NYTimes: Krguman says the Deficit Problem is largely solved.

[JMS]

Not anymore. The commitee really tarnished it by picking very dubious winners over the last few years.

Unlike the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes, usually issued in retrospect often two or three decades after the awarded achievement, the Peace Prize has been awarded for more recent or immediate achievements, or with the intention of encouraging future achievements. Some commentators have suggested that to award a peace prize on the basis of unquantifiable contemporary opinion is erroneous but that's what the Prize was intended to be for... For encouraging peace, even as some of their awards over time did not pan out and others when they were awarded had not achieved yet what could be said was their full potential. Still the Nobel Peace Prize remains the most prestigeous ward a person can achieve.

Controversial Nobel Peace Prize Awards:

• Austen Chamberlain, for The triumph of Locarno, 1925, an early act of apeasement to the Germans, brother of Nevil Chamberland who would become Prime Minster of Britain and a famous appeaser in his own right.
  
• the Dalai Lama, 1989
  
• Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat, 1994
  
• Menachem Begin who tried to assassinate the West German Chancellor in 1952 recieved the 1974 peace prize with Anwar Sadat
  
• Lê Ðức Thọ,amd Henry Kissinger, 1973.. The most controversial... Kissinger having been involved in several extra judicial secret efforts before and after the prize to murder varous folks across the globe and a secret effort to continue bombing N. Vietnam, and Lê Ðức refusing the award and then undertaking the invasion and conquest of Southern Vietnam.
  
• Rigoberta Menchú,
• Jimmy Carter,
  
• Al Gore,
• Liu Xiaobo,
• Barack Obama,
• the European Union

[Fergasun]

And for what the GOP was willing to spend in the first decade of making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, you could fund the entire social security deficit for the next 70 years.

I simply have to quibble with this. The GOP made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent? All credit goes to Obama for that one!

I really dislike the fact that the Democrats bought into the fact that household income of $450k is "rich" (I honestly think it's closer to $200k rather than $250k... and even that seems a stretch).

But it wasn't the GOP that made the Bush tax cuts permanent... the Democrats get all the blame/credit for that... and that's why progressives would say the Democrats/country are more right then ever...

[JMS]

I simply have to quibble with this. The GOP made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent? All credit goes to Obama for that one!

Ha... You do knoow Bush was a republican right? You do know why they call them the Bush tax cuts right?

The bush tax cuts aren't perminent, because Obama refused to make them so even as the GOP put the country off the fiscal cliff to coerse him.... Is it really your postion that the GOP din't want the bush tax cuts to become perminent?

I really dislike the fact that the Democrats bought into the fact that household income of $450k is "rich" (I honestly think it's closer to $200k rather than $250k... and even that seems a stretch).

Yes it was the democrats who wanted to keep rates for those making 200k low... :doh: The Democrats are guilty of compromising too easily.

But it wasn't the GOP that made the Bush tax cuts permanent... the Democrats get all the blame/credit for that... and that's why progressives would say the Democrats/country are more right then ever...

The bush tax cuts aren't perminent... they were repealled just a few months ago...

And just for the record... Let me give you a score card for what each party stands for.

The GOP want's lower taxes for the wealthy, smaller government, higher deficites, more debt hoping the lower tax burden wich raise teh economy creating more revenue.... I give you Ronald Reagan, George Bush Jr. and the PAul Ryan budget which the GOP endorsed as evidence of sush.. You can throw Mitt Romney's fiscal plan in there too.

The Democrats stand for lower deficits, lower debt, and and holding spending steady; with a balanced aproached to achieveing each... They are on record for modest cuts, modest taxe increases, and using a growwing GDP tlower the Deficite to GDP ratio.. I give you Clinton and Obama's first term as evidence of such.

[chipwhich]

JMS,

No offense but Clinton was successful because the economy was booming.

It's not about the tax strategy, it's about the economy.

It dumbfounds me how many Americans don't get that.

Tax revenue is dictated by the economy not by taxation.

