What happened to the Clinton Surplus??

[Boxingtech718v2]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...rNF_story.html

It's no wonder we are in this debt mess now. Massive tax cuts, increase spending, and fight two wars on borrowed money. Then on top of that bailout the corporations. Are politicians just trying to ruin this country on purpose?
I guess they never heard of the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it"
Excerpt from the main article:

What to do with the surplus became a central issue of the 2000 presidential campaign, with Vice President Al Gore arguing that much of it should be put in a “lockbox” to protect Social Security and Medicare. Bush pushed for a broad tax cut, arguing that taxpayers at all income levels were owed a refund. “Some say that the growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend, but they’ve got it backwards,” Bush said as he accepted the GOP nomination in August 2000. “The surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”

As soon as he took office, Bush pushed Congress to make good on his tax pledge. Less than a week after his inauguration, he got a boost from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who testified before the Senate Budget Committee that “tax reduction appears required” to prevent the federal government from accumulating too much cash. Greenspan feared that large surpluses would turn the government into the nation’s largest investor, creating distortions in the markets.

Congress approved a $1.35 trillion tax cut in record time. A second package, worth $350 billion, followed in 2003. Together, they constituted one of the largest tax cuts since World War II, according to the conservative Tax Foundation.

[Boxingtech718v2]

No takers?

[squealpiggy]

This is a good argument for fiscal conservatism:

What to do with the surplus became a central issue of the 2000 presidential campaign, with Vice President Al Gore arguing that much of it should be put in a “lockbox” to protect Social Security and Medicare. Bush pushed for a broad tax cut, arguing that taxpayers at all income levels were owed a refund. “Some say that the growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend, but they’ve got it backwards,” Bush said as he accepted the GOP nomination in August 2000. “The surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”

However the issue is that people who advocate tax cuts in times of surplus tend not to advocate tax increases in times of scarcity, leading to issues like we have today where the war chest is empty.

[Boxingtech718v2]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

This is a good argument for fiscal conservatism:



However the issue is that people who advocate tax cuts in times of surplus tend not to advocate tax increases in times of scarcity, leading to issues like we have today where the war chest is empty.

Why does common sense seem so uncommon in politics?

[- v e t -]

Originally Posted by Boxingtech718v2

No takers?

i dont remember specifics but i do remember reading that its really more of a myth than anything

this isnt what i read but the first google result

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

its in the past and its more L vs R nonsense at this point, but there's stuff out there worth reading for either side if you're interesting

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Originally Posted by Boxingtech718v2

Why does common sense seem so uncommon in politics?

Because it's about getting elected FIRST, fixing the issues second.

The best thing the Republicans can do right now, is hope the economy stays the way it is so they can win the White House. Obama's success, even if it is good for the country, isn't an option right now for the Republicans.

[- v e t -]

Originally Posted by Cuauhtémoc1502

Because it's about getting elected FIRST, fixing the issues second.

The best thing the Republicans can do right now, is hope the economy stays the way it is so they can win the White House. Obama's success, even if it is good for the country, isn't an option right now for the Republicans.

its NEVER about 'fixing the issues'

not first, not last... never

[AKATheMack]

Originally Posted by - v e t -

its NEVER about 'fixing the issues'

not first, not last... never

Agree. Sometimes pushing an agenda does fix certain issues, but its coincidental.

[Boxingtech718v2]

Originally Posted by - v e t -

its NEVER about 'fixing the issues'

not first, not last... never

Ain't that freaking right these clowns are willing to default just for political gain.

[vercingetorix3]

Originally Posted by Cuauhtémoc1502

Because it's about getting elected FIRST, fixing the issues second.

The best thing the Republicans can do right now, is hope the economy stays the way it is so they can win the White House. Obama's success, even if it is good for the country, isn't an option right now for the Republicans.

Originally Posted by - v e t -

its NEVER about 'fixing the issues'

not first, not last... never

Originally Posted by AKATheMack

Agree. Sometimes pushing an agenda does fix certain issues, but its coincidental.

Originally Posted by Boxingtech718v2

Ain't that freaking right these clowns are willing to default just for political gain.

Here's one solution to the problem you just proposed:



Republicans need to end the warfare state (including ending operations in Japan, Germany, etc.) and start to repeal their fiscally irresponsible Medicare Part D.

Democrats need to start to end the welfare state (means test, raise the retirement age, let people opt out, etc.).