TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

Larry Bud wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican


You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

.... and you forgot the part about how he uses twice the resources
he pays for.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster occurs.

just look at katrina.........

the NEXT are to get decimated by natural or man made (terrorist)
disaster might be yours

note insurance does NOT cover act of wars like terrorism......

so YOU might end up just like those poor folks of louisana who now have
NOTHING!

eventually people will tire of paying taxes getting little in return
while trillions get wasted on wars in other parts of the world.

wrote:
citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster occurs.

just look at katrina.........

the NEXT are to get decimated by natural or man made (terrorist)
disaster might be yours

note insurance does NOT cover act of wars like terrorism......

so YOU might end up just like those poor folks of louisana who now have
NOTHING!

eventually people will tire of paying taxes getting little in return
while trillions get wasted on wars in other parts of the world.



Yeah, much better to fight the leftist enemy at home.

Larry (Scratch) wrote:

wrote:

citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster occurs.

just look at katrina.........

the NEXT are to get decimated by natural or man made (terrorist)
disaster might be yours

note insurance does NOT cover act of wars like terrorism......

so YOU might end up just like those poor folks of louisana who now have
NOTHING!

eventually people will tire of paying taxes getting little in return
while trillions get wasted on wars in other parts of the world.



Yeah, much better to fight the leftist enemy at home.

The terrorists are about as right-wing as you can get.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote in :

Larry (Scratch) wrote:

wrote:

citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster occurs.

just look at katrina.........

the NEXT are to get decimated by natural or man made (terrorist)
disaster might be yours

note insurance does NOT cover act of wars like terrorism......

so YOU might end up just like those poor folks of louisana who now have
NOTHING!

eventually people will tire of paying taxes getting little in return
while trillions get wasted on wars in other parts of the world.



Yeah, much better to fight the leftist enemy at home.

The terrorists are about as right-wing as you can get.


Under the WORST of the US "right-wingers",it would be paradise compared to
life under Islamic law. Note the two FOX journalists FORCEd to convert to
Islam at gunpoint.It's also a death sentence to renege on the deal.

And the ironic part is that liberals would be the FIRST to be oppressed and
persecuted under it,and they don't even realize that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote:
citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster
occurs.

Sure they can. The government worked swell when four hurricanes hit Florida.
Mississippi suffered more damage than New Orleans when Katrina hit, but is
doing okay. The difference in the governments of the three states has much
to do with competence and corruption. And, of course, political affiliation
but one's a consequence of the other.


just look at katrina.........

the NEXT are to get decimated by natural or man made (terrorist)
disaster might be yours

note insurance does NOT cover act of wars like terrorism......

so YOU might end up just like those poor folks of louisana who now
have NOTHING!

Uh, the "poor folks of Louisiana" had nothing to begin with -- except a
government dole. Most are actually better off in that they currently have
their "nothing" in areas where having "nothing" is unacceptable (i.e., Salt
Lake City, Houston, etc.). If you have "nothing," you starve. Better get to
work.


eventually people will tire of paying taxes getting little in return
while trillions get wasted on wars in other parts of the world.

Would you rather the trillions get wasted in wars here?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Uh, the "poor folks of Louisiana" had nothing to begin with -- except a
government dole. Most are actually better off in that they currently have
their "nothing" in areas where having "nothing" is unacceptable (i.e., Salt
Lake City, Houston, etc.). If you have "nothing," you starve. Better get to
work.


These people had jobs and nice homes in a wonderful city. Do you believe
everything Rush and Hannity tell you . Quit listening to republikan talking
points and start thinking for a change. I get really tired of this stupid
garbage.

Bob

Bob wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Uh, the "poor folks of Louisiana" had nothing to begin with -- except a
government dole. Most are actually better off in that they currently have
their "nothing" in areas where having "nothing" is unacceptable (i.e., Salt
Lake City, Houston, etc.). If you have "nothing," you starve. Better get to
work.

These people had jobs and nice homes in a wonderful city. Do you believe
everything Rush and Hannity tell you . Quit listening to republikan talking
points and start thinking for a change. I get really tired of this stupid
garbage.

Bob

You're obviously NOT from the area affected. The people who had jobs
and nice homes have mostly recovered thru their own efforts. The
people HeyBub are referring to, correctly by the way, had nothing
before, and if given better homes than they had before the storm will
still have nothing but a roof over their heads.

Been there, lived there.
Another Bob.

