He’s Back! Ross Perot’s New Chart Site
It’s mostly depressing news on the new perotcharts.com site. The full magnitude of the fiscal disaster under GOP’s control of the House, Senate, and presidency is made crystal clear. Sigh.
15 Comments to “He’s Back! Ross Perot’s New Chart Site”
Home |
Masthead |
News from D |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Subscribe |
Advertise |
Privacy Policy |
Customer Service |
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Awards | Archives | Reprints | Custom Publishing | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
The green portion of the graph looks like a hand cartoon with the third finger salute.
Actually, the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency in 2000 and 2001 (lost the Senate in 2002 with the Jeffords defection, later gaining it back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution). Both years saw the largest budget surpluses in the last 40 years. ‘98 and ‘99 were the only other large surplus years, and Clinton was president but the GOP had control of both houses. See above reference to Republican Revolution.
I call BS on another front too, Wick, since prior to 1998 every year on that chart saw a budget deficit – the two largest being in ‘91 and ‘92. Coincidentally, those years would have seen very large military budgets – like what has ballooned the deficit shown since 2003. http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges/budget-deficit/page/10/
I think federal deficits are wrong, too. You just shouldn’t use false logic to make a false point.
stop with the logic…it makes liberals heads hurt…
Can I finish?
That’s what she said.
Good one, Bethany!
The Dems only had a one seat majority, and that was just in the Senate, not the House. This does not constitute a massive shift to Democrats during May 2001 to January 2003. Also, the presidents veto power made this little change pretty much moot, and was only able to slow down the onslaught of earmarks, failed relief efforts, and corruption that would ensue as soon as the Republicans regained.
Also, if you’re using the “Republicans held the Legislative” argument during Clinton’s years, as an excuse to why that era was so successful, then the Dems could do the exact same thing for the Reagan years.
Remember, the Executive holds veto power, and can kill any agenda he/she deems unfit if the Legislative does not hold a 2/3 majority. This is why the administration is always held most accountable for any success or failure during their tenure.
How’s that for some logic, Bill?
Also, Bill, please note that when the GOP took control of the presidency in 2000, the government was half-way thru its fiscal year. So the 2000 and 2001 surpluses should be credted to Clinton and Gingrich.
Ross Perot, I don’t care much for you. You have no use for facts and unbiased information. I’m going to salute you with Gadlfy’s Rorshachian interpretation of the green bars.
Consider yourself saluted.
Fuzzy Math said “then the Dems could do the exact same thing for the Reagan years.”
Yes, exactly, all those deficits.
But, I’m not talking about the economy – which was successful during the Reagan years because of tax cuts and incentivizing small businesses and entrepreneurs. Neither am I talking about the successful economy during Clinton – which was a result of neither the President nor Congress screwing anything up while the Internet bubble was a-risin’.
I’m referring specifically to the chart, which speaks only too the federal governments budget deficits. And, I was referring to Wick’s statement about Republicans controlling both houses and the executive, that’s all. George W. Bush never vetoed a budget that I recall. For better or for worse…
No logic in your post.
Wick, I’ll give 2000 to Gingrich, but not 2001. And, if you recall Sept. 11, 2001, I think you might be able to attribute the deficit of 2002 and 2003 to that. Everything after is war stuff, pure and simple. You can chalk that up to the GOP and get no argument from me, but you’ll have to look at every war period since 1900 and tell me who was in control of the government during each one and whether or not we ran surpluses in order for me to believe your argument. Hint – you will fail to support your argument.
” the economy – which was successful during the Reagan years because of tax cuts and incentivizing small businesses and entrepreneurs”
Wrong. More logic for ya…
I’ll agree with you that there was a boom in the mid-80’s, but this is typical after a sustained recession. Claiming that the tax cuts were responsible for this would be problematic since another recession ensued in the late 80’s early 90’s and a second boom occurred (as, once again, they always do after a recession) when tax cuts were no longer in the equation, and well in advance of the tech boom. If you’ll recall, the economoy began its uptick in 95. As a web programmer myself, I and none of my coleagues would give that to the internet until 1997 or 1998. The whole pets.com/groceries.com/furniture.com epsiode would have gotten further into late 98 to 2000. By the time that started, we were well into a successfull economy.
Also remember, there was no productivity growth during the Reagan years, and the poverty rate actually rose.
I’m too lazy today to defend Reaganomics, but let me just say – I welcome it back with open arms at any time.
I’d also like to say that when I was at Wal-Mart in 1996 through early 1998, they were really happy that the economy was NOT doing well. See, more people shop at Wal-Mart when the economy is doing poorly.
And, I’m very happy that I turned down the garden.com job in Austin in 1999, thank you very much.
“I’m too lazy today to defend Reaganomics”
Good, so is the rest of America.
Who cares who did what in the past.Quit bitching and pointing fingers and fix the problem.We have CEOs in this country who get paid a **** load of money while their business is in the crapper.The business plan in this country is broken.Quit pandering to stock holders by moving money around and build toward the future.