<strong>The Republicans knew the tax cut was too big. The tax cut is about 60% of the reason why we are projecting dificits as far as the eye can see from surpluses the eye could see.
Bush naturally will use this as an excuse to weasel out of his campaign promises such as prescription drugs, HMO reform and will drain the social security trust fund for tax cuts for the rich in hope to "stimulate" the economy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, must say OMFG!!!!!
Too Big? It wasn't even close to big enough. WTFis the matter with people? By the time you pay ALL the taxes you do....you pay 50-60% of your income to a government agency of some kind. Federal income and SS taxes alone account for 40% of your income....HOLY ****ING SHIT!!!!
Now, let us mention the others:
Sales tax: In PA whre I am, 6% of almost everything you buy. Since most people in this country spend a minimum of 80% of their income that is a big deal.
Gas Tax: 50% of purchase price
State Income tax: PA=2.5% of AGI
Local Income Tax (1% for me), Property Tax (in my area up to 5% of your income depending on your home), luxury tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax...OMFG!!!!!
that doesn't count liceneses: Hunting , fishing, driving, shooting....they are all taxes.
Also: Medicare tax, inheritance tax (state and federal depending on amount of the estate), federal phone taxes (called fees...approx. 3% of each phone call)
I'm not going to sit here and do the math. But, it is plain that if we used actual $ figures these taxes might even be MORE than 60%. The only solution at the federal level is a massive tax cut in payroll and income taxes....like reducing everything by ONE HALF.
Oh, and the by the way you revisionist history mother ****ers.....REAGAN and the republicans WERE NOT entirely responsible for deficit spending. The congress was democratically controlled for EIGHT YEARS!!!! Who do you think appropriates spending???
Tax revenue went UP DURING THESE YEARS...NOT DOWN!!!!!! The problem was unrestrained spending. And for those of you who were not even a gleam in your parent's eyes yet in, say, 1984 or so: If we didn't have the kind of military spending we did then, we may have been the ones who lost the cold war.
I do have to agree with the fact that both parties are SCREWED. We need MASSIVE tax cuts at all levels. MASSIVE. The government should provide for the national defense, infastructure and provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times....not run our lives with ridicluous spending programs and entitlements.
What a ****ing joke. At least the Republicans ADMIT to being rich fat cats.....at least they admit favoring business, which by the way, is generally good for the economy, not bad. Regan proved that. Without his revolution the country very well may have sunk into a full blown DEPRESSION.
Moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.
If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).
Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.
Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.
<strong>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.
If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).
Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.
Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, the "Clinton economy" was good because of the rise of the internet. That was all. Just plain luck. The economy started to go bad while Clinton was still in office. But wait, how could this be? Simple, he just got lucky for 7 years and knew that whatever happened would be blamed on the new president. And could somebody explain to me in a non-emotional way, what is so bad about having debt?
<strong>And could somebody explain to me in a non-emotional way, what is so bad about having debt?</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, I know you don't want an answer from me, because I'm a *****ing moron ******* liberal, but here's one reason debt is bad.
About one-fifth of your federal taxes are devoted to the debt (it may be a bit lower now, but that's what I remember from a few years ago).
If there was no debt, either your federal tax could be lowered by one-fifth, or you could have an automatic one-fourth increase in military and social spending.
The worst thing about this country is the stupid partisanship in the government. Democraps and Republican'ts both should grow up and get rid of this stupid party system we hold on to. Come on! It's the 21st century not the 19th!
<strong>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.
If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).
Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.
Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your sheer stupidity is revealing. The good economy was caused by the rise of the NEW economy, not Clinton. His polices were to tax and spend. There is no arguing that he raised taxes by the largest margin in history. The top bracket used to be around 29%...it is now 39.9%. Middle class taxes went WAY up too...and this was after he promised tax CUTS in the election.
Regan was also not the same as Bush 41. Bush 41, IMO, was not a great President. He wasn't bad, but his policies were not in-line with Regan. Also, we had deficits due to over spending by the liberals....period. The economy in the eighties was MUCH better....lower taxes, more liquidity, etc.
[quote]The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
<hr></blockquote>
Umm...no. Crime was better because the economy was better. The economy was better because of the New Economy. Clinton had NOTHING to do with interest rates....the Federal reserve did. The expansion also lasted approx the same amount of time....perhaps less. I don't understand people lumping the 90's together as a great time. We were in recession until fall 92....then experienced only anemic and then decent growth until 1995/1996. The raging economy didn't really begin until late 1996 and 1997....and peaked around the Holidays of 1999.
