Fiscal Conservative: Clinton criticizes Bush's exorbant spending

[Taco John]

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Clinton added: "We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050918/wl_afp/usweatheriraqeconomy_050918200308

[Taco John]

It's pretty bad when spending criticism coming from a Democrat is perfectly valid.

Bush is the worst conservative in the history of conservativism.

[Logical]

It's pretty bad when spending criticism coming from a Democrat is perfectly valid.

Bush is the worst conservative in the history of conservativism.

I agree, but I think this quote is not accurate.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

We were definitely in deficit spending during the Reagan years and so Grenada (as minor as it was) was still a military conflict financed with foreign (borrowed) money.

[Taco John]

How sad is it that the Republicans have complete control, but there is no one who can defend Bush from criticism from Clinton.

[Area 51]

How sad is it that the Republicans have complete control, but there is no one who can defend Bush from criticism from Clinton.

Considering that Clinton claimed a "surplus" while having the largest deficit in history at the time he left office. Did he use the surplus to reduce the deficit? NO!!!! He spent it on other things. The surplus was money that was tabbed for use in one program, or another, that was not used, we were still spiraling into deeper debt.

Face it boys, the U.S. has been spending "funny money" for the past 60 years and it will never stop regardless of who is in office. The accounting methods are just different depending on if you are a democrat or republican. Both parties spend what they do not have and have for longer than most of us have been alive.

Not one single politician has ever figured out how to stop the spending. They all want to "support" their constituancy. Save a base, spend more money on special projects. Add riders to bills for their state so they will vote for a bill. Add to the fact that they all are "bought" by special interest groups that influence the way they vote with means that might have been considered illegal or unethical in the past.

TJ, this is not a democrat against republican as you put it. It is more I can hide what I do better than you, thus I am better. Clinton was not and is not better than Bush, he just used different ways to get what he wanted.

[Amnorix]

Considering that Clinton claimed a "surplus" while having the largest deficit in history at the time he left office. Did he use the surplus to reduce the deficit? NO!!!! He spent it on other things. The surplus was money that was tabbed for use in one program, or another, that was not used, we were still spiraling into deeper debt.

This is all complicated by whether or not you're going to include social security, etc., but fundamentally, the Clinton adminstration spent the latter part of its term paying DOWN the deficit, whereas Bush has done nothing but cut taxes and pumping spending, mostly on foreign wars, until we are more upside down on an annual basis than we have ever been before (in true dollars, not sure about adjusted for inflation).

Suffice to say that the worst deficits this country has EVER seen have been under Reagan and Bush.

[jAZ]

This is all complicated by whether or not you're going to include social security, etc., but fundamentally, the Clinton adminstration spent the latter part of its term paying DOWN the deficit, whereas Bush has done nothing but cut taxes and pumping spending, mostly on foreign wars, until we are more upside down on an annual basis than we have ever been before (in true dollars, not sure about adjusted for inflation).

Suffice to say that the worst deficits this country has EVER seen have been under Reagan and Bush.
This isn't an accident.

They are using this war, this hurricane and those tax cuts to "starve the beast" (of government spending).

Their motives are purely conservative and purely altruistic. Just ask um.

It has nothing to do with pork spending. Republicans don't do that. They are fiscal "conservatives". Except with money to their endless wars on drugs and porn.

[go bowe]

I agree, but I think this quote is not accurate.



We were definitely in deficit spending during the Reagan years and so Grenada (as minor as it was) was still a military conflict financed with foreign (borrowed) money.well, hell...

if grenada counts, then so does that little excursion into nicaragua to extract noriega...

but c'mon now...

neither was a military conflict of any significance because they lasted only a few days and cost a small amount (compared to afghanistan and iraq); so if they were financed from the deficit part of the budget, it wasn't much financing at all...

[Area 51]

This is all complicated by whether or not you're going to include social security, etc., but fundamentally, the Clinton adminstration spent the latter part of its term paying DOWN the deficit, whereas Bush has done nothing but cut taxes and pumping spending, mostly on foreign wars, until we are more upside down on an annual basis than we have ever been before (in true dollars, not sure about adjusted for inflation).

Suffice to say that the worst deficits this country has EVER seen have been under Reagan and Bush.

I would like to see your link that defines that Clinton was paying down the deficit. Everything I have ever seen indicated that the rate of increase of the debt was slower during Clintons administration but still growing.

