In addition, gas prices in my town are running at an average of $1.94 a gallon, also a good sign for the economy in general. Very good in fact, considering that global warming has brought the temperature here up to -1 degree and people are getting ready to fire up their jet skiis and powerboats.

That Bush and his evil machinations, first he raises gas prices right before an election, then he lowers them during a period of time when there will be no direct political impact. What is he up to...what "maniacal" (hat tip: BS) plan is being hatched in the bowels of the White House? Dont tell me, Bush is going to force the stock market to even higher record-setting levels!

The man is evil, EVIL I SAY!

Now I know this is waaaaaaay off topic, but what an incredible thing that just happened with the kidnapped boy in Missouri, found him and another kid, who was taken four years ago, in the same apartment. Does Mizzoora have the death penalty?

Ok, sorry, back on topic.

Let's first give credit where credit is due...Clinton had some great economical years..no doubt. But he also didn't have 911, two wars and an inherited recession either. Nor did he have the WOT. Oh, the left will try to say Clinton valantly fought the terrorists...right!!

I predict that in this string, we will see the kooks spew nothing but how bad Bush has screwed up the surplus and Bush this and Bush that.

You will also see sob stories about some guy living under an overpass and eating from a dumpster as proof that taxes need to be raised.

Because if there is even ONE guy who isnt living in a four bedroom and drinking vanilla lattes, then the economy is a shambles and Bush hates the poor.

BTW, anyone have a job for me? I used to work on Pelosi's vineyard, but when I tried to organize the workers into a union, I was fired. Go figure.

yeah Lose- that is really a good ending to a really f'd up story with those kids.

--
Guys, numbers don't lie, and this was written in 2003. Go ahead and read the article and account for 3 years of "stay the course":

"Bush inherited from Clinton a fiscal surplus of $127 billion. In his first year he turned that into a deficit of $158 billion. In this, his second year, he will run a deficit of over $400 billion-a swing to the worse of over $600 billion in only two years."

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Bill Stensin: Stop showing your ignorance!

The war on terror started in his first year in office, what do you expect?
Stop reading talking points and the New York Times and watching CNN for your news.

LTB: "BTW, anyone have a job for me? I used to work on Pelosi's vineyard, but when I tried to organize the workers into a union, I was fired. Go figure."

Check this out: abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4804677

Let's first give credit where credit is due...Clinton had some great economical years..no doubt. But he also didn't have 911, two wars and an inherited recession either.

At least some of Clinton's supporters will (wrongly) claim otherwise about the "inherited recession". I remember a Hispanic Democratic congressman claiming that Clinton inherited the worst economy since the Depression. This was incorrect because the economy grew at a 4.2% rate during the second half of 1992 (a fact I didn't learn until about 10 years later). However, since that recovery was just gaining steam, its effects had not done much trickling down, and the unemployment rate was still around 7%.

(I think the congressman was named Martinez, but I'm not sure. It's been a few years since I saw his speech, so I ask forgiveness for my incomplete memory. However, I do know that he wasn't Mel Martinez, who is Republican.)

On the other hand, although we had some excellent economic times during the Clinton years, the growth in the second half of 2000 was a mere 0.8%, indicating that we were heading toward recession. Unemployment reached a low of 3.8% under Clinton, but moved up to 4.2% at the end of his term. Since unemployment is a "lagging indicator", this would mean that the economy was already losing steam.

As far as the deficit is concerned, Bush Jr. certainly deserves criticism, not because of tax cuts, but because he allowed spending and pork to go through the roof.

Clinton did have one war, which consisted of the aerial bombardment of Serbia. That war was conducted without the approval of the U.N., and with only Great Britain joining the fight. Curiously, I can't recall any anti-war protestors using the term "unilateral" back then.

Bill,

The first year that President Bush could have any affect was FY 2002 - which started on October 1, 2001; after 9/11...and even then, the affects of Bush's policies were only minimal in FY 2002.

Bigfoot,

It also took place without Congressional approval, didn't it?

Keeping in mind that I backed that war while it was ongoing, I'll never forget how embarrassed I was to be an American when Clinton tried to use Sarajevo in 1914 and Poland in 1939 as his justification for interventions...he is either the biggest ignoramous in world history, or he was entirely confident that the MSM would never point out how stupid his justification for intervention was.

"the smallest imbalance for the first three months of a budget year since (2003)."

Well if an 80 billion dollar deficit is something you trumpet about, then by all means go right ahead. We had a surplus you sheep. Because this year is Bush's least damaging doesn't mean its good, its means its trending away from armageddon. Nice job!

Yes, we had a surplus, we also didnt have the costs associated with protecting ourselves from continued 911's.

We also had a stock market heavily influenced by a bubble (hint: a bubble is hollow), unless you believe that it was normal for K-Tel stock to go from $4 bucks a share to $400 a share in two weeks. Too bad the bubble finally popped and all that revenue was lost, my holdings in nosehair.com might still be worth something.