[Hubbs]

Oh! Well, thank goodness, we have projections which state that our deficit problem is no longer a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2008, we had projections that in 2012, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2009, we had projections that in 2013, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2010, we had projections that in 2014, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2011, we had projections that in 2015, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2012, we had projections that in 2016, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Now it's 2013. We're being told that, on a local level, municipality bankruptcies are nothing to worry about. We're being told that, on a state level, it's okay if state pension promises grow at 8% forever, because, after all, the assets under state control are growing at 3%, and, well, shut the hell up if you're gonna bring basic math into the equation. We're being told that, on a national level, health costs can increase at 9% a year forever and ever, and that's fine, because, after all, it would suck if that were the case without corresponding retirement growth, so therefore the expansion of said costs isn't happening.

Don't worry. These problems are no longer problems.

I hope you're excited to receive your check from the government surplus that was run this year. Because, after all, the CBO projected that we'd run one back in 1998.

[aREDSKIN]

Oh! Well, thank goodness, we have projections which state that our deficit problem is no longer a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2008, we had projections that in 2012, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2009, we had projections that in 2013, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2010, we had projections that in 2014, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2011, we had projections that in 2015, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Kind of like how, in 2012, we had projections that in 2016, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.

Now it's 2013. We're being told that, on a local level, municipality bankruptcies are nothing to worry about. We're being told that, on a state level, it's okay if state pension promises grow at 8% forever, because, after all, the assets under state control are growing at 3%, and, well, shut the hell up if you're gonna bring basic math into the equation. We're being told that, on a national level, health costs can increase at 9% a year forever and ever, and that's fine, because, after all, it would suck if that were the case without corresponding retirement growth, so therefore the expansion of said costs isn't happening.

Don't worry. These problems are no longer problems.

I hope you're excited to receive your check from the government surplus that was run this year. Because, after all, the CBO projected that we'd run one back in 1998.

For those who've been around long enough this is exactly what happens. The deficit problem has NOT been solved regardless of what the Obama sychophant Krugman purports. And yes regardless of who is in office this is exactly what many "current" adminstration minions do.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

The deficit problem has NOT been solved regardless of what the Obama sychophant Krugman purports. And yes regardless of who is in office this is exactly what many "current" adminstration minions do.

"Obama sycophant?" Please....

Obviously you don't follow Krugman much because he's been VERY critical of this administration.

Much of it warranted....

[Larry]

Anyone who has ever disagreed with Republican talking points is a flaming liberal.

(see: Hagel.)

Don't you know anything?

[JMS]

JMS,

No offense but Clinton was successful because the economy was booming.

The economy wasn't booming when Clinton took over, we were in a recession. A recession in which the GDP contracted 1.4%.. I think Clinton was sucessful because he was pragmatic and reasonable and in hind sight that allowed him to work relatively well with Republicans.

It's not about the tax strategy, it's about the economy.

It dumbfounds me how many Americans don't get that.

Tax revenue is dictated by the economy not by taxation.

Well with federal Income accounting for 20% of GDP and federal spending accounting for 50% of GDP; Taxes, budget and the economy are all connected.

And we are talking about tax policy not revenue.

[chipwhich]

The economy wasn't booming when Clinton took over, we were in a recession. I think Clinton was sucessful because he was pragmatic and reasonable and in hind sight that allowed him to work relatively well with Republicans.

He was successful because of the .com era. It's nice when you have a booming economy and can tax however you want.

[JMS]

"Obama sycophant?" Please....

Obviously you don't follow Krugman much because he's been VERY critical of this administration.

Much of it warranted....

Exactly right..

---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 11:58 AM ----------

Oh! Well, thank goodness, we have projections which state that our deficit problem is no longer a problem.

1. Kind of like how, in 2008, we had projections that in 2012, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.
   
2. Kind of like how, in 2009, we had projections that in 2013, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.
   
3. Kind of like how, in 2010, we had projections that in 2014, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.
   
4. Kind of like how, in 2011, we had projections that in 2015, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.
   
5. Kind of like how, in 2012, we had projections that in 2016, our deficit problem would no longer be a problem.
   
6. Now it's 2013. We're being told that, on a local level, municipality bankruptcies are nothing to worry about.
   
7. We're being told that, on a state level, it's okay if state pension promises grow at 8% forever,
   
8. the assets under state control are growing at 3%,
   
9. shut the hell up if you're gonna bring basic math into the equation.
   
10. We're being told that, on a national level, health costs can increase at 9% a year forever and ever, and that's fine, because, after all, it would suck if that were the case without corresponding retirement growth,
    
11. so therefore the expansion of said costs isn't happening.
    

Don't worry. These problems are no longer problems.

