I just don't see how people can knock a tax cut. Period. The alternative is what? The money spent by the government on things the politicians want to spend it on? Hopefully there will be some pressure to keep government spending down thanks to the tax cut. As for Social Security...is that really such a great deal? Why should lower income workers be taxed today to pay benefits to old people who have more than enough to take care of themselves? It seems like the assumption of every argument against Bush's proposals is that the people are too stupid to take care of themselves, therefore the government must take care of all. I recognize that like it or not, there will always be pressure in the US for some form of redistribution...so why not do it to help those who need it, and not a mammoth one size fits all program for everyone...no matter if you need it or not? Like Social Security for example...why not means test it and provide assistance to those who really need it? And allow workers to keep more of what they earn? Gee...lower taxes, the people who need help get it, and workers have more money to help themselves and perhaps even save a little for the future... sounds fine to me. Or are we all just so stupid that we need the intelligensia to manage our lives for us?
<B>SpaceCity, that's exactly what I thought I had heard about this rebate!! It's an advance on the taxes you WILL be paying this year... if you're single and usually get back about $300 at the end of the year... </B> Just to clarify, this is sort-of correct. Even without the "tax rebate", you would have gotten this $300 back as a refund next year. However, it WAS a part of the "tax cut" -- that is, you wouldn't have gotten it next year unless the tax cut was passed. The reasoning is this: Normally, tax cuts are done one-year in advance. That is, if we cut taxes today, they would take effect beginning Jan 1, 2002. This tax cut was done retroactively -- in April or whenever, they passed a tax cut that began Jan 1, 2001. In effect, your employer was withholding more than would be necessary using the new tax withholding amounts, and instead of making you wait until April 2002 to get your refund, they gave you this part of it now or whenever you get your check. Hope that makes sense. <B> The main problem is that congressmen will spend any money that shows up as a "surplus". Debt reduction? Don't count on it. </B> MrSpur, that's simply not true. The last two years have had extensive budget surpluses that were spent on debt reduction. <B>Clinton deserves credit that he found it politically worthwhile to go along with the Congress on budgetary matters after 1994. </b> While he did go along with Congress in regards to the balanced budget, the entire budget design was primarily Clinton's. The whole reason for the government shutdowns were a debate over whose balanced budget to use. In the end, the Republicans caved in on most spending priorities and essentially used Clinton's budget as the starting point. <B>As for the performance of the US economy in the 90s...Clinton had very little to do with that. </B> Really? Show me some facts. There's plenty of evidence that the US Government (not Clinton individually, but our budget and spending priorities) influenced the mid-to-late 90's growth. The most obvious is the balanced budget. This created a lack of new T-Bills and helped keep low real interest rates a viable option. By having to invest $200,000,000 less in government bonds, that created $200B more funds for real-world investment. That, in turn, spurs technological growth and efficiency increases which were at the core of the entire expansion. That part is just fairly basic economics. Outside of that, Clinton influenced consumer confidence, low-tech spending, etc. <B>Why is it bad for the taxpayers to keep more of what they earn after the government is funded and some debt is retired? </B> It isn't bad. However, the debt has not been retired, and now it is no longer even being retired at all. The government, on behalf of the American people, built up a $4 trillion debt, and needs to pay it back.
...and on spending increases. As I stated, Clinton went along with Congress on budgetary matters. Congress may have lost the battle, but won the war. Of course, rates on treasuries started to decline within a couple of months of the Republican congressional election victories in '94. The balanced budget was not a primary cause of the economic growth of the mid to late 90s. Neither was Clinton's "influence" on consumer confidence. Sorry, but that's just basic economics. So it made a mistake, and wants someone else to pick up the tab?
