Nah, you were making apologies for deficit spending. Now you say fiscal responsibility is a big deal. Your values blow in the wind.
I wasn't making apologies for the national deficit. But keep lying.
I was comparing the GDP to the deficit and Bush fares better than even Reagan did in that regard.
And once again you've proven your ignorance about financial matter which doesn't surprise me a bit. Clearly you don't understand the differences between socialism with regard to financial solvency and national debt. ROFL
In fact, since I now have to leave and just know that you don't understand what the hell you're talking about and will lie about my posts regarding the deficit, here is my vanity what I wrote in 2003:
Despite the barrage of negative press regarding the national deficit, a little research reveals the news is far less dire than it is being portrayed.
The gross domestic product (GDP), which forecasts the amount of money taken in through taxes by the government versus the amount of government spending, is best looked at in percentages as the nation's economy continues to grow each decade. According to the Office of Management and Budget, a comparison of administrative deficits for the last 20 years is as follows:
Reagan 1983 $208 billion deficit 6% GDP
Bush 1992 $290 billion deficit 4.7% GDP
Clinton 1993 $255 billion deficit 3.9% GDP
Bush 2003 $374 billion deficit 3.5% GDP
What the majority of articles bemoaning the national deficit do not remind people is that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 cost our economy a minimum of $500 billion including $150 billion in reduced GDP. This does not include the cost of fighting the war on terrorism. The cost for that is approximately 3% of GDP versus approximately 10% GDP during the height of the Cold War. Considering two years ago our nation endured its largest attack at the heart of its financial center, as well as an expensive war on terrorism, two tax cuts and numerous corporate scandals,
A 3.5% deficit in GDP does not seem unreasonable and on a percentage basis is still lower than we’ve seen in 20 years.
In addition, the record deficits in California continue to have a negative impact on our national economy. California is the world's fifth largest economy and their breathtaking social experimentation in recent years has resulted in a state dangerously close to needing a national bail-out.
The majority of economists have attributed the recent strength in consumer spending to the Bush tax cuts. We have already seen tremendous growth in the last quarter, and most of that has been attributed to people having more money to spend.
Contrast the Bush tax cuts with the money the Democrats would spend if they had the majority. In the last 3 years, The Democrats, who say they want to reduce the deficit, have tried to add nearly $2 trillion in budget bills, more than all of Bush's tax cuts combined.