Social security funds have been tapped by many presidents for reasons other than what the funds were meant for, that is the reason that there needs to be a fix to the program. By the time some of us retire there may not be any money in the fund other than the transparent kind (the stuff that ain't there).

[Eye Patch]

Speaking of Billy.... who says Clinton doesn't have a legacy...

China Names Condom for Bill Clinton

A Chinese company is honoring ex-president Bill Clinton by naming a new line of condoms after him - along with a companion line of condoms that will be named after his ex-girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky.

Reports Britain's Sky News: The Guangzhou Haokian Bio-science company has registered their names as trademarks for the contraceptives.

The condoms will display Chinese spellings: Kelitun and Laiwensiji.

A 12-pack of Clintons is expected to cost $5.00, with Lewinskys selling at a discounted price of just over $3.00.

The manufacturer's general manager, Liu Wenhua, told Sky News that naming his condoms for Clinton was perfectly legal, explaining that "trademarks of two foreign surnames and can't be seen as a violation of rights."

===========

A think another good name for a Clinton Condom would be...

NoCanDoHillary.

[jAZ]

I would like to see your link that defines that Clinton was paying down the deficit. Everything I have ever seen indicated that the rate of increase of the debt was slower during Clintons administration but still growing.
I don't have any links for you, but what exactly are you arguing here? If it's a mere technicality, then you've already lost. If it's that Clinton wasn't better enough than Bush... well, you've also already lost.

[Area 51]

I don't have any links for you, but what exactly are you arguing here? If it's a mere technicality, then you've already lost. If it's that Clinton wasn't better enough than Bush... well, you've also already lost.

First, the question was not aimed at you, Annorix put up that Clinton paid down the national debt. It did not happen.

Second, your bias towards the liberals is known andyour point is baseless.

[jAZ]

First, the question was not aimed at you, Annorix put up that Clinton paid down the national debt. It did not happen.

Second, your bias towards the liberals is known andyour point is baseless.
In other words: "Good point, but I have a hard time admitting such".

[penchief]

well, hell...

if grenada counts, then so does that little excursion into nicaragua to extract noriega...

but c'mon now...

neither was a military conflict of any significance because they lasted only a few days and cost a small amount (compared to afghanistan and iraq); so if they were financed from the deficit part of the budget, it wasn't much financing at all...

Speaking of Noriega..........

Whatever happened to that made-for-TV movie, "Noriega, Bush1 and the CIA...The True Story."

I think it was shitcanned for screen epic, "Noriega and Saddam.......Two Dudes Who Have Publicly Uttered Their Last Words."

[Area 51]

In other words: "Good point, but I have a hard time admitting such".

WTF are you talking about?

POINT 1: Clinton did not reduce the national debt.

Now what are you wanting to do? Argue about the differences between the democraps and Republicans? Ain't gonna happen Harley.

[RedDread]

So you're arguing that Clinton was a terrible person for not paying off some of the debt with his 100B surplus vs Bush Jr's annual 500B/yr deficit

Sounds like you're polishing the brass on the Titanic

[SaltyDog]

WTF are you talking about?

POINT 1: Clinton did not reduce the national debt.

Now what are you wanting to do? Argue about the differences between the democraps and Republicans? Ain't gonna happen Harley.


You mean to tell me that the Republicans lied when they confirmed
the 2.2 trillion Clinton surplus?

[jAZ]

WTF are you talking about?

POINT 1: Clinton did not reduce the national debt.

Now what are you wanting to do? Argue about the differences between the democraps and Republicans? Ain't gonna happen Harley.
Yeah, let's ignore the big point of the entire thread (Clinton was far more of a fiscal conservative than Bush) and lets stick to picking apart which details most accurately represent that fact (your point that Clinton slowed deficit growth or Amnorix's point that Clinton reduced the deficit).

Both statements support the entire point of this thread. A point which you seem to want to dismiss and ignore because it's not flattering to you or your party.

[go bowe]

clinton is da debil...

[Logical]

WTF are you talking about?

POINT 1: Clinton did not reduce the national debt.

Now what are you wanting to do? Argue about the differences between the democraps and Republicans? Ain't gonna happen Harley.Even I call bullshit on that one, yes the national debt was reduced during the 2nd term of the Clinton administration. Clinton announces record payment on national debt

By John King/CNN
May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/clinton.debt.jpg http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

[jAZ]

Even I call bullshit on that one, yes the national debt was reduced during the 2nd term of the Clinton administration. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
And even the semantics argument falls apart... technicaltities and all.