You simply believe what the talking heads tell you. "everything was better under Clinton....BWWHAHAHAHA!!!
We are lucky we are still here as a nation after him. He was corrupt as a man and a leader....he sold us out to China, cut military spending by 30%, raised taxes, proposed a ridiculous health system, wouldn't do anything unless a poll told him to, and IMO he will go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents in history.
Truth is that the Democrats are not on very sure footing on this one. Also this idea of calling this a "Bush Recession" (or trying to imply that) may back fire as we still look at smoldering piles in NYC and remember the ".bombs" of the tech industry.
Tax cut? What like 12 Democratic Senators voted for it? That number may be to high but as Daschle attacks the tax cut you have him also attacking Diane Feinstein who is still supporting it. At the very least the party is not united on this issue.
Fact is people are not ?fed up? with what the government is doing right now. So no one really cares and as such there will be no ?vote the bums out? attitude. What you will see though is some seats going back to the Democrats after the anti-incumbent take over that Gingrich engineered.
There is no arguing that he raised taxes by the largest margin in history. The top bracket used to be around 29%...it is now 39.9%. Middle class taxes went WAY up too...and this was after he promised tax CUTS in the election... <hr></blockquote>
Funny how easily people forget that.
[quote]...Crime was better because the economy was better. <hr></blockquote>
Other periods of economic expansion (the 60's, the 80's) didn't cause a drop in crime. Crime was better because of demographics and Guiliani. It's amazing how large an impact the drop in crime in NYC had on the statistics for the entire nation. And then there was the ancillary effect of other police department adopting what worked in NYC...
[quote]The economy was better because of the New Economy...<hr></blockquote>
I'm always skeptical about that term. I read an interesting article in Wired recently about the 19th century "new economy" of the clipper ships.
[quote]Clinton had NOTHING to do with interest rates....the Federal reserve did. The expansion also lasted approx the same amount of time....perhaps less. I don't understand people lumping the 90's together as a great time. We were in recession until fall 92....<hr></blockquote>
No we weren't. The economy was already in recovery by that summer. Problem was unemployment, which is a lagging indicator, was still up.
[quote]...then experienced only anemic and then decent growth until 1995/1996.<hr></blockquote>
Right. GDP growth was retarded by Clinton's tax increase. He didn't tip us into recession but his tax increase did slow the economy to a point where people were talking about a "growth recesssion" in the spring of '94.
[quote]The raging economy didn't really begin until late 1996 and 1997....and peaked around the Holidays of 1999.<hr></blockquote>
Close. The Nasdaq peaked in March of 2000. Our current doldrums pretty much began with the tech sell-off that began shortly thereafter. That sell-off almost directly conincided with the Clinton Justice Department's Microsoft litigation but the Nasdaq was overvalued anyway. Microsoft litigation or no (of course, the suit didn't help matters) that was a bubble bound to burst.
<strong>I hope they do return. I like the way Bush is handling 9/11. But frankly Republicans couldnt run a decent economy if their life depended on it.
Tax Cuts my ass!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who Balanced the budget? Here's a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. Also who run the economy? Here's a hint. It's not the Congress.
<strong>Who Balanced the budget? Here's a hint. It wasn't the Democrats.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm curious who you think balanced the budget.
Here's my take:
Was it the roaring economy?
If so, why wasn't it balanced in the 80s?
Was it the Congressional Republicans?
But Clinton & Newt didn't reach an agreement until after Clinton was re-elected in '96, so how could that be it? And there wasn't any reduced social spending after 1994 - it continued to increase.
How about:
1. tons of revenue from the long expansion and great stock market,
If so, why wasn't it balanced in the 80s?<hr></blockquote>
I could be flip and suggest you ask the Dems who were in charge of Congress back then but the fact is the Cold War was still a part of the picture. At least some of the deficit financed the increased military spending of the Reagan years which in turn made possible the lower military spending once the Cold War was over.
Clinton's budgets benefited from the geopolitical legacy Reagan and Bush left. Dubya's budgets will pay for the geopolitical legacy Clinton left.
[quote]Was it the Congressional Republicans?
But Clinton & Newt didn't reach an agreement until after Clinton was re-elected in '96, so how could that be it? <hr></blockquote>
So? Clinton never submitted a balanced budget until Congress forced his hand. It wasn't a coincidence that the first balanced budget since 1969 didn't occur until Republicans took over Congress.
