A visual

[asheris]

Now, that's a little out of date.

2003 ended up at $374 BILLION in the hole.

Fiscal 2004, it was $412.55 BILLION in the hole.

(Haven't seen the final 2005 numbers yet.)



So to sum up:
Over eight years, Clinton took us from a deficit of $290.4 billion, to a SURPLUS of $236.4 billion - that's a difference of $526.8 billion to the good, or a per-year average IMPROVEMENT of $65.85 billion.

In four years, Bush II took us from a SURPLUS of $236.4 billion to a DEFICIT of $412.55 billion. That's a difference of $648.95 billion - to the bad! That's a per-year average LOSS of $162.24 billion.



Did you know: During the weeks before he resigned, Nixon's approval rating was higher than George W. Bush's approval rating is today? (Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how he's staying over 30%...)

Comments

[curmudgeon.livejournal.com]

And yet people will look right at that and say Clinton was a bad president.

Yep

[asheris.livejournal.com]

It was a Republican Congress that blocked a Clinton-backed bill to increase spending on anti-terrorism efforts after the Oklahoma City bombing.

It was the same Republicans that derided Clinton's attempts to catch Osama bin Laden as "wagging the dog" to "distract" from the "important issue" at hand: blowjobs in the Oval Office. (Mind, many of those same "moral" R's were getting a few under their desks at work, too.)

These would be the Republicans who cut anti-terrirosm funding after Bush was elected.

And of course, these would be the same Republicans that have since blamed Clinton for 9/11 and in general not doing enough to counter terrorism...

Despite the fact that they were the roadblock, time and time again.

Nothing is EVER their fault. Nothing is ever THEIR responsibility. Everything is somebody else's fault.

Bastards.