Originally Posted by OneGlock19
Only have one question... why go back so far to Carter...? There was another democrat in the white house since him and he did 2 terms and he left the current dimwit with a surpluss... I would venture to say that, that was the last time the US was fiscally responsible and prosperous.. under a democrat...
Because Barack Hussein Obama is as liberal as Carter, to the point where I consider him a socialist. Bill Clinton, was what I would consider a moderate democrat, particularly after his first 2 years (he learned his lesson from the AWB). The republicans gave Bill Clinton the line item veto in 1996, and while it was later ruled unconstitutional, Clinton used it (to his credit, but more importantly to the republicans credit who granted it to him, specifically Bob Dole and John McCain, who sponsored the bill) to cut out lots of fat. That fat he cut, is where the projected
surplusses came from. Hmmm, John McCain co-sponsored the line item veto act of 1996? The same act that led to projected surplusses? Dang, I wonder how many voters know that (I'd bet less than 0.5%).
Also, there are only so many things a president can do to effect a capitalist economy, two of them are to lower taxes AND cut spending (this is where Bush raped the US). Technology and innovation is what made the 90s prosperous. While I don't blame Clinton for it, you have to go back to April of the year 2000 to see what was the start of a recession that was passed down to Bush (and believe me, I'm not making excuses for Bush). Albeit, Clinton cut some spending areas I would have left alone and let others go through I would have cut, it demonstrated the line item veto worked. We now need a consitutional amendment that grants the line item veto, and I'd be all for it going through, its a good thing for the country.
Does that answer your question?