his spendding, tax cuts, and other large financial firms caused the recession. and thats the bottom line. politic's doesn't hold my intrust.

and regardless of what my implications are. if i add something about large financial firms in my post it can't be dismissed.

i do agree that there is plenty of blame to go around, and recessions are cyclical.

you may hate that bush is being blamed for the recession, but my advice to you is to either debate it or ignore it.

for the most part i agree with you.

i don't just blame bush. i blame everyone that had the power to stop it and didn't! those greedy basterds.

Look, you aren't coming up with facts. They are talking points that don't stand up to the facts. Where is it that tax cuts cause a recession? That's absolute nonsense, no offense. I didn't like his spending on a number of things as well. That is my problem with him. A sitting president doesn't cause a recession because he happens to be there at the time. People need to stop looking for government to solve their problems. How was Bush supposed to stop it? Government intervention causes it. People talk about health insurance costing so much. One of the reasons it does, is because government doesn't allow those companies to sell across state lines.

So the democrats were there to fix the problem for those 2 years? They just get a pass? Have you seen how much the democrats have spent in 1 1/2 years?

I beg to differ. Your exact words were: "he didn't have a chance. it took 8 yr's to get a surpluse under clinton, one yr' to blow the surpluse under Bush, 8 yr's to kill not just the American economy but the global economy under Bush. (and several large finacial firms)". That is a gross oversimplification at best, and adding the phrase "large financial firms" doesn't somehow make it magically unassailable.

im just going to disagree and not care. thanks for the debate but it got old quick.

Of course we'll re-elect Obama... We have re-elected far worse up to this point.  CoughcoughNixonDubyaandReagancoughcough. Pardon my itchy throat.

Ha! Yeah, because Reagan was a terrible President, huh? Stop drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid. He was a much better man than you or I will ever be. He was one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen. You must be coming from the other side of the aisle. You put Reagan in there, and somehow don't even mention your boy Carter. Grow up.

I know others have already taken this post apart but I have to ask if you understand that Clinton's "surplus" was a budget surplus and that we were never actually out of debt. You do know that right?

The reason I ask is because you say "one yr to blow the surplus". The thing is that every year you can set a new budget and while it's pretty hard to take things off from last year's budget (people get cranky), it is really very easy to add things (this makes congressmen happy).  In short, it's really easy to just spend more than you bring in for any given year, which is why saying "one yr to blow the surplus" really makes no sense.

In reality though there never was a Clinton Surplus, in reference to debt or budget.  In fact during the three years often cited as the years in which clinton had a budget surplus, usually claimed to be ~$360 billion for FY98-00, the national debt actually increased by ~$280 billion.  You can verify this with the treasury department here if you like.

And you'll note clinton's last budget left to Bush had reversed the near budget surplus of FY2000, and instead left it with a deficit of ~$133.3 billion.

The difference in reality versus what is reported is due, largely at least, to not reporting intergovernmental holdings which, essentially, is just money the government borrows from social security to make their deficits look smaller than they really are.  Basically they don't count money they borrowed from themselves (which in and of itself is an absurd practice, let alone not counting it for whatever reason).

yes. i new. it's all about being informative. i just didn't like how my coment about large financial was down played as an added punchline to avoid a debate.

i love facts, but when my statements are taken as second note to what was posted then thats when i turn a blind eye to facts and go with what may piss people off.