Factually :rolleyes:, the surpluses were based on the 1993 tax increases on the wealthy, which every single Republican in Congress voted against. Did you know that too?
Marvelous, isn’t it, how when the government was beginning to be run responsibly, you claim the Republican Congresss did it despite the efforts of a Democratic President, but now that it’s run into the ditch, you blame the Democratic President and “Congress”. Who the fuck do you think controls the House, and, via filibuster abuse, the Senate too these days? An honest assessment would blame the Republicans in Congress for the current budget, in exactly the same tediously childish way you hasten to applaud them for the last surplus. Do you think you can make even a minimal effort here to be consistent about the facts instead of your partisan cheerleading for a refreshing change?
As to your following post, how do you proposed to “increase revenue streams” without calling it increasing taxes? The Congressional Republicans who foolishly signed Norquist’s pledge and foolishly feel bound by it have not; maybe you can go tell them how. Kudos, btw, for (apparently) supporting a single-payer UHC plan, if not for supporting the people who wanted to do it instead of those who reflexively opposed it and continue to do so.
They were based on not spending more than was taken in. Funny how that works. And it wasn’t just taxes on the wealthy, it was across the board. Funny how you forget that too.
You increase revenue by putting people back to work and letting the economy grow. And no, I never once supported a single-payer UHC plan.
To repeat, in hopes of getting through to you, every single one of your guys voted against it. Think about that for just a moment.
That was as vapid a platitude as anything you’ll hear from a failing candidate. Do you have anything at all that constitutes an actual proposal, even in vague terms? Anything at all?
There’s no other way to put your ideas of what you think should be done into practice. That you are having trouble reconciling those views with your ardent loyalty to those who oppose it is your own problem.
Oh, well, since this board’s traditionally most reliable spouter of RNC/Fox talking points is apparently on sabbatical, *somebody *has to try to fill in, I suppose.
Except Democrats just spend more regardless of revenue stream. And since a fair number of Republicans seem to have caught the same disease as of late we now have the Tea Party asking the unforgivable task of a balanced budget.
There was a tax increase on everyone via the gas tax. It’s in your cite. It made up less than 10% of the boost in revenue with most of that boost coming from taxes on wealthy people and corporations 78% + changes in social security.
The last decade is perfectly representative of the first sentence you wrote in the quoted section above, except Republicans were primarily in charge. The only time in my life Republicans were responsible for controlling spending was during the 90s.
Democratic Party proposals are all more ambitious. They would do a better job of achieving what you are concerned over than the Republican proposals. One major difference between the two is Republicans want to leave the military alone while ignoring a need for economic stimulus and the Democrats want to cut the military budget and provide economic stimulus.
Probably the most important difference to me is that the best Republican proposal cuts wealthy people’s taxes more while shifting the burden of taxes to people like me. Looking over the two, I can see which party is most interested in benefiting me while reducing deficit spending.
Further, this stalemate in Congress will lead to automatic deficit reduction by removing the Bush tax cuts. No matter what happens, a compromise plan, a Democratic plan, a Republican plan, or jack shit, the deficit gets reduced. Since that is a given, the best plan is the one that benefits me the most.
President Obama has led the way in producing bipartisan-backed deficit reduction proposals that are ambitious and benefit most Americans and I think we all should continue to follow his leadership.
Clinton balanced the budget. Obama is on his way there now. Reagan, Bush, and Junior were the ones who really ran up the deficit.
The “Fox Card”, as you so put it, is an ad hominem, I suppose. Fox New could have something valuable, intellectually honest, and correct to say… But our advoidance isn’t simply bias. It’s based on the same logic that you would use when someone links you to, say, “shit-flinging insane man in a dumpster blog”: the last ten times you went there, all it did was throw insanity, lies, and crap at your screen, therefore it’s probably reasonable to just avoid it in the future. And those who pay close attention to it and trust it are probably at the very least extremely misguided, if not shit-flinging insane men in dumpsters themsleves. Get my point?
So by your logic regarding Obama, it must have been Clinton’s leadership that got Gingrich to back that budget. Now I get why you think Obama is not leading because you remember how good it was when Clinton was leading.
It is funny how you are attempting to educate others on the Federal budget process, and yet remain fundamentally mistaken about the basic elements of the process.
The President proposes the budget in February. The Congress passes bills to fund the discretionary parts of government, which for purposes of discussion are about 40% of the total budget. Tax policy and entitlement spending are on autopilot for the most part, excepting major changes every 5 to 10 years or so.
What is the reason for the surpluses? I’d say the growing economy, the tax increases in 1993. Gingrich opposed the tax increases, and he’s certainly not responsible for the hi-tech boom. He lost on efforts to cut Medicare spending, and the welfare reform didn’t save the government sufficient amounts to generate a surplus. His efforts to cut discretionary spending compared to what Clinton proposed in his budgets amount to merely decimal dust when we consider that the surpluses measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Giving credit to Gingrich for the surpluses is like crediting the fly who rides on the chariot for his work is raising such a mighty cloud of dust.
What’s more, Gingrich now talks about his opposition to the stimulus which created millions of jobs, and advocates spending cuts that are already costing a fragile economy many, many thousands of public sector jobs. He is advocating the opposite of getting people back to work. Like many other fiscal conservatives, he sees it as more important to make government smaller, no matter how many people remain unemployed in the process.
But he can tell them to go back and come up with something else. He has plenty of input. Never mind that the budge was balanced because of tax increases.
You do to much to give him even that. He’s a non-entity.
He’s the only politician running for President who has balanced a Federal budget. The budget was balanced because expenses did not exceed income.
Since unemployment went up after the stimulus it’s disingenuous to say it created jobs. But lets look at your cite. Congress spent 800 billion dollars to create 3.3 million jobs at a cost of $242,424 dollars per job created. With a net loss of jobs all congress managed to create was more debt.
The budget was balanced because of the tax increases. Which Newt opposed. It happened in spite of him. And your trying to spin it is deplorable.
You don’t appear to have a solid grasp on what happened. Unemployment went down. We were loosing 700k jobs a month. It slowed during Obama’s term and we’re actually gaining jobs now. Even you can’t honestly suggest that it’s Obama’s or the Stimulus’ fault that we were in the economic downturn? The stimulus slowed and the losses and added 3 million jobs compared to what would have been lost if we did nothing. Again, this is the best take of economists using the info we have. It’s not some liberal lie. If you don’t believe it, it’s because your ideology trumps uncomfortable facts.
In any case, looking at the cost per job purely as labor isn’t correct.
Tell me Magiver, do you think that roads and bridges only cost labor? Do you think that in those costs, there are actually some materials that are included? Don’t you feel silly that you used the number of 242k in an attempt to show that the govt. is inefficient? And it didn’t just create more debt. It created up to three million jobs. Those people are working, and pumping money back into the economy because of the stimulus!
I suspect you won’t accept that you’re wrong. But everyone reading this thread knows it.
When a number goes up that means it increased. The stimulus package was voted in February 2009. Unemployment was 7.5% at that time. It’s now 9%.
Looking at something on a cost basis is the only way to understand what was gained as a return on money spent. The intent of the stimulus bill was to lower unemployment. It failed in that respect. It raised the national debt by almost a trillion dollars and resulted in a net loss of jobs.
)