Bob wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Uh, the "poor folks of Louisiana" had nothing to begin with --
except a government dole. Most are actually better off in that they
currently have their "nothing" in areas where having "nothing" is
unacceptable (i.e., Salt Lake City, Houston, etc.). If you have
"nothing," you starve. Better get to work.


These people had jobs and nice homes in a wonderful city. Do you
believe everything Rush and Hannity tell you . Quit listening to
republikan talking points and start thinking for a change. I get
really tired of this stupid garbage.

No, I believe my own eyes.

I'm in Houston. I had eight Katrinas living next door for the past year.
They have now gone elsewhere since their government-paid rent expired...
perhaps back to New Orleans(?).

Since my city accepted 150,000 evacuees from New Orleans, I have some
experience. Our homicide rate, after trending downward for the past decade,
increased 35% in the past year. (Houston police can pin 20% of the homicides
on Katrinas, either as victims or shooters). Other crimes usually associated
with squints (crack cocaine use, welfare fraud, auto theft, street gangs,
etc.) have similarily climbed. This is, however, a self-correcting problem
inasmuch as we don't put up with that ****. We kill the miscreants or put
them in jail with no bond - the exact opposite of the criminal justice
system in New Orleans.

On the other hand, a great number of Katrina evacuees have had their lives
turned around. They relocated to areas of the country where their prior
lifestyles and attitudes were simply unacceptable and they became productive
members of society. Look at the evacuee community in Duluth or Omaha or
Albany. You'll find unemployment down and school attendance up compared to
the dysfunctional New Orleans.

Bob wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Uh, the "poor folks of Louisiana" had nothing to begin with -- except a
government dole. Most are actually better off in that they currently have
their "nothing" in areas where having "nothing" is unacceptable (i.e., Salt
Lake City, Houston, etc.). If you have "nothing," you starve. Better get to
work.



These people had jobs and nice homes in a wonderful city. Do you believe
everything Rush and Hannity tell you . Quit listening to republikan talking
points and start thinking for a change. I get really tired of this stupid

START THINKING BY YOURSELF, FOR YOURSELF, OF YOURSELF.
Unless brain dead, Right?

garbage.

Bob

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:15:25 -0500, HeyBub had his mother write:

wrote:
citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster
occurs.

Sure they can. The government worked swell when four hurricanes hit
Florida.

Bullcrap! I can still find FEMA tarps on roofs for you, from the day after
Hurricane Charlie hit.
That was before the four hurricanes your talking about. You need to get
out and about more.

Only thing government done was stick their collective head in the sand to
let the insurance companies rape the working class on homeowners insurance
by triple the premium and increase the deductable four fold. That is from
someone that never lost a shingle to any of the storms.

All Jeb Bush does his usual bilingual PR spots for the TV audience though.
More Bullcrap.

Hey bub, you don't know what you're talking about.

Guess how I'm voting?

I snipped the rest of your lieing drivel.

On 3 Sep 2006 19:50:44 -0700, "
wrote:

citizens can no longer trust government to help when a disaster occurs.

just look at katrina.........


Well, not This government, clearly.

CJT wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican


You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

... and you forgot the part about how he uses twice the resources
he pays for.


true, since he's so dependent on the government.

lein wrote:

CJT wrote:

Larry Bud wrote:


TwistyCreek wrote:


A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican


You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.


... and you forgot the part about how he uses twice the resources
he pays for.



true, since he's so dependent on the government.

precisely

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On 3 Sep 2006 20:38:12 -0700, "lein"
wrote:


CJT wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican


You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

... and you forgot the part about how he uses twice the resources
he pays for.


true, since he's so dependent on the government.


I wanna see that math.
Not a summation of the resources, just
how many of these middle class people there
are multiplied by this twice the resources,
divided by the total resources available.

In article . com,
says...
TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

40%?!

I do pretty well and I don't pay anywhere NEAR 40%. That's including
income tax, state tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax,
personal property tax, ...

You need a better financial advisor.

"Dave Christian" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...
TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

40%?!

I do pretty well and I don't pay anywhere NEAR 40%. That's including
income tax, state tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax,
personal property tax, ...

You need a better financial advisor.

On a marginal basis it real simple to be over 40% with just two taxes:
federal income tax in the 25% bracket (starts at only $30,650 for a single
person in 2006) and total FICA tax of 15.3%. To hit 40% in taxes on total
income you only have to have income above $80,000 or so.

catalpa wrote:

"Dave Christian" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...
TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

40%?!

