At least he's honest To hold down the deficit, Mr. Romney and Congress could then cut domestic programs, including Medicaid, more sharply than Mr. Obama has. But recent history â both Mr. Reaganâs administration and the second Mr. Bushâs â suggests that Republicans would probably not find enough spending cuts to offset their tax cuts and instead would accept larger deficits
My recollection is that Clinton completely eliminated the federal deficit at one point. Is my memory accurate regarding that?
Maybe Clinton,Newt Gingrich and the Congressional budget office says the budget was balanced with a surplus for 2 years.The Treasury department shows that there was a small amount borrowed those 2 years.If it wasn't balanced it was really close There is also debate on who was responsible for it.Democrats say it was Clinton ,republicans say it was Newt.My conclusion is they both were.Clinton raised taxes and Newt demanded and got spending cuts,they worked together and got it done
No, it's not. Clinton claimed to have eliminated the deficit, and he was right if you use congress' dubious accounting, but the easiest and least biased way to determine the deficit is to look at the increase in the federal debt each year. The federal debt went up every year of the Clinton administration, plus the year after he left, so at no point was the federal deficit reduced to zero. Of coursed biased people like AK47 like to quote congress' magical accounting.
The only candidate who will actually try to cut the deficit is Ron Paul. Romney will just give us the same old shit. Of course mindless Republicans will cheer if Romney is elected, just as mindless Democrats will cheer if Obama is, but either way we'll have a government that deficit spends until we have a complete inflationary collapse.
From fact check The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008 Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. FULL ANSWER This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clintonâs predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts. The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clintonâs fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries. Clintonâs large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasnât counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
This was a fair and informative answer... More of those please and less shilling please. Then I won't have to respond.
Yes, the budget was balanced for a couple of years in the 1990s. There was a great piece of economic analysis that was done a few years ago that I have been unable to locate today, but was extremely interesting. (If I find it I'll post it.) It showed how the economy of the 1990s was a "once-in-a-century industrial revolution." The analysis showed in great detail how four related technologies -- computers, software, networking and cell phones -- created an economic perfect storm that produced more jobs, more wealth and more per capita revenues (and more tax revenues) faster than any other decade in history. The 1990s were a unique economic period in American history. Unfortunately, we may have to wait another 100 years until we see another economic perfect storm.