Bill Clinton Was A Smart and Cool President and you Hobbyist Should Appreciate Him

Billy was cool and for those of you that love to hobby you should be thanking the man for setting a good example of pussy chasing; but doing in very great economic times while leaving the country with a surplus before Bush took over.

So your a rapist to?

Hey Republicans you're gay if you didn't support Bill Clinton. lol

Hey Republicans you're gay if you didn't support Bill Clinton. lol
Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

You're gay because you like taking it in the ass 'til the end of days, Sissy Chap, because for the life of this great republic, every school kid will learn that Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator was one of only two presidents -- both of them dim-retards -- to ever be impeached, Sissy Chap!

Billy was cool and for those of you that love to hobby you should be thanking the man for setting a good example of pussy chasing; but doing in very great economic times while leaving the country with a surplus before Bush took over.


Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

ah yes. the "surplus" LIE. when will you libtards learn arithmetic?? Clintard did NOT reduce the deficit and you fucking know it pissbrain.

he froze spending. all that did was hold the current deficit as it was.

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...balance-budget

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget

By Stephen Moore
October 8, 1998
Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.



Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, “Clinton balances the budget.” Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of “the real heroes” for his willingness to raise taxes — and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George’s last year in office.



And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?



Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.



Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.” It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”



And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system — a plan that would have sent the government’s finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.



The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton’s budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending — proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It’s funny, but back in January the White House didn’t seem too concerned about saving the surplus for “shoring up Social Security.”



Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.



We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?



So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his “save Social Security first,” gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won’t be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.)



The budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing.



Who Really Balanced the Budget
Federal Deficits (Billions $)
Clinton Baseline* Actual 1994 $203 $203 1995 175 164 1996 205 107 1997 210 22 1998 210 +60 * Congressional Budget Office forecast, April 1995.


Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.



http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the...under-clinton/

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

• By Brooks Jackson
• Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008

1.6K
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.




The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.


Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
– Brooks Jackson
Sources

Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.


http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

So ... pisstine cocklicker, still want to claim Blythe eliminated the deficit??? AHAHAHA

news flash .. NONE of Blythe's surpluses even made a dent in the overall FED DEBT. got that libfag??

I agree with the OP which is one reason I can live with Hillary over Trunp because I think Bill will call the shots and oh how I yearn for the Clinton years to return - heck from 1992 to 2000 specifically the mid 90's was a time when America was truly great !!!! Anyone who refutes that claim is a bold face liar but not too fast DEMS we had a majority conservative congress during most of those great years.

I agree with the OP which is one reason I can live with Hillary being burned alive at the stake because I think Bill will call the cumshots and oh how I yearn for the Reagan years to return - heck from 1980-1988 was a time when America was truly great !!!! Anyone who refutes that claim is a bold face liar but not too fast DEMS we had a majority conservative congress during most of those great years. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

ftfy

ftfy Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I like Reagan but Reagan didn't see good results until the 2nd year of his 2nd term - check the UE rate from 1980 to 1985. Also, Reagan was for amnesty he sure didn't believe in building walls and Reagan deallt with a lot of Islamic fundamentalist not once did he mention banning people from those countries. If you are even remotely trying to conparw Reagan to Trump then I say Fuck you!

Newt Gingrich called the shots for Bill Clinton after his first two years in office were a disaster, Lube Wideass. Bill is now too far gone to call the shots on anything. He'll be spending his time with "Energizer" looking at his crotch and saying, "Keep trying, honey," and then go back to sleep.

I agree with the OP which is one reason I can live with Hillary over Trunp because I think Bill will call the shots ...... Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

This "kind of thinking" is more than likely the reason HillaryNoMore is even competitive in the current race (or the primaries for that matter), and the other reason is people with the same lack of mentality believe "Clinton" means Bill Clinton.

The other large "mentally incompetent" voting block of HillaryNoMore want to brag ...

..... they voted for the First Female President ... regardless of her incompetence and/or criminal behavior.

So here are the reasons "they" vote for HillaryNomore:

1. Bill will help her.
2. She is Bill Clinton.
3. She will be the First Female President.

So what are her "qualifications" .... A female married to Bill Clinton.

Bonnie and Clyde: The Draft Dodger and the Sexual Predator Facilitator:



Does anyone else perceive it as ironic that the self-professed military hero and disabled veteran extraordinaire ...

... would praise a Draft Dodger and his Draft-Dodging Accomplice aka Sexual Predator Facilitator?

if you couldn't enjoy this thread for the humor that it is then you are definitely an up tight prick who couldn't get laid if you crawled up a chickens ass and waited. LOL

I agree with the OP which is one reason I can live with Hillary over Trunp because I think Bill will call the shots and oh how I yearn for the Clinton years to return - heck from 1992 to 2000 specifically the mid 90's was a time when America was truly great !!!! Anyone who refutes that claim is a bold face liar but not too fast DEMS we had a majority conservative congress during most of those great years. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Exactly, Congress deserves significant praise for those years.

America hasn't been great since the 60's..sorry.

I like Reagan but Reagan didn't see good results until the 2nd year of his 2nd term - check the UE rate from 1980 to 1985. Also, Reagan was for amnesty he sure didn't believe in building walls and Reagan deallt with a lot of Islamic fundamentalist not once did he mention banning people from those countries. If you are even remotely trying to conparw Reagan to Trump then I say Fuck you! Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

You should beat the shit out of anyone who disagrees with you!!

^ exhibit A folks

face palm

You should beat the shit out of anyone who disagrees with you!! Originally Posted by DSK

That would look hilarious ....

... as he is beating the shit out of his other self!