Originally Posted By Dabob2 History isn't limited to this thread alone. We've been over this on earlier threads, with you initially claiming that the GOP budgets were markedly different than Clinton's proposed ones. I challenged you on that months ago, and I've been waiting ever since for you to show me the numbers. Still waiting.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We've been over this on earlier threads, with you initially claiming that the GOP budgets were markedly different than Clinton's proposed ones.> You're still revising history. I never made such a claim, because there's no reason to. Anyone who takes a reasonable look at the evidence will see it was the policies of the Republican Congress which led to a balanced budget.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think you did make that claim - otherwise, why would I have challenged you to provide the numbers, which you still haven't done? (And I won't hold my breath). And I think any fair-minded person would see that since the budgets proposed by Clinton did not differ markedly by those eventually adopted - AND since a GOP Congress with a GOP President has sent the deficit northward again - that Clinton deserves plenty of credit for getting the budget balanced, though not 100% of course.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think you did make that claim - otherwise, why would I have challenged you to provide the numbers, which you still haven't done?> Same reason you repeated the challenge here - so I would spend hours searching for the actual numbers just so we could then argue about the definition of "markedly different".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 LOL. I don't think so, but if you did ever find the numbers, we probably would.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It would be especially useless since I've already argued on other threads that it doesn't take "markedly different" amounts to bring the budget into balance. All it takes is a percentage or two less growth in federal spending for a few years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You've argued that, but never showed THOSE numbers either. i.e. given the deficit we faced in 1995, how much a 1 or 2 percent difference in the final budget number would have made. Nor is there any refuting that during Clinton's first two years (with a Democratic house), the deficit also shrunk quite nicely. And that under Bush II with a GOP house, it has risen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Nor is there any refuting that on the day President Clinton took office, the economy was improving, while on the day President Bush took office, the economy was on a downswing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Nor is there any refuting that Clinton KEPT a good economy for 8 years, while Bush's has been decidedly mixed (and for the poorest Americans, getting worse).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "A review of Administration statements on the 1993 tax increase proposal shows very clearly how its proponents expected it to affect the economy. The cornerstone of the argument was that the Clinton budget plan would "grow" the economy by lowering interest rates. Lower interest rates were the key link defining exactly how Clinton policy would boost the economy. However, soon after enactment of the Clinton program in August of 1993, the Administration revised its economic growth assumptions downward for 1993 and 1994, and shortly thereafter long term interest rates began rising, not falling." "Moreover, the pace of GDP growth slowed from the 3.7 percent annual growth rate set in 1992 (measured 4th quarter to 4th quarter) to 2.2 percent in 1993, 3.5 percent in 1994, and 1.3 percent in 1995. The rate of economic growth did not accelerate relative to its 1992 pace under the 1993 budget policies." "Furthermore, all of the 1993 tax increase has been used to finance additional domestic and entitlement federal spending increases. Since 1995, the more recent progress in fiscal 1996 is due to faster than expected revenue growth and slower outlay growth, especially the savings due to Congressional actions to restrain spending." <a href="http://www.house.gov/jec/fisca" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/jec/fisca</a> l/budget/whither3/whither3.htm
Originally Posted By Dabob2 LOL! A link to the GOP house quoting selective stats and giving itself all the credit. Who'd have thought?? I could just as easily link to Clinton himself taking credit, but that would look as ridiculous as your link just did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 GDP is one measurement. There are many others, and I bet if you checked Clinton's website, he'd be playing up the ones that made HIM look good. That you'd buy into such a selective, self-congratulating site is telling.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <GDP is one measurement. There are many others, and I bet if you checked Clinton's website, he'd be playing up the ones that made HIM look good. That you'd buy into such a selective, self-congratulating site is telling.> That's a no then?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Hello? It's a "look deeper than self-serving stats given from one viewpoint unless you want to look extremely shallow."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's like me asking "Did deficits decline under Clinton before the GOP took over the House? Yes or no?" Come to think of it, I DID ask just that. And you didn't answer with a yes or no. Instead, you responded with the self-serving house site offering the one stat on GDP. I'm aware of how you operate, which is I think what bothers you.