I do pretty well and I don't pay anywhere NEAR 40%. That's including
income tax, state tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax,
personal property tax, ...

You need a better financial advisor.

On a marginal basis it real simple to be over 40% with just two taxes:
federal income tax in the 25% bracket (starts at only $30,650 for a single
person in 2006) and total FICA tax of 15.3%. To hit 40% in taxes on total
income you only have to have income above $80,000 or so.

income from a salary.
Some people need to work less and spend time working and more time thinking.

Dave Christian wrote:
In article . com,
says...
TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

40%?!

I do pretty well and I don't pay anywhere NEAR 40%. That's including
income tax, state tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax,
personal property tax, ...

You need a better financial advisor.

Many people mistakenly look at their highest bracket, rather than their
average taxes, and come up with the 40% number. Combining state,
federal, property, sales, gasoline, etc., a family making $100,000 in
California will pay around 26% in combined taxes, assuming they have a
mortgage deduction.

Actually a bargain, considering how much it would cost if each person
provided their own personal road system, police and fire protection,
schools, universities, defense, etc.

GOOD GODDAMIGHTY!! Ain't yew bonehaids got nothing better tew dew??

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Dave Christian wrote:
In article . com,
says...
TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

40%?!

I do pretty well and I don't pay anywhere NEAR 40%. That's including
income tax, state tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax,
personal property tax, ...

You need a better financial advisor.

Many people mistakenly look at their highest bracket, rather than their
average taxes, and come up with the 40% number. Combining state,
federal, property, sales, gasoline, etc., a family making $100,000 in
California will pay around 26% in combined taxes, assuming they have a
mortgage deduction.

Actually a bargain, considering how much it would cost if each person
provided their own personal road system, police and fire protection,
schools, universities, defense, etc.

Larry Bud wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.


Thats what happens when your income is from a salary, not from business earnings or from capital gains.

Saddam had ZERO to do with terrorism but is currently locked up.

While Bin Laden the addmitted mastermind of 9 11 is safe and well
somewhere, planning new attacks

I do admit Iraq is a wonderful training ground for terrorists, they
learn how to survive in a war zone, create improvised bombs while
winning the hears and minds of the local residents.

so please explain how Iraq REALLY keeps us safe?

soon EVERYONE will be drafted upon graduation from high school........

everyone will do a year or two in the national guard, to fight the next
war, assuming iraq one ever ends.

we will end up like israel where everyone is in the military.

soon young people will refuse to volunteer to be cannoin fodder.........

wrote:
soon EVERYONE will be drafted upon graduation from high school........

everyone will do a year or two in the national guard, to fight the
next war, assuming iraq one ever ends.

If the Democrats have their way. Seemingly. They keep introducing bills in
the Congress for mandatory national service. Charlie Rangle's (D:NY) latest
attempt was shot down handily
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml )


we will end up like israel where everyone is in the military.

soon young people will refuse to volunteer to be cannoin
fodder.........

We don't have cannon fodder any more. Every general believes that the lowest
PFC is as expert in his job as the general is in his.

HeyBub wrote:

wrote:

soon EVERYONE will be drafted upon graduation from high school........

everyone will do a year or two in the national guard, to fight the
next war, assuming iraq one ever ends.


If the Democrats have their way. Seemingly. They keep introducing bills in
the Congress for mandatory national service. Charlie Rangle's (D:NY) latest
attempt was shot down handily
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml )


we will end up like israel where everyone is in the military.

soon young people will refuse to volunteer to be cannoin
fodder.........


We don't have cannon fodder any more. Every general believes that the lowest
PFC is as expert in his job as the general is in his.


The Commander-In_Chief seems to be an exception.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

wrote:
Saddam had ZERO to do with terrorism but is currently locked up.


Wrong! Saddam had a LOT to do with terrorism, but it was against his
own people, not us.

However we cannot be a universal police force for the whole world. We
cannot fight every every battle that needs fighting. And we cannot
fight wars that cannot be won - we have not won a war since WWII. We
will not win a war against worldwide terrorism by expecting third world
scum to fight according to our civilized rules. Until our politicians
realize that, we need to keep our troups home.

Bob wrote:
wrote:
Saddam had ZERO to do with terrorism but is currently locked up.


Wrong! Saddam had a LOT to do with terrorism, but it was against his
own people, not us.