I hope you're excited to receive your check from the government surplus that was run this year. Because, after all, the CBO projected that we'd run one back in 1998.

I don't remember krugman saying any of these... I don't remember anybody saying any of these.. Not one. Please support any 4 of these statements with a source... Any Democrat ( obama lackyh).....Please support three of them.

I think Obama underestimated the depth of the recesssion, and as I remember it the "moderate" republicans stripped tens of billions of dollars out of his stimulus package. The money which was to go to local governments to support teachers, police, and other jobs. At the time Krugman was very critical of Obama for this "compromise" sayhing it condemned the country to large systemic unemployment for the foreseable future...

Krugman didn't blame the republicans, Krugman blamed Obama for being too willing to compromise and getting nothing in return.

The Destructive Center

What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?

A proud centrist.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&

The Destructive Center

( Obama's terrible Stimulus package passing into law )

But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.

After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.

Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.

Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.

And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.

In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&

[Duckus]

Krugman is a hack and shill for this administration. He's a professor, and even a Nobel award winner. Unfortunately most of his knowledge is completely within the irony tower vacuum of academia. He wants us to simply spend our way to prosperity even though it's never worked once in history. The fact that he can draw a paycheck from the NY Times just reinforces how disreputable that rag is and how deluded its owners are.

This made me think of this interaction last week in the State of the Union thread:

I wish we had more pols who had a stronger knowledge of economics but alas since it's not a hard science they'd still argue about what happened and what didn't given the results of any given govt policy.

I think you mean "I wish we had more pols who had a stronger knowledge of economics theory that I agree with."

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?379457-State-of-the-Union-2013&p=9427329#post9427329

[JMS]

He was successful because of the .com era. It's nice when you have a booming economy and can tax however you want.

Clinton left office in 2001 with a 200 billion dollar surplus... The dot com bouble pop'ed with the colapse of the stock a year earlier.

Clinton was sucessful because he raised taxes modesly, cut spending modestly and intelligently, and was fanatical about not increasing spending... Then over 8 years he allowed the growth of GDP to grow our way into surpluses... The exact same formula Obama is proposing. ( newt should get a lot of credit for Clinton's sucess too).

[chipwhich]

Clinton was sucessful because he raised taxes modesly, cut spending modestly and intelligently, and was fanatical about not increasing spending... Then over 8 years he allowed the growth of GDP to grow our way into surpluses... The exact same formula Obama is proposing. ( newt should get a lot of credit for Clinton's sucess too).

He was able to raise taxes modestly and cut spending because he presided over a booming economy with the .com era. The .com era didn't occur because of Clinton's tax plan.

Obama isn't facing the luxury of a booming .com economy, so basing a tax plan off of Bill Clinton's plan in a fledgling economy is kind of silly.

[Larry]

Don't you understand?

Whenever anything happened that doesn't fit the way I want things to be, then then I hunt around for an excuse, that I will use to ignore everything else that happened.

The dot com bubble happened during Clinton's administration. Therefore nothing that the government did, for those entire eight years, affected things in any way whatsoever.

Because I say so.

W came in, pointed at the surplus, announced that a surplus was unacceptable, cut taxes and increased defense spending. And we had a deficit. (Which W actually took credit for, but let's ignore that.) And the bubble burst (a year earlier).

Therefore the deficit was caused entirely by the bubble bursting. And none of W's actions had any effect whatsoever.

In fact, government actions never have any effect whatsoever. On the economy or on the deficit.

(Because I say so.)

(And that is why I demand that all government actions must be done the way I demand.)

[JMS]

He was able to raise taxes modestly and cut spending because he presided over a booming economy with the .com era. The .com era didn't occur because of Clinton's tax plan.

Obama isn't facing the luxury of a booming .com economy, so basing a tax plan off of Bill Clinton's plan in a fledgling economy is kind of silly.

He took over a bad economy and he grew it into a great economy through sound fiscal policy. Bush took over a pretty good economy and grew it into a bad one though mismanagemnt.

Clinton taxed middle class and wealthy people roughly the same at 39% for everybody making over $250k, he cut government spending, he focused on international trade, He held spending relatively constant... ( When Clinton took over defense had been cut 4 stratight years by 10% a year under Bush Sr. )...

Compare that to bush... He cut taxes on the wealthy, almost erased personal property taxes and inheritance taxes. He massively increased both defense and non defense descresionary spending. He regularly put large budget items off budget...

