host

<b>The deficit accumulated over 212 years, increased by 50 percent in just the last five fiscal years! This came after a period of reducing it from $347 billion to $18 billion, in just 7 years.....with no negative impact on GDP growth......</b>

Your "belief" either has to be suspended, or you have to ignore "the math" in my OP, to sustain your belief.

!993 to 2001....annual treasury deficit reduced from $347 billion <a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm">Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual</a>
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

.....to $18 billion....

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43

The reduction was accomplished by reducing the size of government. A measure of that, is the fact that is that there were a smaller number of federal employees, in addition to the 284,000, mostly civilian DOD jobs that were eliminated, by the end of Clinton's 8 years, in office, than at the beginning.

1993 progressive tax increases that were designed to avoid additional taxes on those most likely to spend all of their income, due to the smaller size of that income, vs. the economic circumstances of the wealthiest taxpayers,
also contributed to elimination of the deficit.

Here is what happened after the 2001 inauguration:
(From my OP):
The annual deficit exploded from just $18 billion in 2000, to $421 billion in 2002. If "recession" is the excuse for this, and the "GWOT", consider
tha the 2002 $421 billion deficit was accrued between 10/01/2001, and 9/30/2002.

The "recession" never even amounted to an impact of negative GDP growth:
There was a small impact on the increased deficit, by 9/30/2002, because of the commencement of GWOT spending, and a much bigger impact, because of
tax cuts that even included the mailing of rebate checks to most taxpayers.

The facts demonstrate a massive overreaction to the "recession", further justifying tax cuts that were promised by Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign.

We have enough information now to conclude that the current administration is incapable of sound fiscal management. The "other party" achieved "cred" in this area, massively so....when compared to the deficits that occured before their 1993 to 2001 administration, and more dramatically, after it.

flstf, for the life of me....I see nothing besides ideology to validate your belief, and I see nothing besides ideology that would prevent concerned voters from voting for representatives of the "other party".

The point of this thread is to compare the fiscal management track records of both parties. The accomplishments in that area, of the "other party", in just 8 years, compared to the record of nearly 18 years of the "responsible conservatives", makes the painting the "other party" with the label, "loony left", a ridiculous mistake. Voting for more of this "responsible conservative" total control of the federal government, simply because you don't want to pay higher taxes, or because the "better represent your values", while they bond your children's future to horrific deficit obligations and backbreaking interest payments that further increase that deficit, is mindnumbing to observe.