However we cannot be a universal police force for the whole world.

Remember the Color Sergeant's line in "Zulu" when asked by the private: "Why
us, Color Sergeant?" He said: "Because we're here lad. There's no one else.
Just us. Now, mark your target when he comes. That's a good lad."

We
cannot fight every every battle that needs fighting.

True. The theory is, though, if we pick the right battles, many others need
not be fought.

And we cannot
fight wars that cannot be won - we have not won a war since WWII.

Balderdash! We won in Grenada and Panama.

We
will not win a war against worldwide terrorism by expecting third
world scum to fight according to our civilized rules.

True.

Until our
politicians realize that, we need to keep our troups home.

The rules won't change just because the troops will eventually be fighting
here!

Another rule of warfare is that "the penis is mighter than the sword." That
is, they breed faster than they can be killed (usually). But if we can slow
their numbers down and maybe, just maybe, plague will break out or they'll
all convert to Christianity.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
We
cannot fight every every battle that needs fighting.

True. The theory is, though, if we pick the right battles, many others need
not be fought.

We sure blew it on this choice. We have created a great terrorist training
ground, and plenty of people that hate the USA.I understand that the
terrorist technology developed in Iraq since we invaded is now killing
us in Afganistan.

Bob

cor wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.


Thats what happens when your income is from a salary, not from business earnings or from capital gains.

true, without business earnings and investment from capital gains,
Joe's unemployed and living under an overpass.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"lein" wrote in message
oups.com...

cor wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.


Thats what happens when your income is from a salary, not from business
earnings or from capital gains.

true, without business earnings and investment from capital gains,
Joe's unemployed and living under an overpass.

Actually, real wages were higher back when taxes on the rich were higher.

What you're ignoring is that while profits have been rising, wages have been
declining.

"Baxter" wrote in message
Thats what happens when your income is from a salary, not from business
earnings or from capital gains.

true, without business earnings and investment from capital gains,
Joe's unemployed and living under an overpass.

Actually, real wages were higher back when taxes on the rich were higher.

What you're ignoring is that while profits have been rising, wages have been
declining.

Not ignoring - doesn't give a damn.

Bob

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

The whole notion that government does anything for people that people
couldn't do for themselves cheaper and better is the essential fallacy.

Government is essentially legalized banditry.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:04:55 -0400, "Joe Williamson"
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

The whole notion that government does anything for people that people
couldn't do for themselves cheaper and better is the essential fallacy.

Government is essentially legalized banditry.

I do think about that at tax time.

I wonder how many (government) drug addicts I'm supporting (how taxes
are being used).
--
112 days until the winter solstice celebration

"The government of the United States not, in any
sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-- GEORGE WASHINGTON--Treaty of Tripoli 1796

Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:04:03 -0400, CJT wrote:

Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:
snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's been true since the dawn
of time.

Joe Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:04:03 -0400, CJT wrote:

Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:
snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's been true since the dawn
of time.

Seth, our good ol' boy transplanted weed from Texas, who is better
known as SETH Williamson, would rather crawl up a tree backwards than
pay a tax, being the reasonable rental paid for the benefits of
society. This mooch gladly snatches the benefits of society while
despising its burdens.

If Irwin Schiff were running for presnit, Seth would be first in line
to vote for him, as long as Seth hadn't found out Irwin's Jewish
heritage. For Seth is an outspoken anti-Semite.

Fact is, it is HE who is the bandit and embraces banditry. His ilk
favor vigilantism, kkk, lynch mobs, law of the jungle, economic
darwinism, anarchy, chaos, mob rule.

A few months ago this curious admixture of kookery, malignancy, and
loonytarianism was wailing about the loss of the Confederacy. Read
his tearful lamentation:

It started when they drove old Dixie
down. That was the end of the Old
Republic and the beginning of the end
of the Constitution.
--Seth Williamson

CJT wrote:
Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

But, thanks to tax cuts, not as much banditry as in the preceeding eight.

In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:
Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

But, thanks to tax cuts, not as much banditry as in the preceeding eight.

Oh, you think tax-and-spend is worse than
tax-less-spend-more-&-make-the-taxpayers-pay-the-interest-on-the-borrowing?
Oh yes, tax cuts without spending cuts mean taxpayers paying in the
future for today's spending plus interest!

When did we last have a tax cut accompanied by putting the brakes on
spending? It appears to me that the answer is "Eisenhower
Administration"!

