into their own little politically motivated account and prefers to concoct a story that our allies are running out on us, "isolating the U.S." in Iraq. Our political left is great at rewriting history, whether it occurred a century ago or ten minutes ago.
But then, these are the same people who claim to support the troops while giving them a big no-confidence vote at the same time.
"Do you have any idea what the annual budget SURPLUSES were during the last three years under Clinton and when Bush took office?"
Yes ... I assume your point is none of that surplus should have been used. That's fine with me as long as you have alternatives to pay for the aftermath of events like 9-11 and katrina, much less funding Afghanistan and Iraq.
But your point is historical anyway and doesn't in the least address my post. I guess if Clinton had done more to enforce the UN resolutions and surrender agreements that Saddam ignored, and had actually treated the attacks on the US and it's interests as a declaration of war on this nation we may not have had 9-11 or be in Afghanistan or Iraq.
DotCom boom plus no investment in our security = surplus.
Thanks Bill.
War economy props up Wall Street, but screws over Main Street.
"War economy props up Wall Street, but screws over Main Street."
If you weren't you ... I'd present you with facts and info. But since you're you and have a tendency to disregard facts in favor of blatant lies, distortions and fabrications ... I won't.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it kitty?
Darwin, you tout the fact that Bush is cutting the deficit in half. So what? What is so great about cutting the record deficits he has created in half?
It is very clear to me you have no idea how large the budget surpluses under Clinton were. The last year under Clinton, we had a $240 billion budget surplus. That would have gone a long way to cover some of Bush's costs.
Do you know the difference between the budget deficit and the National Debt? Do you have any idea what the National Debt is and how much as been added by Bush?
The increase to the debt has not just come from war spending. The fiscal commitment of the government to Bush's Medicare Part D dwarfs new military spending.
"Do you know the difference between the budget deficit and the National Debt? Do you have any idea what the National Debt is and how much as been added by Bush?"
Yes ... and your proposal?
"The fiscal commitment of the government to Bush's Medicare Part D dwarfs new military spending."
And if he proposed changes, even minor changes, that would place the burden back on the users, what do you think would happen?
Do you realistically think the democrats would allow the Republicans to make ANY changes?
The entitlement burden is enormous. Any attempt to make the kinds of changes necessary is met by howls and whines by the other side. Just what do you propose he do?
What's your solution? Blame everything on Bush? Do the democrats have the guts to agree to any measures that will reign in anything?
I have no answers, but I do know simply saying it's all Bush's fault isn't one, and raising taxes isn't either.
Darwin, Bush created Medicare Part D - it was his proposal. Republicans in Congress voted it into law and Bush signed it. That was completely his doing.
Tell me, what is the current National Debt and how much has been added under Bush's presidency?
I would love to get into a serious fiscal discussion, but I want to be sure you actually know what the numbers are.
No, I don't know the specific numbers. Tell me if you want, if not, see ya later.
Your ignorance of Bush's fiscal record is obvious by your posts. I have a suggestion - educate yourself on the facts.
The National Debt now stands at $8.8 trillion. When Bush took office it was at about $5.7 trillion (and at the end of Clinton's presidency we were making payments on the Debt).
Prior to Bush, foreign banks held about $1 trillion of our national debt. Under Bush, that number has more than doubled (now over $2.2 trillion). Today, China and OPEC nations (which include Iran and Venezuela) hold about $450 billion in U.S. debt. This is up from just over $100 billion when Bush took office. Obviously there are serious national security implications of this fact.
If you don't believe me, go and look up the numbers for yourself at the Treasury Department.
The Debt is very different from the budget deficits that Bush has created, but they are related. I could go on about Bush's horrible record with respect to the budget deficit and the trade deficit, but why don't you look it up at the CBO and then we can discuss if you want to.
I love the way this thread started out on a War on Terror topic and the liberal contingent turned it into an unrelated economic debate.
What a bunch of anal cavities!!!!
Thank you Seth for raising the level of debate. I don't believe you are 10 years old, so why the childish name calling? If you don't like the discussion just be an adult and ignore it.
By the way Seth, it is too bad you cannot follow the thread. Your blame should go to Darwin - he is the "anal cavity" you must be referring to because he was the one who moved the discussion toward fiscal issues.
We don't have unlimited resources in this country. It is a very serious national security issue that we are funding our war in Iraq by borrowing heavily from China, OPEC, and other foreign banks and governments. As I stated earlier, Bush has increased the amount of debt that the U.S. owes to foreigners by more than $1 trillion since he took office. Look it up yourself at the Treasury website. If you cannot find it, just ask and I will provide the links to the Treasury department webpages that show this to be true.
If you don't understand how going into significant debt to countries that are not necessarily friendly to us is not a national security issue, then I cannot help you.