<B>...and on spending increases. </B> And now we have spending increases and an increasing debt. Much better. You stated "<B>Debt reduction? Don't count on it.</B>" We did have debt reduction. What's so hard to understand? <B>Clinton went along with Congress on budgetary matters. </b> Umm, no he didn't. He went with Congress on a budget amount. Congress went with him on how to spend it. It was a two-way street, as much as you'd like to ignore that fact. <B>Of course, rates on treasuries started to decline within a couple of months of the Republican congressional election victories in '94.</B> Rates on treasuries are influenced by several factors, only one of which is supply & demand. Treasury bond rates have little to do with this. <B>The balanced budget was not a primary cause of the economic growth of the mid to late 90s. </B> Facts please? Take $200B out of short-term government spending and place it in private/business investment. You don't think that will spur growth? What kind of wacky economic theories do you subscribe to? <B>Neither was Clinton's "influence" on consumer confidence. </B> Really? Consumer confidence fuels an economy. Every poll ('92-'00) showed that people trusted Clinton more than Bush Sr. (and Bush Jr.) when it came to the economy (rightly or wrongly). That directly translates into consumer confidence, and that directly influences the economy. Look at CC readings around '92 and '00 and you'll see the trend. <B>Sorry, but that's just basic economics.</b> That phrase only works when you base your logic on economic principles, not when you just make blanket statements with no economic support behind them. Nice try, though.
<B>So it made a mistake, and wants someone else to pick up the tab?</b> No, it made a mistake and needs to pick up its own tab. Debts don't just disappear by themselves. You, on other hand, seem not to mind the fact that we're making this exact same mistake again with the current Bush budget.
Yet the Congress set the parameter of a balanced budget. Have you even looked at a chart of the yields between '93 and thereafter? Tnotes increased until about Jan. '95, then began a long decline. Bond markets move on expectations of the future. Sure, other factors influence yields, but you just credited the balancing of the budget with being the main factor that led to a reduction in yields throughout the mid to late 90s. Or would that give some credit to the party that you do not like? How about some facts from your end? Do you think that the investment that led to the 'IT revolution' occured from 1995 on? I think a "wacky" economic theory is one that assumes that the economic growth spurred on by the application of technologies developed before 1995 is due primarily to a small increase in investable funds moving out of the tbond markets after 1995. The t-bond markets didn't seem to like the economic policies of Clinton and the Democratic Congress prior to 1995. Yet I thought that it was Clinton's '93 budget that supposedly created the economic growth of the mid to late 90s... Funny that Clinton was unable to continue that through 2000...oh wait, consumers were already factoring in messiah Clinton's departure from office. Of course, bond markets don't factor in future expectations...only consumers, I suppose. lol. There's plenty of support behind them...unless you view the world through a partisan viewpoint.
??? as in... the increase in military spending termed "merely a down payment" by the same administration that gave the tax cut? As in going ahead w/ Star Wars bang bang? I forgot that that is an initiative being launched by congress. Also, quit referring to the republicans taking over congress as some sort of mark on the balanced budget scene. The first balanced budget accord was in 1993; before the republicans took over congress, but more importantly, immediately after Ross Perot made asses of Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Ross Perot changed the conversation. If it weren't for Ross Perot, we'd probably be doing the same dumb economics of the 80s, filled w/ pork from both sides... the democrats doing excessively nice things, and the republicans building super duper stardestroyer weapons. Well... nevermind really; I guess we're back building super duper stardestroyer weapons. I assume the democrats will start inserting "excessively nice" spending into budgets that piggy back ridiculously excessive military spending. Here's a serving for you, here's a serving for me. If only Ross hadn't made such an ass of himself. *sigh*
Deficits were forecast as far as the eye could see by the White House prior to '95. Of course, that was with the assumption of a Democratic-controlled Congress. Yes, the Republican controlled Congress helped to slow down spending growth in the 90s...though not as much as I would've liked.
I was misinformed in my earlier post. The initial BEA (Budget Enforcement Act) occurred in 1990 w/ President Bush. In 1993, Clinton cut more spending and increased revenue again (he raised taxes as had Bush). In 1997 the BBA was written. I assume that the further back we look in time, the further we'll see some sort of bipartisan pressure to balance the budget that predates the 1990 BEA. However, at least we know that in 1990, Bush and a democrat congress pushed for a balanced budget. In 1993, Clinton and a democrat congress pushed for a balanced budget... and in 1997, Clinton and a republican congress pushed for a balanced budget. Apparently balanced budgets are fairly intuitive to members on both sides of the aisle. The problems of course, lay (lie?) in the details. Each side will sell their souls out to get their area of interest covered by the federal government. If you have a tank plant in your district, you'll support military spending, regardless of your political affiliation. If you have poor people, or a socially liberal constituency, you'll be "more moderate" as one sees in the republicans in the NE. Blah blah blah. Anyway, hopefully we can stop patting one side or the other on the back. That's pointless, and I fear that it would never end. Right now, George W. Bush has proclaimed a new era in military spending. He's passed a huge tax cut that will drain federal revenue. All the while, his ****ing generation prepares to retire. We will live in deficits again. Interest rates will rise. The economic sector will slow. Congratulations, democrats, republicans, ostrichs, greens. We're all ****ed.