Reagan proposed that tax cuts would "reduce the allowance" to Congress
and motivate Congress to cut spending. Problem is, Reagan submitted to
Congress in every year he was in office a budget request with a bigger
deficit than ever occurred on Carter's watch - and ballooning deficits
were something held against Carter in 1980!

How much of a fiscal conservative is the current president? Answer:
Sometime back in his first term, he requested from Congress a $8 billion
"energy bill" and signed a $14 billion one returned to him. The current
president has on his record only a single veto after almost 6 years, and
that is on the "stem cell" issue!

Makes Clinton look good, despite his opposition to a "Penney-Kasich"
(I hope I spelled it right) piece of deficit-reduction legislation!
Despite that, Clinton was president at the start of all fiscal years with
surpluses since 1970 or even a few years before that!

On a side point - the surplus years of late 1990's-2000 occurred when a
Democrat was in the Oval Office and Republicans ruled Congress. That
meant gridlock! That slowed spending a little and slowed tax cuts a
little!
Shame that there was lack of similar similar-extent gridlock from
1983-1991 when Democrats held both houses of Congress and a Republican was
in the Oval Office, although in that era spending did grow less than was
requested in Presidential budget requests due to Congress not
appropriating as much Defense spending as the President requested.
Spending growth was less in fiscal years 1984-1992 than 1978-1982.
Carter was blamed to be a "Big Spender" enjoying same party dominating
both houses of Congress during his administration. For that matter,
Carter presided over Defense spending growth, even in comparison to
inflation, only since exceeded in fiscal years starting in the first half
of Reagan's first term!

Keep in mind that around 1980 give or take at least a few years, there
were many people in the "south"/"southeast" portion of the USA that got
counted as Democrats while being more like what most Americans would
consider Republicans to now be and have been since 1980 or so.
During Reagan's first term, one house of Congress was majority Democrat,
but most of the time the "ideological majority" there was a coalition of
Republicans and some conservative Democrats that mostly came from
South/Southeast USA. My best example is Jeremiah Denton - although I
remember him as being in the other House of Congress, while being a prime
example of a Republican-like conservative Democrat from Alabama!
And during first half of Reagan's first term, not only did the House of
Representatives have an "ideological majority" of Republicans and
Republican-like conservative Democrats, the Senate also had a majority of
Republicans plus Jeremiah Denton! And how did defecits and spending go in
the fiscal years that started in that era?

Makes me favor paleocons over neocons! Paleocons are fiscal
conservatives while neocons are less "fiscal conservative" than even
Clinton despite his opposition to "Penney-Kasich"!

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


Reagan proposed that tax cuts would "reduce the allowance" to Congress
and motivate Congress to cut spending. Problem is, Reagan submitted to
Congress in every year he was in office a budget request with a bigger
deficit than ever occurred on Carter's watch - and ballooning deficits
were something held against Carter in 1980!
Which the Dem leadership in the Senate promptly called news
conferences to declare they were dead on arrival. I hold RR
contributorily negligent because of lack of aggressiveness with the veto
pen, but it is still the Congress that decides spending in the final
analysis.. which is why what the current GOP Congress has done is so
comtemptible.


Makes Clinton look good, despite his opposition to a "Penney-Kasich"
(I hope I spelled it right) piece of deficit-reduction legislation!
Despite that, Clinton was president at the start of all fiscal years with
surpluses since 1970 or even a few years before that!
Actually not really, especially if you are heavily against putting
things on the backs of the future generations. WIth the exception of one
year, all of the Clinton Surpluses were due to the way Congress decided
to count the SS surplus. The extra SS money coming in is IMMEDIATELY and
by law, put into non-marketable treasury securities. Only in DC could a
long term liability be counted as a short term asset. If you back out
the SS "surplus", there was only one year with a true surplus and that
went away if you backed out a similar bookkeeping trick with the
Medicare "Surplus".
In fairness to Clinton, he was the benefiary of an accounting fraud
that started much earlier.


On a side point - the surplus years of late 1990's-2000 occurred when a
Democrat was in the Oval Office and Republicans ruled Congress. That
meant gridlock! That slowed spending a little and slowed tax cuts a
little!

Actually during those two Congresses (roughly FY'96 to '01), spending
increased by an accumulated 80 billion in discretionary spending. There
was just one breathtaking moment when the economy was so stupendously
overheated that money was coming in faster than even the best efforts of
both parties could shovel it out the door.