Talk about red ink! I esp like the part about Republicans who for years complained about the deficit, are now calling the numbers acceptable
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/10/...s.ap/index.html

From above CNN link:

This year will mark the second consecutive one with a budget deficit, following four straight annual surpluses in the second term of the Clinton administration.

Wow, four straight annual surpluses, even after signing DOMA!

I remember Tren Lott warning Mr Clinton not to blame the Republicans for the economy, this was when the Clinton budget was passed......
So if one party controls the Congress and the White house, how long can they blame the party out of power for the deficit?

Havent you heard? Nothing is Bushs fault, blame it on either Bill Clinton, bin Laden ("dead or alive") or Saddam. Welcome to the Bush "era of responsibility!!"

"I'm the master of low expectations."
--George W. Bush, June 4, 2003
Air Force One

"I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances."—Washington, D.C., George W. Bush, May 29, 2003

AH yes, but after 8 years, clinton still left us with more debt than when he came, even with his high taxes.

....and DOMA, don't forget DOMA!

Phillyfan, Maybe you should get your fact's from someplace other than Fox news...Yes the total deficit was going up, because we have never attempted to pay it off...but it was going up at the slowest rate in decades.

OH, so those are OK deficits then? Thought you guys hated deficits?

Hey, after 8 years of W, we'll see where it is.

[ June 11, 2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Pfan, please tell me where I said those deficit's were ok? as I have not, nor would I. As you should be aware each year we run a deficit it adds to the national debt. I assume that what you were refering to in you post, so we will add over $400 billion to the national debt.
Yes we will see where it is at the end of bushs first term, I can not wait to hear you dodge the questions then

Well hopefully Dumbya will be in Crawford cutting down weeds in 2 more years, that should help the economy.

As i have proven, this budget deficit is in now way shape or form higher than previous years when you take the PV of a buck, and compare it to the GDP of the country.

PhillyFan
Member
Member # 1495

posted June 11, 2003 10:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by p2insdca:
so we will add over $400 billion to the national debt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As i have proven, this budget deficit is in now way shape or form higher than previous years when you take the PV of a buck, and compare it to the GDP of the country.

Pfan I was unaware of you proving anything...
Also, again, I am not talking about about the current ratio of deficit to GDP. IF you bothered to read the story you will see the point that some Republican complained about this ratio as dangerous ( NOTE I SAID RATIO) in the past, are now saying it is managable or acceptable....

Gee, I read this morning, where our countries' second highest defecit was under yet another lovable Republican President. Remember Ronny????? wink

[ June 11, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Which is another interesting point. I read somewhere, that Reagan did not believe his policy would result in anything but red ink, but that was good because at some point the Feds would be forced to end social programs.

AH... That article is NOT about the one line you are pulling out. They try to compare dollar for dollar of the deficit in 1992 and compar it to 2003, 11 years later. UH, you cant do that.. cause i'll bet you a billion dollars any deficit in 2020 will shatter this one.

If you dig further, you see that when they compare this to the total economy, there are at least 7 times it has been surpassed in the last 20 years. Hardly the record they are spouting.

Now if you break it down further (with added expenses of homeland security and the Iraqi war). This deficit is managable. The added expenses would not have even been covered by the "clinton" surplus. No matter how you cut it, there would have been a deficit no matter who was in office. Unless of course, you wanted to raise taxes.

Hey guys, if everyone is so concerned with budget deficits now, i know where they can save you 600 bucks.

Yea, lets have everybody without equal rights return their bribe, I mean tax cut.