This debate is funny. Clinton doesn't get credit for the economy. The REPUBLICAN CONGRESS does. And I go back to the Republicans Messiah, Ronald Reagan. Can someone explain to me how you can justify bringing the country to near bankruptcy with trillions upon trillions of dollars owed, letting the Japan basically school us for those 12 years and have a budget deficit of near astronomical proportions? I like the way Republicans ignore their Messiahs shortcomings and gladly take credit for good fortune. Like I said, 7 out of 10 people thought Clintons presidency was not just good, but VERY GOOD. And that irks Republicans because as much as they tried to make Clintons penis the focal point of how to run a country(conviniently forgetting again that JFK slept with everyone and anyone outside of the White House pet yet is revered as one of the 5 greatest presidents by both parties), they failed miserably and the country agreed with the man and not them. And one last thing that pisses me off about Bush. He claimed to be this "honor and integrity" guy. Yet, he already has broken promises, went back on Stem Cell Research after clearly being against it, constantly takes up for his oil buddies who put him in office and is about to break one of the things he based his election on: raiding Social Security. That might not be a big deal to some. But why is it a big deal to deny having sex with an intern when its none of our f***ing business and has nothing to do with how the country is doing and its ok to basically break your word that got you elected in the first place and that has EVERYTHING to do with the country? Of course, Republicans will just blow this off as another Democrat blowing hot air since they just can't do no wrong.
Actually, neither does, which has been what the 'debate' has been about as far as I'm concerned. I give the Republican Congress more credit for a balanced budget than Clinton...though both have plenty of faults. About the only thing you can credit a politician on is that they managed not to meddle too much in the economic affairs of the nation. Anyways, if you are to assign credit to a government official for the performance of the economy, I would think that the Fed Chairman is more deserving than Clinton. Though Greenspan mainly attributes US economic growth during the past decade to the efficiencies resulting from the corporate application of information technologies...a trend that started before Clinton or the Republican Congress showed up in DC. I like the way partisans of both sides see things as they want it to be, and not as it is. Defense spending is always a puzzle, since we are not at war, yet maintain a global presence like a 21st Century Roman Empire. But cannot manage to defend the US against a simple missle attack. The Japanese definitely showed the world in the 90s, didn't they? Federal spending increased in the 80s significantly thanks to increases in both defense and non-defense spending. The Cold War ends, the budget for defense begins to shrink, then Congress begins to eye increases in domestic spending. A Democratic president is elected and immediately seeks to spend the 'savings' of a smaller military thanks to the end of the Cold War on a number of programs, including nationalized health care. Voters reject this leftward drift and the Republican party gains control of the Congress for the first time in 50 years. Clinton reinvents himself after the '94 election and pursues a much more conservative fiscal policy, in many ways taking a 'me too' approach to Congressional views on the budget, while seeking to contrast himself with the more unfavorable viewpoints of social conservatives within the Republican Party. Clinton even went so far as to essentially adopt the Republican position on welfare reform. All of this made for great theater. But in the grand scheme of things, we're still screwed. Republicans in Congress are still politicians first and foremost. A prescription drug giveaway under Medicare? Sure, why not? Perhaps the lesson that can be learned from the past two decades is that the Democratic president/Republican Congress model will hold spending in check more than the Republican president/Democratic Congress one did in the 80s.
Does anybody really believe that American citizens change their spending habits based on what some President says in a press conference? I hope not; that makes us a gullible citizenry. If I sit at the head of the table at a Thanksgiving Feast, do I automatically get credit for preparing the meal? I'm no economist (neither are you), but I think that these issues are far more complicated than we here are giving them credit. We are all going to believe what we want to believe about causality; that, however, doesn't make it true. Tell me about the Clinton Administration's legislative record.