"Your blame should go to Darwin"
No ... try mudkitty.
I no Bush fan when it comes to his spending habits. Many conservatives are upset at this and other issues in which he apparently has ignored principles that he was counted on to champion.
What's your proposal?
Dude, you were the one who started talking about Social Security, Medicare, the deficit, etc. Go back and look.
Here are just a couple specific proposals:
1. End the occupation of Iraq and drawdown our troops. We should change the mission to hunting al Qaeda and training Iraqi troops, not rebuilding their country and playing umpire in a civil war. This will save at least $90 billion per year over the next couple of years.
2. Scrap Bush's ridiculously flawed Medicare Part D. This would save more than $700 billion over the next 10 years. If you want to keep the program in place, at least force the drug companies to negotiate lower prices as a result of economies of scale. This would save at least $300 billion over the next 10 years.
3. Scrap No Child Left Behind. It is a boondoggle of a program that has enriched the testing companies of the country, but has done nothing to improve education. It should save about $10B to 20B/year.
That is just a start. How about you?
By the way, the fact is that Bush and the Republican congress have exploded government spending - and not just on defense. Government spending in 1992 was $1.38 trillion. In 2000, the government spent $1.79 trillion. (Thus, Clinton increased government spending over his 8 years by almost 30 percent. This year, the budget that Bush submitted to Congress was $2.9 trillion. This represents an increase of over 62 percent in government spending. I cringe when I think that Bush has one more year in which to spend more taxpayer money.
Since we are operating in the red, do you want to know where the money is coming from? It is borrowed from China, Japan, OPEC, etc. That is why we now owe foreigners more than $2.2 trillion.
As if the national debt was first incurred in 2001.
REAL conservatives are angry about the spending in this country, but it is the left who has made the situation what it is today. Three times in our hostory massive tax cuts have been enacted, and three times the revenues to the fed have exploded. Instead of reducing spending by cutting the social programs which account for a significant portion of the debt and deficit, we simply spend more. If you are serious about fiscal issues, the ridiculaous and ineffective social programs must be cut. If you refuse to accept that, then your points are nothing but rhetoric.
I am always amazed that cutting defense and reducing themilitary protection of our country is always first on the list, but eradicating the worthless Depaertment of Education, or stopping welfare programs are nowhere to be found.
How about social security? Geesh, this is one of the biggest drains on the fed of anything! Stop taking it from my check and I won't ask for it when I retire!
Rob --
Pardon muh Frainch, but I tend to become "exercised" (granted, sometimes with less than mature results) when I see the same ploy repeated too often.
From what I have seen, one of your trademark debating tactics is to seize any opportunity to steer a thread onto a course in which you can employ your selective Economics.
That said, though I don't always comment (at times, what I would have added has already been said), I enjoy reading comment threads. When you manage to divert the topic (a particular skill you possess) and then turn the newly created topic into a full blown debate that has nothing to do with the original post, it does tend to be at least mildly irritating.
Robert --
Given the new topic, your comment is right on point. Look for Rob to refute it with more liberal pseudo-Economics.
Seth, no one is asking you to join a debate that you have no interest in. Just be an adult and ignore the discussion if you are not interested. Besides, Darwin was the one who started talking about fiscal matters.
I am not selective in my discussion of fiscal matters - I only cite government figures. It is fairly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. I will point out three major flaws in comment.
1. You are right that the national debt existed before Bush took office. However, Bush has been responsible for the greatest accumulation of debt in the history of this country. Under Clinton, the debt rose by $1.6 trillion; however, we were actually making payments toward the debt at the end of his term. Under Bush it has increased by $3.1 trillion and is still rising.
2. Social Security costs are completely covered by payroll deductions that go directly to the program. The Social Security SURPLUS is being spent on annual government operations. Social Security is not costing us anything. The program pays for itself and the surplus is contributing to keeping the deficit lower.
3. I have already spoken about the explosion in government spending. It has been Bush and the Republican congress who are responsible for the greatest increase in government spending in the history of this country.
As a parting note, if you follow the stock market you can see how closely we are tied to what happens in China. The Chinese market dropped by 9 percent yesterday. So what happens to the American market - it drops significantly.
Rob, it is important to look at other markets, but I think that the market was looking for an excuse to correct.
The chinese economy is worth about 2.5 trillion, where ours is about 10 trillion. There has been an up arrow on the charts since July of last year, and the DOW has risen 2,000 points with no correction greater than about 2%. The fall of the chinese market allowed investors to sell off stocks and take a profit. I think you will see hte market stabalize by Monday, maybe Tuesday, and resume the climb upwrd, albeit at a lower open than today.
Economies are cyclical. Greenspan has doen a tremendous job in keeping the economy solid, but a recession is bound to come. The dems desires for socialist government will hasten it, but I digress.
