"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ba1981ef2fe2c48989bfe@netnews.comcast.net...

Government chart talks, ***** walks:

For the first time in forty years the Republicans had both houses. The
contract
for America laid the foundation for the financially successful 90s. Clinton
had
nothing to do with it!

Dr. Wood

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=32jy04.txt.pdf

"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ba1981ef2fe2c48989bfe@netnews.comcast.net...

Government chart talks, ***** walks:

no you bozo, the republican house balanced the budget.

besides which, why do you suddenly care so much? Bush has increased the pork
to all your demolib programs, from education to welfare to housing, to aids
research.

you should be dancing in the streets that you and your demolib buddies are
getting bigger welfare checks than ever.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=32jy04.txt.pdf

"Deficit Spender Bush" <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ba1981ef2fe2c48989bfe@netnews.comcast.net...

Government chart talks, ***** walks:

no you bozo, the republican house balanced the budget.

besides which, why do you suddenly care so much? Bush has increased the pork
to all your demolib programs, from education to welfare to housing, to aids
research.

you should be dancing in the streets that you and your demolib buddies are
getting bigger welfare checks than ever.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=32jy04.txt.pdf

Government chart talks, ***** walks:

According to the U.S. Treasury
(http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/fed-debt.html),
here are the debt numbers from Clinton through George W. Bush:

Year Debt Increase Vs. Average since 1940
2005 $6,118,364 1.41% -6.68%
2004 $6,033,583 1.46% -6.63%
2003 $5,946,792 1.57% -6.52%
2002 $5,854,990 1.49% -6.60%
2001 $5,768,957 1.45% -6.64%
2000 $5,686,338 1.43% -6.66%
1999 $5,606,087 2.32% -5.76%
1998 $5,478,711 2.03% -6.06%
1997 $5,369,694 3.62% -4.47%
1996 $5,181,921 5.30% -2.79%
1995 $4,921,005 5.97% -2.12%
1994 $4,643,691 6.72% -1.37%
1993 $4,351,403 8.73% 0.64%

Clinton didn't take office until January 1993 and he left office in
January of 2001. Therefore, I would include 1993 to 2000 in my
analysis of his numbers. During that time, the debt rose, on average,
4.52% per year.

George W. Bush didn't take office until January 2001. Since years
2000-2005 are U.S. Treasury estimaes, we just have to take their word
for it. So, from January 2001 through the projected numbers, the debt
rose, on average, 1.48% per year.

Just looking at the numbers, a 1.48% increase in debt is much better
than a 4.52% increase in debt. (And both are much better than the
double digit growth numbers of the mid to late 80's.)

Note that Clinton did not have any surpluses while he was in office or
the 4 years following. All surpluses were projected but never
materialized.

Of course, these are all lies, damn lies and statistics. Does anyone
truly believe that a single person can have a huge impact on the
economy of the United States? What policy did Clinton enact that
caused such a huge increase in tax revenues from 1996 to 1999? Unless
he invented the Internet ;) And, when the Internet bubble popped, so
did the projected revenues -- and the mythical surplus with it.

Equally, the tax policy of George W. Bush is a drop in the bucket
compared to a 6 trillion dollar economy. Even if we just took his
numbers right off the table, we are talking only a few percentage
points of the entire debt.

So, I hope my lesson is thus: 1) understand what you are telling
people -- especially when you fabricate surplus numbers, 2) do just a
little bit of research instead of blindly repeating what you hear, 3)
don't try to isolate single variables in a very complex system and 4)
don't rely on statistics alone to make an argument -- they can be bent
to say whatever you want.

Russ

Deficit Spender Bush <Red Ink Bush@rnc.org> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ba1981ef2fe2c48989bfe@netnews.comcast.net>...

Government chart talks, ***** walks:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=economic_indicators&docid=32jy04.txt.pdf

He was able to do it owing to massive tax income from his fanciful
dot.com economy. When quad-digit stock price increases were finally
seen for the joke they were, the whole thing collapsed and those huge
tax windfalls were gone. Plus, he never offered the tax payer any relief
either. In Canada, we have had a tax surplus for over three years now,
and our total tax rate is around 60% of income. Do you want that?????