JMS Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 " First, Alan Greenspan allowed it to grow. :doh: Then how does he explain away the surpluses for 1998, 1999, and 2001; if the surplus in 2000 was a fluke attributed solely to shifty Greenspan? So Gingrich doesn't get any credit for balancing the budget even though that's basically his job ( passing the budget), and President Clinton doesn't get any credit as they made slow steady progress over his eight years..... Zero.. Nada... Zilcho Mingus?... that's your position... Bill Clinton took over in 1993 and inherited that year... and he left the budget in 2001 to GW.. Year --------------- Surplus or (–) Deficit --------------- * Speaker of the House 1993 ----------------255,051------------------------------ *Tom Foley (d) 1994 ----------------203,186------------------------------ *Tom Foley (d) 1995 ----------------163,952------------------------------ *Tom Foley (d) ----(*) Folly left office Jan 1995 well into the fiscal year) 1996 ----------------107,431------------------------------ *Gingrich ® 1997 ----------------21,884 ------------------------------ *Gingrich ® 1998 ---------------69,270 ------------------------------ *Gingrich ® 1999 ---------------125,610------------------------------ *Gingrich ® --- (*)left office Nov 1998 after the budget was passed for 1999 2000 ---------------236,241------------------------------ *Dennis Hastert ® 2001 ---------------128,236------------------------------ *Dennis Hastert ® 2002 ----------------157,758------------------------------ *Dennis Hastert ® ----------------- Georgie's first Budget!!. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls I think the country saw what Alan Greenspan was made off when he went to Capital hill in defense of George W. Bush's out of control deficite creating budgets. Alan Greenspan wasn't ever his own man.. He was always doing the bidding of the executives who kept him in office... Doing it pretty well too except for a what a few trillion dollar mistake. Oh and let's not forget this jem.. When then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill counseled against further tax cuts because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war in Afghanistan, Cheney informed him that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter," according to Paul O'Neill's book. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/dick_cheney_to_congressional_r.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 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? 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... My only point was taxation doesn't necessarily create increased revenue for the Government. This taxation for revenue is overstated by many of the tailgate Dems. Obama even said hey it worked for Clinton it will work for me. (Paraphrasing of course). I wasn't trying to compare Clinton, Bush, and Obama's policies. They are all different situations. Our problems during the Bush years weren't as simple as "oh he reduced taxes and got us into this mess". And before Larry pipes in, I am not saying anything about what mess Bush left Obama. Just talking taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 My only point was taxation doesn't necessarily create increased revenue for the Government. Actually Taxes literally create revenue for the government.... You are correct of coarse I can envision a taxation policy which would be counter productive.. excessively high taxes lets say of 75% across the board or some such nonsense. But that's not what is being discussed... What is being discussed is moving from historical low taxes in the Post WWII era, to still historical low taxes in the Post WWII era..... But What you say is not even what the Republican position is. The Republicans believe cutting taxes and dramatically increasing spending will fuel economic growth such that it will offset the reduced revenue... They've done this for 20 of the last 30 years, and it's never worked... Never has cutting taxes and raising spending ever not created huge deficits.. They tried it in California, independently the 8th largest economy in the world and nearly bankrupted the sate...So what did Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney want to do if elected.... Slash Revenue, Increase Government Spending... Leave the Deficit unchecked for 20 years... No balanced budget ever in sight. This taxation for revenue is overstated by many of the tailgate Dems. Obama even said hey it worked for Clinton it will work for me. (Paraphrasing of course). To be fair Clinton and Obama had very modest tax hikes. at least so far for Obama. I wasn't trying to compare Clinton, Bush, and Obama's policies. They are all different situations. Our problems during the Bush years weren't as simple as "oh he reduced taxes and got us into this mess". Of coarse not, he also tripled the defense budget and dramatically increased discretionary spending while fighting two wars off budget and passing a health care reform bill which was about the same cost as Obama care only Bush didn't pay for a dime of it... left it all off budget... Katrina relief... off budget..... Stimulus package...... off budget.... GM bail out... off budget... And before Larry pipes in, I am not saying anything about what mess Bush left Obama. Just talking taxes Bush was a complete picture.. he was bad across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Actually Taxes literally create revenue for the government..... Well that is like saying oranges are orange. I never said taxes don't create revenue. Of course taxes create revenue. I said increasing taxes doesn't mean increased revenue. But everyone likes to stump on the tax policy. Here is a good link for you. http://mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues As far as Bush, of course wars cost money. There is no use in rehashing whether we should have gone to war, it's been done ad-nauseum. Obama could have brought our troops home but he hasn't. But that's neither here or there. The economy is what brings in revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 Well that is like saying oranges are orange. I never said taxes don't create revenue. Of course taxes create revenue. I said increasing taxes doesn't mean increased revenue. But everyone likes to stump on the tax policy. But Oranges aren't Orange.. they dye them...... But Yeah I think I understand your point. As far as Bush, of course wars cost money. There is no use in rehashing whether we should have gone to war, it's been done ad-nauseum. Obama could have brought our troops home but he hasn't. But that's neither here or there. Obama inherited the same wars.. and he's ended the war in Iraq is on schedule to end the war in Afghanistan... The economy is what brings in revenue. Not without taxes it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Wait, what? someone goes into my backyard and dyes the oranges before I pick them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Obama inherited the same wars.. and he's ended the war in Iraq is on schedule to end the war in Afghanistan... Sure 6 years into his presidency. Not without taxes it doesn't. Who is suggesting no taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 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. That's a strong point... I had to go look that up, you are absolutely correct.. Tom Foley(d) was speaker of the house for Clinton's first three budgets. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 11:37 PM ---------- Wait, what?someone goes into my backyard and dyes the oranges before I pick them? No Kilmer17 you eat brown oranges... not the rich bright Orange Oranges the rest of us eat.? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071104165349AAQ3WYj ---------- Post added February-23rd-2013 at 11:45 PM ---------- Sure 6 years into his presidency. Yep... he's basically ending the wars on the timetables laid out by President Bush. It's one reason why he's in such deep dutch with liberals.. His pragmatism... Who is suggesting no taxes Anybody who takes the position that the historically low taxes under Bill Clinton on the top 1-2% need to be even further reduced, ( THE SINGLE BIGGEST DISCRESSIONARY CONTRIBUTOR TO THE HUGE DEFICITES GEORGE BUSH RAN ) and further takes the position returning them back to the Clinton era +3% on folks making 250,000 or more... Needs to be reminded that a good economy won't increase revenue if you don't tax that economy. And yes the incredible low taxes are hurting the econmy because they mean we have these huge deficits... which contributes to all this uncertainty... which is keeping people from re-investing profits. It used to be fiscal conservatives who would tell folks that any time you cut taxes while not cutting spending as Bush did; you are actually raising taxes down the road... Somebody has to pay for those cuts... Coarse those fiscal conservatives are all democrats now, saying the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Yep... he's basically ending the wars on the timetables laid out by President Bush. It's one reason why he's in such deep dutch with liberals.. His pragmatism... I haven't seen anyone say he is in deep dutch with liberals. Thanks for letting us know. Anybody who takes the position that the historically low taxes under Bill Clinton on the top 1-2% need to be even further reduced, ( THE SINGLE BIGGEST DISCRESSIONARY CONTRIBUTOR TO THE HUGE DEFICITES GEORGE BUSH RAN ) and further takes the position returning them back to the Clinton era +3% on folks making 250,000 or more... Needs to be reminded that a good economy won't increase revenue if you don't tax that economy. And yes the incredible low taxes are hurting the econmy because they mean we have these huge deficits... which contributes to all this uncertainty... which is keeping people from re-investing profits. It used to be fiscal conservatives who would tell folks that any time you cut taxes while not cutting spending as Bush did; you are actually raising taxes down the road... Somebody has to pay for those cuts... Coarse those fiscal conservatives are all democrats now, saying the same thing. Huh? Please reread your post. This reads like slop you feed to the hogs and further makes my point. So basically you are saying tax increases will fix the economy and Obama was a fool to cut SS taxes. I am not sure your argument other than saying tax policies drive the economy. But if you could clarify I am all ears. Taxation under the Clinton years and the Clinton economy are paramount in turning our current situation around. It's a formula that our economists just don't understand. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 24, 2013 Author Share Posted February 24, 2013 I haven't seen anyone say he is in deep dutch with liberals. Thanks for letting us know. Then you haven't been listenning.. The progressive case against Obama http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/ Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a liberal) - Salon.com www.salon.com/2011/08/05/obama_fdr_debt_ceiling/ Who are you calling a Liberal? If Obama is liberalism's standard bearer, liberalism's in bad shape http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112339# Liberals Turn Against Obama: Atheist Bill Maher Says Obama & Bush Are Same On Foreign Policy http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/02/4641-liberals-turn-against-obama-atheist-bill-maher-says-obama-bush-are-same-on-foreign-policy/ Liberal Mags Lambaste Obama http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/10/27/liberal-mags-lambaste-obama/ Obama is no Liberal http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/obama-is-no-liberal/308157/ Obama the Moderate Conservative - NYTimes.com http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/obama-the-moderate-conservative/ Obama Faces Liberal Revolt over Tax Cut Deal http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024748-503544.html On the Left, Seeing Obama Giving Away Too Much, Again http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/some-liberals-say-obama-squandered-his-tax-leverage.html?_r=0 That's why Obama had to hit the liberal bell so hard in his recent state of the Union... Because he was fracturing the Party. He's not a liberal, he's a Pragmatic right leaning moderate.... To be truethful the Dems haven't elected a liberal President since Johnson.. Every Dem since Johnson has been a moderate conservative who pushed to the center to get elected like Clinton, Like Obama. While every conservative since Reagan has pushed to the Right to charge up the base... Like Reagan, Like Bush's... ( bush Sr. didn't do it very well ). So basically you are saying tax increases will fix the economy and Obama was a fool to cut SS taxes. No I'm saying a balanced aproach to fixing the deficits is the only thing that has ever and will ever work. Modestly raising revenue... Modestly cutting spending, Holding down increases, and Time for the GDP to grow is a reasonable even conservative approach to fixing the economy... Further I'm sayhing cutting revenue, raising spending, and trusting that the ecomy will grow enough to keep the deficit from bollooning is a proven formula for doubling even trippling the national Debt. Tripling it like Reagain did ( +280%) or doubling the national debt like Bush did . Taxation under the Clinton years and the Clinton economy are paramount in turning our current situation around. It's a formula that our economists just don't understand. Gotcha. :doh: Funny you should use those exact words...Economists certainly understand this "Formula". Only the GOP's brain trust on the economy don't listen to modern Economists... That's because they are fanatics...Paul Ryan the guy who wrote the budget which the GOP endorsed believes in the Austian School of Economics.. The Ausrian school of economics was discredited about 100 years ago; It doesn't believe in mathmatical models... So yes Paul Ryan literally doesn't have THE FORMULA because his approach doesn't rely on formulas. And remember he's the guy who voted for Bush's budgets as he was spending like a drunk Sailor and his VP was saying things like "Deficits don't matter"... And he's the guy who's own budget didn't reduce the Deficit for 20 years!... and never resulted in a balanced budget.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.