Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<When we got a GOP president paired with a GOP congress, the deficits went through the roof.>> <The deficits have not gone through the roof. When stated as a percentage of the GDP, they're fairly low.> Compared to Reagan's deficits, maybe. Compared to Clinton - well, we all know the answer to that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But - once again - if you look at the budgets that Clinton proposed and the ones that congress eventually enacted, they are NOT that different. I notice you've never disputed this.> What's to dispute? It's your opinion - the difference between the two budgets was significant enough to allow the Republicans to eliminate the deficit much earlier than President Clinton ever proposed. <And - once again - when we got a GOP congress AND a GOP president, the deficits started rising again.> We had a recession and an heinous attack against us, as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But - once again - if you look at the budgets that Clinton proposed and the ones that congress eventually enacted, they are NOT that different. I notice you've never disputed this.> <What's to dispute? It's your opinion -> It's not simply my opinion. The numbers show very little difference. <the difference between the two budgets was significant enough to allow the Republicans to eliminate the deficit much earlier than President Clinton ever proposed.> Nice try, but no. Again, all Clinton objected to were some of the more draconian cuts the GOP proposed. He restored them, and still the numbers were not that different. Clinton campaigned on closing the deficits, of course; on a tax hike for upper income and a tax break for the middle class. When he got in office he enacted only the former specifically because the red ink was so out of hand under Reagan and Bush. And it worked. The deficits started to close. Deficits went from 290B in '92 (Bush's last year) to 255B in '93 to 203B in '94 - all this before the GOP took over congress in early '95. The '95 deficit showed a further decline to 164B, but this is actually a smaller decline than from '93 to '94 - so clearly Clinton's policies had already started the country in the right direction and the GOP has been claiming way too much credit for the subsequent years (although they deserve a little). <<And - once again - when we got a GOP congress AND a GOP president, the deficits started rising again.>> <We had a recession and an heinous attack against us, as well.> They account for some, but hardly all of that. And what's the excuse now for things like the ridiculously pork-laden highway bill the GOP leadership just rammed through (and Bush signed), or the Medicare prescription benefit that amounts to a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that they also rammed through and that amounts to an unfunded entitlement that will grow like a monster?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not simply my opinion. The numbers show very little difference.> "very little" is a subjective measurement. <Clinton campaigned on closing the deficits, of course; on a tax hike for upper income and a tax break for the middle class. When he got in office he enacted only the former specifically because the red ink was so out of hand under Reagan and Bush.> As if the deficit changed between November 1992 and January 1993. And again, deficits were falling under Reagan, and went up under Bush because he agreed to the greater spending the Democrats wanted. <And what's the excuse now for things like the ridiculously pork-laden highway bill the GOP leadership just rammed through (and Bush signed), or the Medicare prescription benefit that amounts to a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that they also rammed through and that amounts to an unfunded entitlement that will grow like a monster?> I don't recall any prominent Democrats complaining those things were costing too much; I recall them complaining we weren't spending enough. But let's get back to tax cuts. Can you point to a tax cut where revenues didn't rise faster in the five years after the tax cut than they rose in the five years before the tax cut?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It's not simply my opinion. The numbers show very little difference.>> <"very little" is a subjective measurement.> Also a mathmatical one. Go ahead - show me the difference between what Clinton proposed and what Congress enacted. Or between what Reagan proposed and his Dem. congresses enacted. There's NOT that much difference. That you continue to infer there was without showing there were speaks volumes. <<Clinton campaigned on closing the deficits, of course; on a tax hike for upper income and a tax break for the middle class. When he got in office he enacted only the former specifically because the red ink was so out of hand under Reagan and Bush.>> <As if the deficit changed between November 1992 and January 1993.> Um, I gave the deficit numbers for the full years '92, '93, and '94. They fell under Clinton BEFORE the GOP congress came in. Period. <And again, deficits were falling under Reagan, and went up under Bush because he agreed to the greater spending the Democrats wanted.> Deficits rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president. They fell at the end of his second term because we had a bit of a recovery (recovery from the '82 recession, which was the worst since the Great Depression) - which promptly became recession again under Bush I. Hmmmmmmm. And nice try at blaming Congress yet again for Bush's deficits. Unless you can show me a great difference between what HE proposed and what Congress enacted. <<And what's the excuse now for things like the ridiculously pork-laden highway bill the GOP leadership just rammed through (and Bush signed), or the Medicare prescription benefit that amounts to a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that they also rammed through and that amounts to an unfunded entitlement that will grow like a monster?>> <I don't recall any prominent Democrats complaining those things were costing too much; I recall them complaining we weren't spending enough.