>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.

I have been accused of worse. I think one of the biggest contributors to the economy is consumer confidence, and the economy had much less confidence in the program proposed by President Bush. People saw 10 years of economic growth built on a program of fiscal discipline, and then comes a guy who rather than working on paying off the federal debt, wants to cut taxes.

>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.

As I pointed out earlier, when people talk about the budget that is proposed by the President to Congress, it is an annual budget. The President is proposing how much the federal government should spend and where it should spend it in the upcoming fiscal year. Clinton proposed balanced budgets toward the end of his term, meaning that the governent was not going to spend more than it took in.

And yes, I do understand what the Office of Management and Budget is. However, you may be better off getting your information from the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan, rather than information from the White House's Office of Management and Budget:

http://www.cbo.gov/AboutCBO.cfm

As far as Clinton-colored glasses, maybe there is a little of that in you.

>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.

Beltway spin? What I belive is that unlike his predecessors and the current President, he ran budget surpluses:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

And made payments on the federal debt:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/