WHen looking at markets, you have to look at the trend, not any one day circumstances. I have not sold a single thing, and will increase my contributions to my 401k on Friday , probably. It will be buyers (but not a bear) market!
I agree that we have to look at longer term trends. That said, the drop today was predictable given the drop in the Chinese market. If you had turned on CNBC before the opening bell this morning, you would have seen that the Dow and NASDAQ futures were facing significant negative pressure. At 9:15 this morning, the S&P futures were at -13 and NASDAQ futures were at -28. The only major news at that point was the sell off in China. It was obvious that it was going to be a red day because traders were spooked by what happened in China.
Speaking of trends, the trend under this President has been to fund his deficits with borrowed money from foreign banks and to allow our trade deficit to explode. American wealth is leaving our shores at a record pace. That is the long term trend.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, China has been one of the greatest beneficiaries of Bush's fiscal policies. We owe the Chinese $350 billion right now (I am not including the $110 billion we also owe Hong Kong and Taiwan in that figure) and our trade deficit with them was $232 billion dollars last year (the highest ever).
Whether you want to believe it or not, the U.S. is borrowing money from China so we can buy the stuff they make. It is as simple as that.
FYI, Greenspan has not been the Fed Chair for over a year. Ben Bernanke took over a year ago.
Gosh, I must have been sleeping for an entire year.
Bernanke has done nothing except continue with Greenspan's policies. It was Greenspan who led the fed through this enormous growth period.
Colloquial speech, Rob.
I was thinking about my post right above on the way home yesterday. I didn't express whatI meant, so I shall correct it here.
Robert said: Bernanke has done nothing except continue with Greenspan's policies. It was Greenspan who led the fed through this enormous growth period.
What more accurately reflects my thoughts is that Bernanke has not done anything that has upset the manner in which Greenspan led. He and Greenspan don't share economic philosophies exactly, and some even say that they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Greenspan has positioned the U.S. economy that endures long after he left, and Bernanke's actions haven't upset the cart, yet.
Are you suggesting that Bernanke will upset the cart? He warned about the huge deficits and debt issues this week. I couldn't agree more.
But, he is just the messenger who is stating what I believe is fairly obvious. Bush's fiscal policies have exploded government spending, allowed the budget and trade deficits to hit record levels, and blown up the national debt (including exploding our reliance on foreign investors). This has a direct impact on American sovereignty and is creating a fiscal time bomb that is just waiting to explode.
Bush hating and alarmist. While I despise the fiscal negligence, indeed even criminal enterprise of our Congress, it can be said of every President for 50 years that he was the one who has record debts and record spending. Of course it gets larger every year. I am extremely disappointed with the President for not making attempts to address the problem, but to single him out from among the past dozen or more Presidents and thousands of members of Congress is misplaced blame.
Wrong again, Robert. Geez, at least go and look up some numbers before you start writing.
Here are facts about the dollar increases and percentage growth of the National Debt:
Bush: $3.09 trillion (54.5%)
Clinton: $1.61 trillion (39.7%)
Bush Sr.: $1.21 trillion (42.2%)
Reagan: $1.573 trillion (152.9%)
Carter: $211 billion (29.3%)
Here are the facts about the annual budget deficits:
Bush: Came to office with a $240 billion budget SURPLUS and has created the largest deficits in the history of the country. He set the record of $413 billion in 2004. But keep in mind, that the budget deficit numbers do not count Iraq war costs which he has used off-budget supplementals - so the numbers are even worse. This year we will end up with about a deficit between $250 billion and $300 billion.
Clinton: Came to office with a $290 billion deficit. Every year of his term saw improvement and he left office with the largest SURPLUS in U.S. history - $236 billion. Prior to Clinton's final 3 years in office, the last time we had a budget surplus in this country was 1969,
Bush Sr.: Took over a $155 billion deficit and saw it worsen each year to a $290 billion deficit.
Reagan: Took over a $74 billion deficit and left office with a $155 billion deficit.
Carter: Took over a $74 billion deficit and left office with a $74 billion deficit.
Look up the numbers at the Treasury Department and the CBO.
Look up growth in government spending and GDP growth at the CBO and the BEA and you will find that Bush's record has been horrible (huge increases in spending and slower GDP growth) relative to Clinton's record.
Your basic hypothesis that things always worsen is just flat out wrong. Bush has been uniquely incompetent. That is not bashing and hating - that is the fiscal reality.
birkenstock outlet
burberry outlet
ray ban sunglasses
ugg boots
michael kors outlet online
polo shirts
true religion jeans
canada goose sale
michael kors outlet
canada goose outlet
201712.22chenjinyan
Post a Comment
<< Home