Obama isn't facing the luxury of a booming .com economy, so basing a tax plan off of Bill Clinton's plan in a fledgling economy is kind of silly.

:doh: Obama already has cut the deficit to gdp ratio by about 40% over his first four years in office largely with this formula. That's with Congress not having passed a federal budget in nearly 4 years and working against him all the way... The clinton formula is the only formula which has ever worked to decrease the deficit and burden of the national debt.

[deejaydana]

This made me think of this interaction last week in the State of the Union thread:

O

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?379457-State-of-the-Union-2013&p=9427329#post9427329

So you're a sentimentalist or just a fan of mine lol? Economics will always have a degree of being 'unreconcilable' because quite simply it's not a hard science. Oh look the UK just rec'd a credit downgrade yesterday. Krugman is a genius I tell you!

[chipwhich]

Don't you understand?

Whenever anything happened that doesn't fit the way I want things to be, then then I hunt around for an excuse, that I will use to ignore everything else that happened.

The dot com bubble happened during Clinton's administration. Therefore nothing that the government did, for those entire eight years, affected things in any way whatsoever.

Because I say so.

W came in, pointed at the surplus, announced that a surplus was unacceptable, cut taxes and increased defense spending. And we had a deficit. (Which W actually took credit for, but let's ignore that.) And the bubble burst (a year earlier).

Therefore the deficit was caused entirely by the bubble bursting. And none of W's actions had any effect whatsoever.

In fact, government actions never have any effect whatsoever. On the economy or on the deficit.

(Because I say so.)

(And that is why I demand that all government actions must be done the way I demand.)

I am not a GOPer and I am not a Dem. I am also not one that has to mention GOP in almost every post I make on Extremeskins.

I also didn't say anything negative about the Clintons. Reading comprehension.

A tax revenue strategy during a booming economy is a no brainer and it's easy to see why the government had a surplus. Here is a clue Larry, the dot com bubble didn't occur because Clinton raised taxes.

Obama isn't in the position Clinton is in. He has a tough road in front of him. Raising taxes wont recreate the Clinton years.

My post has nothing to do with GW and it wasn't political in nature. It was comparing two presidents and their tax strategies and the economies they are faced with. But Larry has to turn it political a sling mud.

But if raising taxes will turn our economy into another .com boom, bring on the taxes

---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 04:23 PM ----------

:doh: Obama already has cut the deficit to gdp ratio by about 40% over his first four years in office largely with this formula. That's with Congress not having passed a federal budget in nearly 4 years and working against him all the way... The clinton formula is the only formula which has ever worked to decrease the deficit and burden of the national debt.

Forgive me, my economics professor forgot to tell me their was a cookie cutter formula to the economy. So Clinton faced the same issues that GW and Obama face. Gotcha. Now I understand. It's the tax code stupid. (Calling myself stupid for not understanding). /sarcasm

[JMS]

W came in, pointed at the surplus, announced that a surplus was unacceptable, cut taxes and increased defense spending. And we had a deficit. (Which W actually took credit for, but let's ignore that.) And the bubble burst (a year earlier).

Yep...W. increased both defense spending and non defense discresionary spending.. while cutting revenue..and grew a 200 billion dollar surplus into our first Trillion dollar ( 1.4 trillion) dollar deficite.

I think that's the real takeaway here.... Republicans aren't interested in reducing the deficit... it's their creation. They don't care about the national debt either. Their only goal is to reduce the size of government on philosophical grounds, cut reevenue; and primise the resulting deficit and debt will more than be paid for by the resultiing economic boom.. Which we have 30 years of data and a 16 trillion dollar national debt showing us doesn't work.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 04:27 PM ----------

Forgive me, my economics professor forgot to tell me their was a cookie cutter formula to the economy. So Clinton faced the same issues that GW and Obama face. Gotcha. Now I understand. It's the tax code stupid. (Calling myself stupid for not understanding). /sarcasm

What formula did Ronald Reagan advocate? Massive increase in spending, cutting revenue... resulting in massive record deficits and massive nearly trippling the national debt he inherited..

What formual did George Bush Jr advocate... Massive increase in spending, cutting revenue, resulting in massive record deficits and doubling the national debt he inherited.....