<strong>Dubya's budgets will pay for the geopolitical legacy Clinton left.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you be more specific here? Are you blaming 9/11 on Clinton?
If so, two points:
1. Conservatives blow a gasket if liberals imply American policy is in any way responsible for 9/11.
2. When Clinton finally did try to do something, conservatives said he was wagging the dog and just trying to get our minds off Monica.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>It wasn't a coincidence that the first balanced budget since 1969 didn't occur until Republicans took over Congress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly what it was. Newt and Clinton didn't agree on a budget until it was already well into Clinton's second term. And that budget didn't reduce the deficit, it prolonged the deficit because of more spending and tax cuts that were thrown in so they could all get agreement. And that was only possible because the budget picture was already looking so good. Everything had been basically on autopilot since the original 1993 budget that not a single Republican voted for.
Clinton rolled the Congressional Republicans every single time. He almost always got everything he wanted during those budget battles. The only way you can say the Republicans had an effect on balancing the budget is through some indirect pressure they put on Clinton because they won the mid-terms in '94. There's probably some truth to that, but it was indirect pressure rather than some specific law that the Republicans passed.
So any one want to make an assumption as to what would be bad about having Hillary in the white house?
2. When Clinton finally did try to do something, conservatives said he was wagging the dog and just trying to get our minds off Monica.
Speaking of Monica, am I the only person who thought that this was the most overblown case in history? Family values my ass, wasnt the old Newt the one who divorced his wife on her death bed? Or was that the other guy...
Comments
<strong>The Republicans knew the tax cut was too big. The tax cut is about 60% of the reason why we are projecting dificits as far as the eye can see from surpluses the eye could see.
Bush naturally will use this as an excuse to weasel out of his campaign promises such as prescription drugs, HMO reform and will drain the social security trust fund for tax cuts for the rich in hope to "stimulate" the economy.
Once again, must say OMFG!!!!!
Too Big? It wasn't even close to big enough. WTFis the matter with people? By the time you pay ALL the taxes you do....you pay 50-60% of your income to a government agency of some kind. Federal income and SS taxes alone account for 40% of your income....HOLY ****ING SHIT!!!!
Now, let us mention the others:
Sales tax: In PA whre I am, 6% of almost everything you buy. Since most people in this country spend a minimum of 80% of their income that is a big deal.
Gas Tax: 50% of purchase price
State Income tax: PA=2.5% of AGI
Local Income Tax (1% for me), Property Tax (in my area up to 5% of your income depending on your home), luxury tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax...OMFG!!!!!
that doesn't count liceneses: Hunting , fishing, driving, shooting....they are all taxes.
Also: Medicare tax, inheritance tax (state and federal depending on amount of the estate), federal phone taxes (called fees...approx. 3% of each phone call)
I'm not going to sit here and do the math. But, it is plain that if we used actual $ figures these taxes might even be MORE than 60%. The only solution at the federal level is a massive tax cut in payroll and income taxes....like reducing everything by ONE HALF.
Oh, and the by the way you revisionist history mother ****ers.....REAGAN and the republicans WERE NOT entirely responsible for deficit spending. The congress was democratically controlled for EIGHT YEARS!!!! Who do you think appropriates spending???
Tax revenue went UP DURING THESE YEARS...NOT DOWN!!!!!! The problem was unrestrained spending. And for those of you who were not even a gleam in your parent's eyes yet in, say, 1984 or so: If we didn't have the kind of military spending we did then, we may have been the ones who lost the cold war.
I do have to agree with the fact that both parties are SCREWED. We need MASSIVE tax cuts at all levels. MASSIVE. The government should provide for the national defense, infastructure and provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times....not run our lives with ridicluous spending programs and entitlements.
Reward failure. Punish success. WTF ever.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
They need to lose their overpowering grip on the reigns of power in this country before things can get any better.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]</p>
<strong>Your a ****ing idiot, Nostradamus.
...
What a ****ing joke. At least the Republicans ADMIT to being rich fat cats.....at least they admit favoring business, which by the way, is generally good for the economy, not bad. Regan proved that. Without his revolution the country very well may have sunk into a full blown DEPRESSION.
Moron.</strong><hr></blockquote>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.
If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).
Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.
Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.
<strong>Hillary for 2004</strong><hr></blockquote>
Such a typical Democrat's perverted wet dream.
