Thread: Two Democrat Lies

Let's set two things straight. I've heard Dems harping several times now during this campaign and especially at this convention, including Bill Clinton claim it in his speech.

1. Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
2. Incomes have fallen all through the Bush years.

But are false statements, in fact outright lies coming from former Clinton officials and other government officials who know different.

Oh and let's add a third. That Bill Clinton had anything to do with the economic growth during the 90's or the brief surpluses that occoured.

Correct, Bush and Clinton both did their parts to destroy the country's economy in the long-term.

There was no Clinton surplus, and the alleged "prosperity" of the Clinton era was an artificially engineered boom which set us up for the bust phase we're suffering through now.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Let's set two things straight. I've heard Dems harping several times now during this campaign and especially at this convention, including Bill Clinton claim it in his speech.

1. Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
2. Incomes have fallen all through the Bush years.

But are false statements, in fact outright lies coming from former Clinton officials and other government officials who know different.

Oh and let's add a third. That Bill Clinton had anything to do with the economic growth during the 90's or the brief surpluses that occoured.

Sting, could you please provide the link to the former Clinton official that stated Clinton left office with a surplus?

Originally Posted by Stinger

Let's set two things straight. I've heard Dems harping several times now during this campaign and especially at this convention, including Bill Clinton claim it in his speech.

1. Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
2. Incomes have fallen all through the Bush years.

But are false statements, in fact outright lies coming from former Clinton officials and other government officials who know different.

Oh and let's add a third. That Bill Clinton had anything to do with the economic growth during the 90's or the brief surpluses that occoured.

All right, I'm all ears. Do you have any EVIDENCE to support your conjectures, or are you just blowing smoke?

Originally Posted by Defensor

Correct, Bush and Clinton both did their parts to destroy the country's economy in the long-term.

There was no Clinton surplus, and the alleged "prosperity" of the Clinton era was an artificially engineered boom which set us up for the bust phase we're suffering through now.

Esoteric statements aside. The two statements being harped by the Democrats are factually wrong.

The 2001 budget, the last passed during the Clinton administration had a $32 billion dollar deficit, caused by the downturn in the economy that began before Bush was even elected.

Incomes fell dramatically especially after 9/11's hit on the economy, but after the Bush tax cuts took hold that fall bottomed out in 2003 and began to rise and has been rising ever since and income have now surpassed 2000 incomes.


Since when Clinton, either one of them, or Obama or any of the other Democrat propagandist say that Bush inherited a strong economy and a deficit and he turned that around know that they are lying throught their teeth.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

All right, I'm all ears. Do you have any EVIDENCE to support your conjectures, or are you just blowing smoke?

What I stated are hard facts. You don't know that? Who told you different. Have you ever bothered to look at the deficit numbers yourself. Do you know what the deficit was in 2001? Did you miss the census report issued this week concerning incomes and the growth of incomes the last 5 years and the fact that income levels have surpassed 2000. Do you dispute that. Or do you just not know. It was widely reported and published in my news sources and rest assured I can back them up.

But I want to know for sure that you are refuting what I stated for if you aren't no need to waste my time cutting and pasting it for you. And don't respong, just humor me, which is it you don't know or you are disputing what I posted?

Originally Posted by Stinger

Let's set two things straight. I've heard Dems harping several times now during this campaign and especially at this convention, including Bill Clinton claim it in his speech.

1. Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
2. Incomes have fallen all through the Bush years.

But are false statements, in fact outright lies coming from former Clinton officials and other government officials who know different.

Oh and let's add a third. That Bill Clinton had anything to do with the economic growth during the 90's or the brief surpluses that occoured.

First you say the budget surplus was a lie, then at the last you say we had a brief surplus. Which is it?

You and many are correct when it comes to budget surpluses. If when Bush took office he had followed Clinton's lead a budget surplus would have materialized during his first year in office, but the only surplus was on paper. Although, he had reduced spending to just an 18 billion deficit, not counting off budget items, by the end of his term.

Well, not all the years exactly, incomes actually went up during the first two years I believe due to the reduction in government spending realized during the Clinton second term. Not due to the tax cuts of the Bush administration as some would suggest.

If you are looking for a politician who does not lie or stretch the truth than you will be sorely disappointed. All politics has an underside and it is left up to the people to see that side, for it is there if one chooses to look.

not to metion the dot.com bust and ENRON...... add that with 9/11 and I am surpised we are not in a depression, especially after the housing market crash.

Hey big deal if we had a budget surplus or not we still have had and will continue to have a hell of a national deficit.

All a budget surplus means is that you didnt spend all the money alotted for that particular budget.

It doesnt mean that you actually paid down the deficit it just means you may have not added to it which is of debate to this day obviously.

Somenone give me stat's on who has actually paid down the deficit in the last 50 years then I may be impressed.

Originally Posted by Chad750

Hey big deal if we had a budget surplus or not we still have had and will continue to have a hell of a national deficit.

All a budget surplus means is that you didnt spend all the money alotted for that particular budget.

It doesnt mean that you actually paid down the deficit it just means you may have not added to it which is of debate to this day obviously.

Somenone give me stat's on who has actually paid down the deficit in the last 50 years then I may be impressed.

Harry Truman balanced the budget and started paying down the debt but if you mean paid down as in paid off no one.