conservatives like the idea of Reagan even if what he actually did wasn't exactly what he said he was gonna do. The last true 'fiscal conservative' president was probably eisenhower. The rest just lie to conservatives to get their votes.
Yes, January 19, 1981 - before Reagan entered office. Wow, you really are desperate and/or clueless. I even provided you links with specific details and you couldn't regurgitate them properly. Yes, and it proves your statement that Carter raised taxes to be false: Your exact quote: including the 70% tax rate that Jimmy Carter had implemented on the richest class. Jimmy Carter didn't implement the tax rate. In fact, after a decade of the rate applying to $200k and higher, his Admin was the first time that number went up - providing an actual tax decrease on that interim amount of money (presumably to reflect inflation, but I don't know).
according its "generally accepted rhethorics", Clinton was the best Republican President the GOP never had what about medicare and social security, what is your point ? ur under-stating the President's role in an economy. the buck stops at the white house. no wonder there was a recession shortly after W took office. W had pissed away the HUGE surplus, inherited from Clinton, by July of his first year. ur being intellectually dishonest. the dot-com boom didn't start until ~ 1995, Clinton's 3rd year, after team Clinton (Tyson, Rubin, etc.) had balanced the budget. a balanced budget was quite a feat---particularly after Bush Sr.'s economic mess; it effectively gave a green light (a relatively safe environment) for the venture capitalists to invest in innovation. it is no accident that the dot com boom didnot happened in Bush Sr.'s term. don't think u know what ur talking about. ur realized that in his second term, Reagan and Congress passed a tax hike. why did he renege on his campiagn promise, because Reaganomics was working as well as he had hope for, run away budget deficit. same thing w Bush Sr, he also had to renege on his "read my lip" promise not to raise taxes.
i am glad u mention Gingrich, who worked very hard to sabatage all of Clinton's policies. one of Clinton's earliest economic policies was to increase taxes. Gingrich fought hard against it, but was over-matched by Clinton's political ability to work w other Republicans to pass his tax increase. that got the ball rolling towards balancing the budget. ps, Gingrich was in Congress during Reagan and Bush Sr. terms, should Newt share the blame too, for their deficits ? also, W had Republican Congress in 6 of his 8 years; it should be noted that during these 6 years, the US generated the biggest deficits in history. Since the Dem took control in 2006, the spending has level off a bit.
The budget can only be made to look somewhat balanced by accepting all of the social security and medicare money coming into the government from payroll taxes while simultaneously ignoring money that most be paid out to the retirees in future years. Intergovernmental debt grew during Clinton's time in office. I have not looked at the numbers in a long time, but as I recall the total national debt grew every year Clinton was in office, which indicates that there never really was a surplus. Don't get me wrong, while I am extremely fiscally conservative, I liked Clinton as President. He is practically Ron Paul compared to George Bush.
the budget is either balanced or not balanced. your less-than-clear verbiage is somewhat self-contradictory it helps if only u understand wtf ur talking about. for every interGov debt there is a corresponding interGov revenue. they offset one another, can't u not comprehend this simple double-sided bookkeeping ? once again, it help if only u know wtf ur talking about. you're confused and, thus, can't differentiate cash flow (the annual Federal budget) from long-term debt. there was a huge surplus from the Clinton era. even W acknowledge that. that was one of the principal reason W pass the tax cut.
I do know what I am talking about. We can stay civilized if you want. Here is the link to the Treasury website. Do a search for the entire term of Clinton's presidency and look at fiscal year end amounts (basically September 30 of each year). You will see that the national debt grew every fiscal year. If there was a surplus, then the national debt would have decreased, but it did not. Keep in mind that the government does not follow GAAP. Here is a 2007 article from US Today which talks about how government accounting hides the amount of our debt.
your lack of understanding resonnates. the annual federal budget effectively is the Federal Gov't cash flow for a particular year balanced budget is when cash generated equals cash expended budget deficit results when cash generated is less than cash expended W, Bush Sr, and Reagan generated negative cashflow every year budget surplus results when cash generated > cash expended. Clinton generated positve cash flow from 1995 to 2000, sufficient to offset the cumulative negative cash flow that he had inherited from Bush Sr. the national debt, effectively, is the long-term liability of the Fedeal government, while budget deficit/surplus measure the Govt's cash flow.
i agree that clinton benefited from a real technological revolution that was generated by real tech growth in value. companies like microseft, dell, compaq, intel, cisco, oracle, generated real profits. there was also an unprecedented communication boom that has seen cell phones go from tools of doctors and drug dealers in 1990 to a necessity for the average american, even their kids. but at least clinton new what to do with the generated tax dollars. the bush economy has been based on an over inflated housing market that is falling right before eyes, and bush wasted those tax gains on tax cuts and a war that we still have no end in sight to.
while they may be interrelated, the nation's cash flow and its long-term debt do not necessarily have a direct correlation. eg. the Gov generates positive cash flow and decides to invest in infrastructure (repair / modernize highways, bridges, etc.). It proceeds to issue long term bonds---increasing the national debt---to finance these Gov't projects. this is a case of budget surplus and an increase to national debt. these project increase national debt and have a positive effect in future budgets as well (creating jobs which increase tax collections) can you understand that ?
If we bring in more cash in a year than we spend, then our total debt must decrease. Now we may have spent money very wisely building important infrastructure and we may have used long-term debt for it, but that is not having a surplus. A surplus is having money left over at then end of the year to pay down your debts. If you do not decrease your debt, you did not have a surplus. The converse is also true, if our total debt increases during a year, then we must have spent more than we made.
i had clearly explained that already, yet u still don't understand. any time the federal Gov generates positive cash flow (budget surplus), the President did a good job, as it eliminates the need to borrow $ to pay for a negative cash flow (budget deficit). But the Gov't borrows $ for many other reasons, long-term in nature, they include, and not limited to: ==> provide emergency relief to victims of catastrophes ==> bail out bankrupt industries / companies (S&L industry, Chryler, Bear Sterns, FannieMae, etc.) ==> invest in infrastructure, ==> finance a war (either ours or our strategic allies'), ==> etc. your lack of understanding is such that u lump federal budget and the national debt as one the same. they're not. the same for the authors of the articles to which u alluded.
Remember Genesis's "Land of Confusion" video? The end with Reagan used to freak me out as a kid. The whole video did really.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3MzShg7yXik&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3MzShg7yXik&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
http://dirtyworldnews.com/2007/06/reagan_speaks_out_against_socialized_medicine.php Look at that link... about "Socialized Medicine." There's an audio link. And a downloadable MP3.
Reagan vs. Hecklers <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QpARv7vsBpA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QpARv7vsBpA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Let's simplify the situation. Take the example of an individual with $50,000 of income during a year. If he spends $49,000 and saves $1,000, then I think we both agree he had a surplus. If instead he spends $99,000 and he borrows an additional $50,000 to fund these expenditures, he still has $1,000 left over at the end of the year. I get the feeling that you would consider him to have a surplus. I believe he does not and at that I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
u have shown u just don't get it. so stop making assertion about surplus and national debt when u have no idea what they mean.