Mr. Spur, Just to clarify, Clinton's healthcare proposal was in no means a "nationalized" one. It was also not very left-leaning..."Hillary's" plan was co-written by some of the big insurance companies. It would have given insurance companies even more control through a managed care system. It was, rightfully, demonized as an expanded HMO type system...which sucks. Additionally, informatin from around that time showed that the population preferred, by a large majority, a Canadian style, single payer, system (the harris pole was one). Further, Vicente Navarro, out of Johns Hopkins devoted a great deal of time to this. He discovered that, even if you take out variances in phrasing of polls, etc...the majority have preferred such a system for about 50 years. In the 1940's, Truman tried to implement one, but was beaten down by private industries. Just a little background info... Rich, While I understand your disbelief, it has been shown over time that politicians do have something to do with consumer confidence. CC by nature is very gullible. Bills passed in congress, presidential objectives, speeches, etc. have always altered CC in some way. "I am no economist," but at one point I spent a great deal of time (about 2 years) researching historical data and analysis by economists on this very issue. It is pretty much a given.
Apparently some think so. The interesting thing is that the expansion during the 1990s began before Clinton or the Republican Congress showed up in town. Corporate IT spending was already increasing before Clinton showed up and companies such as Microsoft and Cisco Systems didn't appear overnight. Attributing this boom to the end of deficit spending in 1997/98 works well if you are a partisan Democrat or Republican and want to believe that your side can do no wrong and is the center of the universe. Of course, the boom was already occuring by the time that the omnipotent government was getting around to creating it. To believe otherwise is truly "whacky". And the tbond markets only responded to Clinton, but not the Fed nor the Republican Congress? Go figure... Anyways, for our current situation, I hope that the 'disappearance' of the non-Social Security surplus will put a halt on the Bush/Republican/Democrat/everyone plan for increases in spending. Sure, Bush promised more than was feasible in the 2000 campaign without using the Social Security surplus, just as Gore did. I am not a PhD economist, but have definitely studied the subject enough to know that often the government's role is overblown. Usually to make {insert political party/politican's name here} look good.
We interrupt this political discussion for a little inbox humor: As we all recall, the in-office terms of most Presidents are given a name sometime after the President leaves office, ie-Roosevelt's was The New Deal; Johnson's was The Great Society; Reagan's was simply "The Reagan Years". Political buffs have reached some agreement on the appropriate name for the Clinton presidency: "Sex between the Bushes". We now return you to your boring debate.
It wasn't a 'pure' nationalized system, but it definitely expanded the control of the federal government in health care. Sure, there would be incentives for larger insurers to 'work with' the government...as they undoubtedly stood to gain if a national HMO system was created and they could bear the burden of government 'mandates' much more easily than smaller insurers. The loser would've been smaller insurers, small businesses, and ...consumers. You could take a poll about whether or not the minimum wage should be increased to $15 an hour and probably would find a majority in favor of that. I'm just glad the US has yet to go the single payer route...though with the 'conservative' party currently in favor of expanding Medicare to include prescription drugs, I'm not sure how much longer we shall be so fortunate in this country.
As if Bush needed any help looking dumb, here's his own comment on why it is good that social security will be raided... It's "incredibly positive news" because it will make Congress "more thrifty." So, this was his plan all along. Tell everyone that SS was safe. Give everyone a tax cut. Realize the budget was totally screwed up. Let everyone panic a bit. Raid SS and then say it is a good thing because it will force the government to spend less money. Now, that's sound fiscal policy.
People here act as if Bush made this decision himself with absolutely no input from an extended staff. He is the talking head, isn't he? BTW, I don't mean to insult anyone with my "you're no economist" crack. You all have detailed it more intelligently than I ever could have. There's too many statistics in economics for anyone to feel really confident (knowing the bad reputation of statistics... something about lies, damn lie, and then statistics). But it is a fact that EXPERTS at the highest level on both sides disagree; surely there are even many other sides, who knows! Who really spends governments money?
