In 1994, A democratic president erases the national debt and provides the US with its first surplus in years, which last for years to come.

In 2002, A Republican president erases that surplus, cripples a booming economy, sending it spiraling out of control in debt, making the US the laughingstock of the entire world.

How much easier can it be to explain. Please tell me?

You forgot: Republican controlled congress. Also, Clinton was riding the dot.com boom that was pretty much NONE of his doing. He was just in the right place at the right time.

Nevermind the fact that our enemy leveled two of our buildings, full of innocent civilians!!! What did you expect? A president to cower under his desk (oh, wait...that was his intern), and hope the bad guys go away? I'm glad we had a president who had the initiative to take the fight to these guys, instead of lobbing a single rocket into an aspirin factory, and puffing up his chest over his "accomplishments."

There's a big difference between "easy" and "simple" (as in "simpleton").

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

I keep waiting for some factual additions from you to your post. Please take the kindergarten politics back to the classroom.

__________________
Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies
but not terrorists.

You mean the deficit. Not the debt - which is the real issue. Clinton did not reduce the debt. It increased every year under his Presidency.

Bush has definitely been a disaster as President, but it's because he's been governing as a liberal statist in regards to the economy. The only positive thing he did was cut taxes, but that does you no good if you increase spending and continue to grow the size of government.

I will tell you. We do need to replace the Republicans. But we also need to replace the Democrats. They're both corrupt. We need to elect Libertarians.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Like TB said. The debt increased every single year under Clinton. There's no doubt that both administrations spent our money like drunken sailors, getting rid of both of them sounds like a better idea if you ask me.

__________________

Yep. Albeit at a much slower rate than from 1980-1992 and 2000-2008. He used the SS surplus to claim there was a surplus. Here's a link

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

Actually, instead of doing "no good" he actually did worse. They guy is a total disaster.

Well that argument would be just swell. Except for one thing. This graph:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Please note that WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam were fought with barely a blip in terms of the national debt. The issue with your guy is not his war spending (other than the war being a total waste of time and money). It's his spending on everything else. The guy spends like a drunken socialist and all the numbers back it up. Non-military, discretionary spending has grown at a record pace under Bush. There is no way to spin the facts any other way. Sorry. The guy is full on fiscal liberal.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

QFT. You've nailed it.

__________________

I was just stating stone cold facts. None of that is opinion or spin or partisan rationalizations. W and his "small government" friends gave us the biggest government ever. No amount of denial changes that.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

QFT = quoted for truth.

Not sure if that last comment was pointed at me or not.

__________________

Surplus means the citizens are overtaxed, another Clinton lagacy.





Bush inherited a recession, dealt with the 9-11 attacks and still presided over a booming economy. Your accusation is nothing more than a lie.



I don't give a flying crap what the 'entire world' thinks.



You could start by being truthful......