>>Partially wrong. While Clinton was out of office, Bush II had not been in office long enough to have ANY policies or even laws passed to even remotely affect the economy good of bad. So yes, something well prior to March 2001 caused the downturn of the economy and did happen during the last year of Clinton. I point to the IT bust and not necessarily anything Clinton did or did not do.
>
>Bush II's tax cut plan was submitted to Congress in February, 2001, the economy peaked in March 2001. I don't think it was just a coincidence that 3 months after taking office and 2 months after an irresponible tax cut proposal the economy started to tank.

You are quite naive to believe that an economy responds that fast especially with respect to a plan that was only submitted and not enacted in 2/01.

>What isn't so easy is making tough, responsible choices to balance the budget and even pay off some of our debt. Clinton did this. I am still waiting for a Republican to do it.
>
>And while the economy may be growing, it is certainly a jobless growth. Not only are we borrowing a lot of money, but we aren't producing many jobs.
>
>Throughout his 2 terms, President Reason ran budget deficits. Through his only term, President Bush I ran budget deficits. Clinton ran surpluses toward the end of his 2nd term, and actually paid down some of the debt. Now Bush II has had almost 4 years in office, and we are again running huge deficits.

How can you say there were actual surpluses when the Federal deficit increased EVERY DAMN YEAR under Clinton???? I gave you a link to these figures posted by the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET. Do you not understand what this Office is? Or, like Clinton, do you need a definition of "is"? Until you can remove your Clinton-colored glasses and explain these figures, I have nothing further to discuss. I have at least admitted I am no accountant and may not be understanding completely the figures OMB posted and I could be wrong about what I see. But those numbers of the Federal deficit sure look they are increasing every year to me.

Maybe you believe the Beltway spin that when Liberals and the co-opted media consider a funding INCREASE that is less than what was expected a funcing CUT. Maybe Clinton's budget deficit for a prticular Fiscal Year, just as an example, was $100 billion but throughout that Fiscal Year the Treasury took in more money than expected and so the net budget deficit for that Fiscal Year was only $75 billion. That spin I would believe. Otherwise, the Clinton legacy remains a myth and continues to undergo revisionist history.