Somwhere along the line I got the impression that had the Democrats won in 2000, they would have spent about 1/3 of the Clinton budget surplus on tax cuts, 1/3 on paying down the national debt, and 1/3 on new spending such as energy independance and education.
Am I incorrect on this? Did most Dems support raising taxes instead?
There’s no possible way to tell. Remember that the Republicans held a nine-seat majority in the House in the 107th Congress. So even if Gore had won, whatever plans the Democrats might have had would be subject to compromise with the Republicans to get any bills passed.
If you’re postulating both that Gore won and that the Democrats took Congress, that’s a lot of changes. What would have happened then is anyone’s guess.
If you think I’m avoiding the issue of campaign promises and pledges, you’re right. Everybody in the real world avoids them, so why shouldn’t I? (Seriously, look at what every president has said before taking office and what really happened. There is about zero correlation.)
If you really want a “what might have happened if” thread, you need to start one in GD. There are no factual answers to this.
You can see what you can glean from the 2000 Democratic National Platform (pdf). But as Exapno says, it is not going to show you the details on specific bills or budgets that the Democrats would have pursued if they’d won.
The Gore/Lieberman budget proposal from the 2000 campaign. Skip down to the addendum on plans for the budget surplus. As stated, there’s no guarantee that any of this would have been agreed to by a Republican (or even a Democratic) Congress.
Table A on p. 179 makes it clear that no 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 allocation was planned, even if just the on-budget surplus is considered.
It also reminds me of how much I hate having to parse federal budgeting. :smack:
Thanks. I’ll peruse some of those links.
I think this a rough summary of what I gleaned from left-leaning punditry back then. I’m not talking exact thirds so much as a basic breakdown of budget priorities. To simplify the question even further, did the Democrats want to spend some of the Clinton surplus on tax cuts, or did they want to raise taxes?
Or are they part of a vast conspiracy to implement socialism?
<mod>
Think of this as a vast mod conspiracy to keep political threads in GD.
Moved.
</mod>
It doesn’t matter what “the Democrats” wanted to do, it only matters what Gore wanted to do.
:eek: Comrades, he’s onto us! Implement the Omega Contingency Plan! Yes, yes, I know how hard it is to find a sacrificial virgin this time of night! Just do it!
Fair enough, but you wouldn’t think it’s such a tough question. Either they would have raised 'em, lowered 'em, or kept 'em the same.
I don’t remember any democrat putting forth a plan to lower taxes with the Clinton surplus. Wasn’t Gore talking about health care and education pretty much exclusively?
If you can’t find a sacrificial virgin, use a sacrificial slut! Lord SatanMarx ain’t picky!
IIRC, yes, which was as it should have been, and as it should be now. What is your point?
Just trying to answer the OP. I wasn’t making a judgment call.
Erm, I remember that Gore was talking about a middle class tax cut of about $480 billion. Cite.