> Then you either don't read much, or only read your favored right-wing sites which don't challenge your views. I remember Democrats complaining that the prescription bill was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would be a minimal benefit to seniors at a huge cost to the economy. It was almost defeated, but for some extraordinary measures by the GOP leadership (holding the vote open longer than usual, bribing a skeptical GOP member with support for his son's candidacy...). AND complaining that the real cost of the measure was fudged and that the GOP leadership knew this. <But let's get back to tax cuts. Can you point to a tax cut where revenues didn't rise faster in the five years after the tax cut than they rose in the five years before the tax cut?> I already debunked your tax cut mantra with the link I posted earlier.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That you continue to infer there was without showing there were speaks volumes.> That you continue to claim there wasn't without showing it speaks volumes as well. <Um, I gave the deficit numbers for the full years '92, '93, and '94. They fell under Clinton BEFORE the GOP congress came in. Period.> Yeah I was remarking on the fact that you actually are buying the Clinton myth that he intended to give the middle class a tax cut. The economy was increasing at a faster rate before Clinton's tax increase than it did afterward. The best that can be said for the tax increase was that it was mild enough that it didn't completely stop economic growth. <Deficits rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president.> In real dollars, sure. But the GDP also rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That you continue to infer there was without showing there were speaks volumes.> That you continue to claim there wasn't without showing it speaks volumes as well. <Um, I gave the deficit numbers for the full years '92, '93, and '94. They fell under Clinton BEFORE the GOP congress came in. Period.> Yeah I was remarking on the fact that you actually are buying the Clinton myth that he intended to give the middle class a tax cut. The economy was increasing at a faster rate before Clinton's tax increase than it did afterward. The best that can be said for the tax increase was that it was mild enough that it didn't completely stop economic growth. <Deficits rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president.> In real dollars, sure. But the GDP also rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I remember Democrats complaining that the prescription bill was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would be a minimal benefit to seniors at a huge cost to the economy.> And their response was a program that would cost the nation even more money. <I already debunked your tax cut mantra with the link I posted earlier.> So that's a no, right? Sorry for the double post earlier.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That you continue to infer there was without showing there were speaks volumes.>> <That you continue to claim there wasn't without showing it speaks volumes as well.> Weak, and typical. It was you who claimed that the GOP deserved all or most of the credit for the move from deficit to surplus in the 90's; I challenged you to show how much the proposed Clinton budgets varied from the budgets the congress enacted - or how much the Reagan budgets differed from the ones ultimately enacted - and you couldn't. That one's on you. <<Um, I gave the deficit numbers for the full years '92, '93, and '94. They fell under Clinton BEFORE the GOP congress came in. Period.>> <Yeah I was remarking on the fact that you actually are buying the Clinton myth that he intended to give the middle class a tax cut.> Neither of us knows if he actually intended to or not. My guess is he did; most presidents get most of what they want in their first 100 days (especially with a congress of their own party), and most are loathe to break a campaign promise so early when everyone's paying attention. So I think it most likely that he intended to enact it, but when he actually got to the white house he took a harder look at the numbers and concluded it wasn't wise at that point. <The economy was increasing at a faster rate before Clinton's tax increase than it did afterward. The best that can be said for the tax increase was that it was mild enough that it didn't completely stop economic growth.> No, the best that can be said for it is that it did exactly what it was intended to do: closed the budget deficits while still keeping the economy growing. Imagine that. And, of course, that's all that a lot of us are calling for today; restoration of the tax policies of Clinton. Shrinking deficits, growing economy. <<Deficits rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president.>> <In real dollars, sure. But the GDP also rose under Reagan to a higher level than under any previous president.> And the deficit as a percentage of GDP was certainly much higher under Reagan than Clinton, now wasn't it? <<I remember Democrats complaining that the prescription bill was a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would be a minimal benefit to seniors at a huge cost to the economy.>> <And their response was a program that would cost the nation even more money.> Show me the specific proposal and its cost, please, if you're going to make such a statement. I won't hold my breath. <<I already debunked your tax cut mantra with the link I posted earlier.>> <So that's a no, right?> Nope. The figures debunked you quite nicely all on their own. Plus I notice you're moving the goalposts again. As I said a while back: "If you can credit increased revenues to tax cuts x-number of years after the cut (even if there were reduced revenues in between) and then change the number that x represents as you look at different presidencies - well, that's an easy game to play." The conclusion of my link bears repeating too: "In sum, supply-siders have no obvious success stories to point to. Indeed, almost all the historical evidence runs against them."