<strong>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.
If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).
Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.
Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all, the "Clinton economy" was good because of the rise of the internet. That was all. Just plain luck. The economy started to go bad while Clinton was still in office. But wait, how could this be? Simple, he just got lucky for 7 years and knew that whatever happened would be blamed on the new president. And could somebody explain to me in a non-emotional way, what is so bad about having debt?
<strong>And could somebody explain to me in a non-emotional way, what is so bad about having debt?</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, I know you don't want an answer from me, because I'm a *****ing moron ******* liberal, but here's one reason debt is bad.
About one-fifth of your federal taxes are devoted to the debt (it may be a bit lower now, but that's what I remember from a few years ago).
If there was no debt, either your federal tax could be lowered by one-fifth, or you could have an automatic one-fourth increase in military and social spending.
man who should have been president.... an independent.
<strong>Wow. The sheer emotionality of your posts is revealing. People just don't get that emotional about basic facts - they only get that worked up about beliefs that are irrational.
If you do look at facts rather than emotions, the "Clinton economy" was better in virtually every way than the "Reagan economy." The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
And one more little thing. After Reagan/Bush, we had the largest deficit/debt in history. After Clinton, there was an almost historically unheard-of surplus. In short, Reagan's plan didn't work (i.e., tax-cut our way out of debt), but Clinton's plan did (i.e., be fiscally responsible and let the economy keep humming).
Oh, and before you say the Dems spent the money that Reagan wanted to save, Congress every single year spent less than Reagan's budget plans called for. He believed you could spend spend spend, and it would be OK because tax cuts would make everything fine.
Now we know who was right and who was wrong. Despite that, Bush II is doing the exact same thing. If you guys would just admit that you WANT debt because it reduces spending on social programs, rather than saying that you want to be fiscally responsible, you'd have more credibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your sheer stupidity is revealing. The good economy was caused by the rise of the NEW economy, not Clinton. His polices were to tax and spend. There is no arguing that he raised taxes by the largest margin in history. The top bracket used to be around 29%...it is now 39.9%. Middle class taxes went WAY up too...and this was after he promised tax CUTS in the election.
Regan was also not the same as Bush 41. Bush 41, IMO, was not a great President. He wasn't bad, but his policies were not in-line with Regan. Also, we had deficits due to over spending by the liberals....period. The economy in the eighties was MUCH better....lower taxes, more liquidity, etc.
[quote]The expansion lasted longer, unemployment was lower, interest rates, housing, social measures like crime, abortion, single parenthood, etc., etc. - all of it was better under Clinton.
<hr></blockquote>
Umm...no. Crime was better because the economy was better. The economy was better because of the New Economy. Clinton had NOTHING to do with interest rates....the Federal reserve did. The expansion also lasted approx the same amount of time....perhaps less. I don't understand people lumping the 90's together as a great time. We were in recession until fall 92....then experienced only anemic and then decent growth until 1995/1996. The raging economy didn't really begin until late 1996 and 1997....and peaked around the Holidays of 1999.
You simply believe what the talking heads tell you. "everything was better under Clinton....BWWHAHAHAHA!!!
We are lucky we are still here as a nation after him. He was corrupt as a man and a leader....he sold us out to China, cut military spending by 30%, raised taxes, proposed a ridiculous health system, wouldn't do anything unless a poll told him to, and IMO he will go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents in history.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Tax cut? What like 12 Democratic Senators voted for it? That number may be to high but as Daschle attacks the tax cut you have him also attacking Diane Feinstein who is still supporting it. At the very least the party is not united on this issue.
Fact is people are not ?fed up? with what the government is doing right now. So no one really cares and as such there will be no ?vote the bums out? attitude. What you will see though is some seats going back to the Democrats after the anti-incumbent take over that Gingrich engineered.
There is no arguing that he raised taxes by the largest margin in history. The top bracket used to be around 29%...it is now 39.9%. Middle class taxes went WAY up too...and this was after he promised tax CUTS in the election... <hr></blockquote>
Funny how easily people forget that.
[quote]...Crime was better because the economy was better. <hr></blockquote>
Other periods of economic expansion (the 60's, the 80's) didn't cause a drop in crime. Crime was better because of demographics and Guiliani. It's amazing how large an impact the drop in crime in NYC had on the statistics for the entire nation. And then there was the ancillary effect of other police department adopting what worked in NYC...