The economy they inherited couldn't have been more different. Reagan in herited double ditig unemployment and inflation ( 21% misery index )....Bush Inherited low unemployment, and a pretty sizeable surplus....

You just aren't listening... It isn't that they all inherited the same econmy...

Clinton faced a shallow recession when he took ofifice with a pretty large deficit and debt problem.

Obama inherited an economy in free fall a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.....

In all cases sound, what we used to call fiscally conservative policies were rewareded by economic improvement, and stupid econimic policy, economic mismanagement resulted in larger debt and larger deficits.

[chipwhich]

You just aren't listening...

Clinton faced a shallow recession when he took ofifice with a pretty large deficit and debt problem.

Bush faced a 200 billion dollar surplus in revenue and a pretty sound good economy.

Obama inherited an economy in free fall a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.....

In all cases sound, what we used to call fiscally conservative policies were rewareded by economic improvement, and stupid econimic policy, economic mismanagement resulted in economic problems.

And Clinton didn't face 9/11 and multiple wars.

I hear what you are saying and don't want to get into a debate about 9/11 and should we or shouldn't we have gone to war. You are WAY oversimplifying it.

So your premise is that the .com boom occurred because of Clinton's policies.

[JMS]

And Clinton didn't face 9/11 and multiple wars.

War of choice... War where Bush attacked a country which had never attacked us, and according to his own terrorist Czar wasn't even active in international terrorism... Yeah 011 excuses everything now is that it?

I hear what you are saying and don't want to get into a debate about 9/11 and should we or shouldn't we have gone to war. You are WAY oversimplifying it.

So your premise is that the .com boom occurred because of Clinton's policies.

Then why did you bring up 0/11? My premise is not that Clinton created the dot com bouble, I merely recalled the fact that it was over a year before Clinton left office and wasn 't the cause of his balancing the budget or his booming economy.

I personally think Clinton's handling of the Japanese and our massive trade deficites were were running at the time had a lot to do with the immproved economy at least early on...

[PeterMP]

"While beating up on the Republicans is pretty much child's play, it is necessary to do a little homework for the demolition of the Democrats. The Democrats rely on their great myth: Bill Clinton made the hard choices, cutting spending and raising taxes. This led not only to a balanced budget, but to large surpluses. As former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said, he had the privilege as Treasury Secretary to be buying back federal debt. In this story, the economy was rewarded with strong growth, low unemployment, and a declining national debt, all by virtue of President Clinton's courage in reducing the budget deficit.

It's a nice story, but it's long past time that we put this fairy tale to rest. In 1996, after all the "hard choices" had been made (subsequent changes on net raised the budget deficit), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was still projecting a deficit of 2.5 percent of GDP (@$460 billion in today's economy) for 2000. The reason that we ended up with a surplus of $240 billion instead of a deficit of approximately the same size was that the economy grew much more rapidly than had been expected, pushing the unemployment rate down to 4.0 percent in 2000, rather than the 6.0 percent projected ."

"There were two reasons that the economy grew so rapidly over this four-year period. First, Alan Greenspan allowed it to grow. The conventional wisdom in the economics profession at the time was that the rate of inflation would increase dangerously if the unemployment rate fell below 6.0 percent. This view implied that the Fed should raise interest rates to slow the economy and keep people from getting jobs once the unemployment rate was near 6.0 percent.

Greenspan was not an orthodox economist. As a result, he was prepared to allow the unemployment rate to continue to drop through the late 90s, over-riding the objections of the Clinton appointees to the Fed."

"The other reason that the economy grew so rapidly and the deficit flipped to a surplus was the stock market bubble. This bubble propelled growth both directly by allowing Internet start-ups to finance half-baked schemes. The investment from these projects generated demand, just like any make-work project, even if the companies never had a prayer of making a profit."

Here's the kicker:

"In short, the real story of the balanced budget in the '90s had little to do with Clinton's hard choices. It was attributable on the one hand to an eclectic Fed chairman who was prepared to ignore the orthodoxy within the economics profession and allow the unemployment rate to fall to levels generally thought impossible to attain by economists. On the other hand, it was driven by an unsustainable asset bubble."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/budget-bunk-the-old-pox-o_b_1466789.html

And that's from a liberal PhD economists that predicted the housing bubble.

