Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The did not vote for the bill because like many Republicans they thought it was irresponsible fiscally. Kerry was going to vote against it because he thought it was an awful bill laden with pork but he changed his mind at the last minute when he realized his vote was needed to make it a tie so Gore could break the tie. All Republicans voted against it and a signficant number of Democrats. It is my memory that the structural deficit did not decrease, but may have once the Tax increases were back credited. I will check that out tomorrow. However, with economic growth you get deficit reduction automatically with increased tax revenues but even in such an environment they needed to increase taxes because of their increased spending. The markets did not consider this fiscal discipline.
|
Was there economic growth in the 1980s (other than the 1982 recession)? If so, why did the deficit grow so large under two Republican presidents? Didn't the GOP hold the Senate for six of those years? Ah, but it's all Tip's fault.
It sure looks to me like the CBO historical data says that your memory (that deficits didn't decrease until 1995 when Newt's boys took over the House after the 1994 elections) is simply wrong.
Why is it so hard for some GOPers to accept this, when even the someone writing in the National Review Online can? Bruce Bartlett:
- I simply recited the facts. The budget went from deficit to surplus on Clinton’s watch and lower spending played a key role. He even abolished an entitlement program through welfare reform. By contrast, the deficit has exploded under Bush, in part because spending has risen well above what can reasonably be justified by the recession, Iraq, and homeland security.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0407070838.asp
Threaded Mode