[quote]The economy was better because of the New Economy...<hr></blockquote>
I'm always skeptical about that term. I read an interesting article in Wired recently about the 19th century "new economy" of the clipper ships.
[quote]Clinton had NOTHING to do with interest rates....the Federal reserve did. The expansion also lasted approx the same amount of time....perhaps less. I don't understand people lumping the 90's together as a great time. We were in recession until fall 92....<hr></blockquote>
No we weren't. The economy was already in recovery by that summer. Problem was unemployment, which is a lagging indicator, was still up.
[quote]...then experienced only anemic and then decent growth until 1995/1996.<hr></blockquote>
Right. GDP growth was retarded by Clinton's tax increase. He didn't tip us into recession but his tax increase did slow the economy to a point where people were talking about a "growth recesssion" in the spring of '94.
[quote]The raging economy didn't really begin until late 1996 and 1997....and peaked around the Holidays of 1999.<hr></blockquote>
Close. The Nasdaq peaked in March of 2000. Our current doldrums pretty much began with the tech sell-off that began shortly thereafter. That sell-off almost directly conincided with the Clinton Justice Department's Microsoft litigation but the Nasdaq was overvalued anyway. Microsoft litigation or no (of course, the suit didn't help matters) that was a bubble bound to burst.
Tax Cuts my ass!
<strong>I hope they do return. I like the way Bush is handling 9/11. But frankly Republicans couldnt run a decent economy if their life depended on it.
Tax Cuts my ass!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who Balanced the budget? Here's a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. Also who run the economy? Here's a hint. It's not the Congress.
<strong>Who Balanced the budget? Here's a hint. It wasn't the Democrats.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm curious who you think balanced the budget.
Here's my take:
Was it the roaring economy?
If so, why wasn't it balanced in the 80s?
Was it the Congressional Republicans?
But Clinton & Newt didn't reach an agreement until after Clinton was re-elected in '96, so how could that be it? And there wasn't any reduced social spending after 1994 - it continued to increase.
How about:
1. tons of revenue from the long expansion and great stock market,
2. no tax cuts, and
3. lower military spending.
I'm curious who you think balanced the budget.
Here's my take:
Was it the roaring economy?
If so, why wasn't it balanced in the 80s?<hr></blockquote>
I could be flip and suggest you ask the Dems who were in charge of Congress back then but the fact is the Cold War was still a part of the picture. At least some of the deficit financed the increased military spending of the Reagan years which in turn made possible the lower military spending once the Cold War was over.
Clinton's budgets benefited from the geopolitical legacy Reagan and Bush left. Dubya's budgets will pay for the geopolitical legacy Clinton left.
[quote]Was it the Congressional Republicans?
But Clinton & Newt didn't reach an agreement until after Clinton was re-elected in '96, so how could that be it? <hr></blockquote>
So? Clinton never submitted a balanced budget until Congress forced his hand. It wasn't a coincidence that the first balanced budget since 1969 didn't occur until Republicans took over Congress.
<strong>Dubya's budgets will pay for the geopolitical legacy Clinton left.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you be more specific here? Are you blaming 9/11 on Clinton?
If so, two points:
1. Conservatives blow a gasket if liberals imply American policy is in any way responsible for 9/11.
2. When Clinton finally did try to do something, conservatives said he was wagging the dog and just trying to get our minds off Monica.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>It wasn't a coincidence that the first balanced budget since 1969 didn't occur until Republicans took over Congress.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's exactly what it was. Newt and Clinton didn't agree on a budget until it was already well into Clinton's second term. And that budget didn't reduce the deficit, it prolonged the deficit because of more spending and tax cuts that were thrown in so they could all get agreement. And that was only possible because the budget picture was already looking so good. Everything had been basically on autopilot since the original 1993 budget that not a single Republican voted for.
Clinton rolled the Congressional Republicans every single time. He almost always got everything he wanted during those budget battles. The only way you can say the Republicans had an effect on balancing the budget is through some indirect pressure they put on Clinton because they won the mid-terms in '94. There's probably some truth to that, but it was indirect pressure rather than some specific law that the Republicans passed.
So any one want to make an assumption as to what would be bad about having Hillary in the white house?
2. When Clinton finally did try to do something, conservatives said he was wagging the dog and just trying to get our minds off Monica.
Speaking of Monica, am I the only person who thought that this was the most overblown case in history? Family values my ass, wasnt the old Newt the one who divorced his wife on her death bed? Or was that the other guy...