"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:45:39 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Snow has some support for his view. ``Capital gains receipts were
unusually
high'' during the last years of the Clinton administration, said Ed
McKelvey, senior U.S. economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co. in New York. He
estimated that when the budget surplus reached a peak of $237 billion in
2000, capital gains tax payments were about $90 billion higher than the
norm
for the early-to-mid 1990s.

=========================================

In other words, Clinton's budget surplus was real, Bush's deficit is real,
and Snow-job has been reduced to coming up with explanations for why
Clinton
ran a budget surplus while Bush has run a deficit.

Wherever you're getting your financial analysis, Gunner, it's time for a
change.

http://dark-wraith.com/2005/12/treas...s-clinton.html

Feel free to comment on the charts.

Of course! I'm free in every way. d8-)

Let's start with the mistake where this blogger called "Dark Wraith" goofed
up (that name really instills confidence, BTW). First chart: the 2001 budget
was Clinton's last budget, submitted to Congress in 2000, not Bush's budget.
Bush submitted his first budget in 2001, for fiscal year 2002. So all of the
blue ones (surpluses) occured under Clinton's budgets. Bush had nothing to
do with the fiscal 2001 budget, just as Clinton had nothing to do with the
budget during his first year in office. That was Pappy's budget.

Now, we could stop right there, because that's what we've been arguing
about. But I'll take a look at the rest...

oh, jeez...Gunner, you didn't read that blog. You couldn't have. He says
that Snow is full of crap, and that Clinton's surpluses were real.

We'll pretend this little exchange didn't happen while you go back and look.
It wouldn't be fair of me. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress