BK>BK>>BK>> The facts speak for themselves. The economy was
much better
BK>BK>>BK>> under Clinton. The deficit, and the debt load decreased
BK>BK>>BK>> under Clinton. Both skyrocketed under Bush. The economy
BK>BK>>BK>> created more

BK>BK>> JB> The debt went up under the Clinton, regardless of how the
BK>BK>> JB> books were manipulated to show the deficit being positive.

BK>BK>> The debt went up during his early years, until it was turned
BK>BK>> around. That is normal for reversing an economic trend.

BK>BK>> The Bush 2007 Budget History files shows the deficit was
BK>BK>> eliminated in Clinton's second term. If you don't believe it,
BK>BK>> blame Bush. Go to Whitehouse.gov, click on the OMB link, go to
BK>BK>> the 2007 budget, and go down to the budget history files.

BK> JB> The debt went up every single year under The Clinton:

BK> I said the deficit and the debt load decreased under Clinton. I

That is doublespeak for cooking to books and moving debt further out, 
not retiring it.

BK> find govt accounting interesting, in that Bush's budget figures
BK> show the deficit wiped out under Clinton, yet the debt
BK> increasing.

Those weren't Bush's budget figures but don't let that stop a good rant.  
Those figures were their during The CLinton's time in office.  You just 
buried your head in the sand.



BK> JB> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histd
BK> JB> ebt_histo4.h tm

BK> JB> 09/30/2006  8,506,973,899,215.23
BK> ...
BK> JB> 09/30/1991  3,665,303,351,697.03

BK> JB> Under The Clinton the debt went up each year and by a total
BK> JB> of

BK> JB> Don't let this stop your rant.

BK> My statement was correct, and on target. You shifted the
BK> discussion. The debt went up under every president as far back

I changed nothing.  My statements have been consistent on this topic.  
You specifically said above " BK>> The debt went up during his early 
years, until it was turned around. That is normal for reversing an 
economic trend."   That is a lie and contradicts what you are now 
saying.


BK> as I care to look. The debt load went down under every president
BK> after WW2 except Reagan and Bush II.

BK>BK>> JB> Home ownership is at an all time high under Bush.  Bush has

BK>BK>> So are foreclosures.

BK> JB> But ownership is still higher.

BK> Which means very little to the well being of the country when
BK> people are losing their homes, and have little equity. With the
BK> housing market bubble burst we may be in more trouble than if
BK> they were renting. The great hope is the housing price increase
BK> resumes.

Only a liberal would want houses to become less affordable for the poor.  


BK>BK>> You do realize, I trust, that good economy or bad people need a
BK>BK>> place to live. Owning a home is not that much more expensive
BK>BK>> than renting. The historically low interest rates of the recent

BK> JB> So ask people whether they would rather rent than own.
BK> JB> Which builds more wealth ?

BK> Which they would rather is not the question. Which builds more
BK> wealth is relevant, but not determined when the rest of the
BK> economy is so shaky.

Shaky ?  Amazing.  Again your idea of a good economy is strange.  Almost 
all economic numbers are better than they have ever been and yet because 
Bush is in office, the left thinks it is the end of days.




BK> BK>> past were a great incentive to home ownership. That and
BK> BK>> alternative financing methods, that made home ownership more
BK> BK>> doable, yet also contributed to the high rate of foreclosures.

BK> JB> Not by nearly as high of a percentage.  Interest rates are

BK> I'd have given you a (sic) there but you haven't played that
BK> game, yet, unlike so many on the right.

BK> JB> lower longer under Bush than the Clinton and we are at war.

BK> Interest rates have been lower because the Fed kept them lower,
BK> because the economy was performing so miserably. Which is not a
BK> great accomplishment by Bush. His failure more accurately.

Again, only a liberal would wish for high Fed interest rates.


Jeff

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10