Let's first give credit where credit is due...Clinton had some great economical years..no doubt. But he also didn't have 911.

No, he gave us 911. His economical years were setup from Reagan and Bush before him.

Clinton was a do nothing President.

So, Rico, a story from an obvious Piglosi suck-up proves two things: the Piglosi's are anti-union and pro illegal immigration.

lol, I never really held much stock in the Piglosi/union story. I'm sure if the workers organized, mega-zillionaire's Paul and Nancy Piglosi would comply. But there's still that pro-illegal stance. Actually, there isn't--all of our leaders in D.C. are pro illegal immigration.

Defecits come and go. This one will as well. Don't worry, be happy.

Tax cuts - they work every time they are tried.

Uh-huh. So, Noonan, who created the largest deficit ever? Why, that would be tax-cuttin' G.W. Bush! And who held the previous record for largest deficit ever? Why, that would be tax-cuttin' Ronnie!

You like to declare that both conservatism and tax cuts work every time they're tried. Well, only as long as you ignore all those times they failed. Sort of like me saying that when I was playing basketball, I never missed a single shot...as long as youdon't count the shots that I missed.

Damn keef, you really ARE capable of complex thought! Lol!

But as far as "Defecits come and go. This one will as well. Don't worry, be happy." goes...

while it may be true, I'm not inclined to take the Treasury Dept's word for it. I believe their numbers for the most part, but not their conclusions. Historically, they have proven themselves to be better bean counters than economists.

Historically, they have proven themselves to be better bean counters than economists.

Yeah, but so too have our heroes in Congress--bean counters and illusionists...

The problem with the Clinton economy was that it was built on dot-com businesses that really had nothing to offer. Speculators overpriced stocks and when the whole thing was exposed, it collapsed like a deck of cards. Through tax cuts and wise investments, the economy now is built more soundly and will continue to grow as long as the new Dem congress doesn't decide to go all "socialist" on us and screw it up.

Tom, Arcman and others.

In all fairness, the American public viewed Clinton as a fairly successful President...puke!

Most of us here couldn't/can't stand the guy or his VP, or their wives, but we need to remember that his campaign did a miraculous job of marketing him as a leader for change, sound familiar (2006 mid-term)?

Arcman is correct, the economic boom of the mid 90's was defintely inflated and again marketed as Clinton's success and even though our side knows better, even the belief by the left that Algore invented the internet gave them additional traction with their base, as pethetic as it may sound.

It's kind of like Bush saying "internets" and the un-informed thinking he doesn't know what he's saying, (I'm not sure if he does either sometimes) but most of us do understand what he is trying to get across, but the voter doesn't get it because it is simply over their heads. Therefore it's a waste of time. So we move on to what the average voter can more easily comprehend.

The thought that our side has yet to present a comphrehensive marketing plan to sway voters to buy our product has me and many of my conservative friends worried and if we don't accumulate our accolades and redefine the future of this country in a clear and cohesive way, the ignorant American voter will continue the lemming trend of liberalism....it's the path of least resistance, just like socialism..

That is the major problem.."the path of least resistance" and the left has picked up on it and sold it to the voters and since "it" sounds so easy, the voter likes "it".

So what does this tell us about the voter and the direction we need to go over the next 18 months or so? Realistically, that's all the time we have to convince them that our way is better.

It's always interesting to me that some can comprehend a concept when it is local and personal, but simply can't expand that to a larger view.

When I bought a house that had been allowed to run down, I understood the concept of what realtors call "deferred maintenance". I understood that the owners had made choices about where to spend their money, and those choices had left a property that needed a lot of work.

Years later, I did the same thing. I was building my first ranch, and I let a house I owned get run down. It ended up costing me a lot, as I had to rebuld part of it due to water damage (NEVER ignore a roof!!) but I also understood that when you either ignore a problem or choose to prioritize some areas over others, you will ALWAYS end up having to pay.

Bush inherited a recession (check the quarterly declines before you start hollering about that, folks) and a severely weakened military. The military was not only depleted, it was in serious need of overhauling to bring it into the 21st century, a massive job which would involve stepping on a lot of military toes even if it had been possible to embark on it during peaceful times. And then, after getting off to a late start anyway due to the stonewalling of the Gore machine, within a few months he found himself in charge of a country which had just taken the largest hit to its population in its history, and facing a situation in which he had to accelerate his military renewal dramatically to try to prevent the same thing from happening again.

So he had to spend money in his administration that should have been spent in the prior one (money which was instead stuck into what was called a "surplus" to impress the economically ignorant) and on top of that had to mount a massive emergency campaign to increase national security. And this cost money.

DUH.

The comments on his spending are clearly designed to try to obscure the blatant and obvious facts that his tax cuts are working, that the economy is thriving, and that tax revenues are setting records in every reporting cycle. That's what scares them, and that's what they are trying to ignore or deny or hide with their complaints about the size of the deficit.

I bet it won't be more than a day or so before someone is commenting on "the poor" or some other focus group having to "pay for Bush's tax cuts".