Cons, let me get this straight:?

Bush competely obliterates a surplus in the billions, and then tacks on a debt of 10 trillion, and none of you make a peep.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-de...

Obama comes in, and all the sudden our debt is of grave importance? Really?

Where were your chuckleheads between 2001 and 2008?!?!?!?!?!

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Cons have a double standard depending on which party has presidential control.

    Gwb signed every spending bill to cross his desk but when Obama takes over the GOP is the party of less spending. What they really mean, is they want the painful budget cuts applied to the dem president.

    Gwb presides over the worst terrorist attack in US history. 3000 Americans die at home and the reps shrug their shoulders chalking it up to bad luck. Obama presides over Benghazi, 4 Americans die over seas and 10 investigations aren't enough for the GOP.

    The reps don't hold their politicians accountable ... that's why they keep making the same mistakes.

    I read one source reveal if gwb had maintained the budget he inherited f/ Clinton, the US would have been debt free by 2004. Instead, he passed the record $1.4T deficit to Obama.

    Bush drastically slashed revenue w/ tax cuts heavily weighted for the wealthy. The dems are trying to recover the lost revenue and the reps denounce the dems for increasing taxes on the wealthy.

    The following source says Clinton passed a surplus to bush ...

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-de...

    The following source not only verifies the surplus but also the gwb $1.4T deficit.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_defici...

    Folks- Don't be fooled by the righties lack of information. They typically rebuke any info that displeases them. That will happen when truth/history are not on your side.

    Surplus or not, Clinton presided over the best budget in my lifetime. Gov shut down when Clinton shoved that right wing budget back in Congress' face. He held out until they presented a budget more dem-like.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federa...

    edit

    Sorry, I just noticed we posted the same link. I didn't click yours because I knew your assertion was true. My 2nd link is very powerful ... more so than these "linkless" righties who think their opinion trumps all.

  • 5 years ago

    Well, maybe you should pay closer attention to what you are complaining about...

    (1) The so-called "surplus" was a BUDGET surplus, meaning the government was taking MORE from the citizens than it required in the first place! There was a balanced budget during part of Clinton's administration which helped this.

    (2) Bush did not add 10 trillion to the debt. Yes, when the spending from the wars was re-classified as debt, it spiked things and that WAS on Bush--as far as the spending which happened under his administration. The rest goes with President Obama.

    (3) Spending has ALWAYS been a concern of conservatives which is why MANY did not like Bush's spending attitudes.

    (4) Democrats NEVER reduce spending, so there is really no room to make this assertion in the first place.

    The Warlock

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    LOL at the simpletons who actually think Clinton left a surplus, even though it was only on paper and even though it did not factor in the Dot Com recession that started in December 2000.

    It's amazing there are alleged adults who are so illiterate about economics, or so brainwashed by the left, they believe this nonsense.

    How sad these people are allowed to vote, drive and procreate.

  • John
    Lv 6
    5 years ago

    Bush was a RINO that spent too much for many true conservatives, but I'm assuming you tuned them out and failed to hear their point of view. Then in 2006 democrats took over Congress and passed many spending bills that RINO Bush signed off on. There was a lot of conservative anger toward Bush, but it was drowned out by the obnoxious fandom for a person who promised to spend even more, Obama.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    There was no surplus in the billions, there was a projected surplus in the billions which never materialized. Feel free to check the Treasury website and see for yourself.

    You do get the difference between reality and projected fantasy, right? Oh wait, you're a progressive. You probably don't.

    Look it up. No surplus.

  • MEL T
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    LOL Libs. On an accrual basis (the way every other business of this size track their receipts and expenditures) there were deficits every year of Clinton's presidency according to your OWN article. Further 9/11 was a huge economic hit outside of Bush's control. But whatever. There are funnier diagrams.

  • Robert
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    There was no "surplus" you idiot anymore than there is a "social security lock box" we pay elderly people's SSI with. Any "surplus" was due to the fact we could actually cut military spending, no wars with a defeated USSR, and WE at that time were the preeminent Super Power and driving force in the world economy we are NOT today! But I never hear the "chuckleheads" who glorify Obama mention THAT... or this: http://www.sfexaminer.com/board-of-supervisors-sta... Now tell me about how Kim Davis went to jail but not THEM...

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    i remember it being a big deal even back then, you're probably not old enough to remember though...

    people were shitting on bush for that supposed surplus clinton left behind since like 2001....

    also, it was the debt that allowed ron paul and people like him to start up the tea party, which would later be taken over by nutty republicans like santorum

  • 5 years ago

    Since you don't have a coherent idea of what a projected budget really is, I doubt you have any concept of what straight means either.

  • 5 years ago

    Regardless of who spent what, we WANT the government to pay for things that increase national security. That is their role and the purpose of taxes.

    What we don't want is the government to use our money and give it to other citizens. That is NOT the intended purpose of taxes. This is among the many things liberals fail to understand.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.