Here's another post by the same guy:

"Just as little kids have to come to grips with the fact that there is no Santa Claus, it is necessary for millions of liberals, including many who think of themselves as highly knowledgeable about economic matters, to realize that President Clinton's policies sent the economy seriously off course."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/there-is-no-santa-claus-a_b_2362845.html

Here's a small comment by Krugman himself:

"Um, I never claimed that it was all Clinton’s achievement. Nor did what I said have anything to do with the sources of the growth (it wasn’t all a bubble, but that’s another issue)."

Now, that would suggest to me that he's at least willing to give a lot of the "credit" to the tech bubble.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/clinton-derangement-syndrome/

[Larry]

Oh, I haven't seen anybody claim that Bill Clinton had this magic formula which, if followed, will produce budget surpluses.

All I've seen in this thread is people claiming that holding down the rate of growth of spending, and letting GDP grow, will tend to reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP.

(A claim which I think recent history at least supports.)

I don't think I've ever seen a single person claim that Clinton was 100% responsible for the "surplus". Or that W was 100% responsible for the following deficit.

(I do, however, think I've seen people attempt to claim that Clinton's surplus and W's deficit owed zero credit to their respective policies.)

[JMS]

Oh, I haven't seen anybody claim that Bill Clinton had this magic formula which, if followed, will produce budget surpluses.

All I've seen in this thread is people claiming that holding down the rate of growth of spending, and letting GDP grow, will tend to reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP.

(A claim which I think recent history at least supports.)

I don't think I've ever seen a single person claim that Clinton was 100% responsible for the "surplus". Or that W was 100% responsible for the following deficit.

(I do, however, think I've seen people attempt to claim that Clinton's surplus and W's deficit owed zero credit to their respective policies.)

Yeah I would go further than you.. While I wouldn't give Clinton all the credit for his economic sucess as the result was fruit from intense confontations with Newt where both had to compromise and neither really got what they wanted. Newt deserves in my eyes a lot if not more credit than Clinton for the budgets and deficit decreases... Still if all Clinton did was not screw it up... He's still one of the most sucessful econmic Presidents in my lifetime.

On the other hand I definitely place most of the blame for the Bush Jr financial debacle upon Bush and the GOP. After all, bush told us what he was going to do... then went a head and did it. I don't see how anybody can then say he wasn't mostly responsible. It's really the GOP shuffle now.... cut revenue, increase spending, shout to everybody who will listen that the resulting econic activity will more than pay for the deficits and debt you are wracking up.. only it never does... I'll tell you that's what Bush did.. Cheney did one better... He flat out said "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter".... And to the GOP they don't unless a democrat is in charge and they need a political spike to poke him with. Not for eight years under Reagan, not for eght years under Bush Jr did deficits matter. Not to newly minted fiscally conservative Paul Ryan who voted for all of Bush's insane spending, nore any of the other GOP empty shirts who are trying to brand themselves as fiscally responsible now a democrat is in charge..... There formula is one for massive deficits and record debt.. It's the only play in their playbook and they run it more times than George Allen ran poor Larry Brown up the gut.

IT is their playbook... It's what Paul Ryan's budget detailed... It's what Mitt Romney ran his campagne on... It's what the Entire GOP congress endorsed. Cut Revenue, Massive new spending... don't worry about the deficits, trust us..

IT's what the freaking congress if they had a GOP president would be doing today.... We know this because they all endorsed the Ryan and Romney Budgets which left the Deficit untouched for 20 years and never balanced the budget. Deficits and debt reduction aren't their priority.

[Larry]

Yeah I would go further than you.. While I wouldn't give Clinton all the credit for his economic sucess as the result was fruit from intense confontations with Newt where both had to compromise and neither really got what they wanted. Newt deserves in my eyes a lot if not more credit than Clinton for the budgets and deficit decreases... Still if all Clinton did was not screw it up... He's still one of the most sucessful econmic Presidents in my lifetime.

Yes, I certainly think Congress deserves some blame/credit, too.

But I've seen a lot of GOP spinmeisters trying to claim that the credit is entirely Republican. And I keep pointing out that Clinton reduced the deficit before the Republicans took over, too.

Really, IMO, the only way to decide how to apportion credit/blame between Congress and the President, is to pay attention to what each of them are doing. Because, realistically, everything that gets done, is done by both of them. So all you can do is look at which direction each of them was pulling, at the time.

(And most voters think that's too complicated.)