The Republicans gave it their best shot . . .

i'm quite familiar with it, but's it's funny how you deny reality in favor of false rhetoric

clinton's 1993 budget bill sought to lower the annual budget deficit by a total of $496 billion over the next five years

here are the results of that, no thanks to most of the the gop

1993 - $255.1 billion deficit

1994 - $203.2 billion deficit

1995 - $164 billion deficit

1996 - $107.5 billion deficit

1997 - $22 billion deficit

1998 - $69.2 billion surplus

1999 - $125.6 billion surplus

2000 - $236.4 billion surplus

 

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

By 2010 53% of the tax cut benefits went to the 1%.

We have had the same tax cuts and $500 billion more with various stimulus tax cuts, and revenues are STILL lower than they were and proportionately lower than any time since 1959.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT.

 

False right wing propaganda we see the acolytes regurgitate.

By 1997 the record deficit Clinton inherited was already wiped out. By 1998 when the minor tax cut went into effect, we already had a surplus.

Year - Total deficit/surplus
1992 -290.3
1993 -255.1 <- Clinton tax increase
1994 -203.2
1995 -164.0
1996 -107.4
1997 -21.9
1998 +69.3

The 1997 tax cut was minor and mostly affected capital gains (which didn't help the stock bubble a few years later).

We didn't see a real, meaningful income tax cut until 2001. And the effect of that on revenues is all too clear:

Year - Revenues
2000 2025.2
2001 1991.2
2002 1853.2
2003 1782.3

The golden opportunity of a surplus was quickly squandered. $5 trillion more debt unnecessarily added. So when we needed to borrow to deal with the massive recession Bush left us, we were already in trouble.




1992 -290.3
1993 -255.1
1994 -203.2
1995 -164.0
1996 -107.4
1997 -21.9
1998 69.3

 

Yes it was and you will note the nutters ignored it.

 

Not to mention tons of spending with no care about how to pay for it, 2 wars, a huge corp welfare program to the big phama that runs over a trillion. But somehow it's all President Obamas fault.

 

Once again truth wins!
The right can't tell the truth, the facts are simply not on their side.

 

http://www.epi.org/blog/bush-tax-cuts-expire-better-options/

Do you mean 'waste' as in 'paying the bills'?

 

No I mean WASTE, as in WASTE. Look it up.

In FY 2007, the last year Republicans controlled Congress, The 2 wars were much more expensive than today. The Bush tax cuts were fully in place. The middle class had hundreds of billions more or their earnings to spend as they saw fit. And the wealthy had a few more billions to spend as well. And SHOCKINGLY, the federal govt ALSO had hundreds of billions MORE to pay the bills . The federal govt took in $2,568 TRILLION. That amount has not been equaled under Democrat control since then. The bills got paid and the left screamed and wailed and pooped their diapers over a $160.7 deficit. [rightfully so] and they also cried and slobbered and swooned over $2,728 TRILLION in spending.

Now those numbers ARE the good old days and spending has gone insane and the left stupidly says, "All is well." The brainwashing and stupidity, and greed, of the left is immeasurable.

 

LOL, you assert that "Rand did not assert that selfishness was a virtue&#8230;" and Dujac posts a Rand authored book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness".

Classic.

 

i'm quite familiar with it, but it's funny how you deny reality in favor of false rhetoric

clinton's 1993 budget bill sought to lower the annual budget deficit by a total of $496 billion over the next five years

here are the results of that, no thanks to most of the the gop

1993 - $255.1 billion deficit

1994 - $203.2 billion deficit

1995 - $164 billion deficit

1996 - $107.5 billion deficit

1997 - $22 billion deficit

1998 - $69.2 billion surplus

1999 - $125.6 billion surplus

2000 - $236.4 billion surplus

 

Clinton's budget bill of 1993, SOUGHT TO LOWER
The 1993 budget ENDS on 09/30/1993. It holds no restriction on 1994 or any other year.

Omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993

Act designed to help reduce the federal deficit by approximately $496 billion over five years through a restructuring of the tax code. [NOTE: Reduce the deficit, NOT balance the budget.]
Specifics

It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments.

PROBLEMS we are still dealing with today. [Kudos to the Republicans, AND DEMOCRATS, that voted against it.]
And Al Gore broke the tie to get it passed. No greater condemnation of the bill can be made.





The Balanced budget ACT of 1997 made balancing the budget LAW! Not "sought to"-----LAW! And IT was passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate.


2013: usama hussein ben barrack talks incessantly about "reducing the deficit" while calling for more and more spending.
And what we have to have is a plan to reduce the DEBT. That would automatically and actually reduce the deficit.

 

you can pretend four years of deficit reduction wasn't important in balancing the budget

but you're just denying the truth, no wonder you guys lost, again

 

As I see it, we are not paying the bills to the tune of $1trillion per year these days. Do you suppose we do a car wash to pay off our country's bill so that the government doesn't have to WASTE any more of our oney?

Besides, Reagan PROVED that deficits do not matter, and that fact was so important Cheney felt he had to remind us of the fact.

 

But.. Was the gain and subsequent loss not actually due to the dotcom boom and bust?

 

Despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act was written by "big pharma" and "big insurance"?

 

And which part denies the influence of "big pharma" or "big insurance"? NONE. Case closed.

 

big pharma and big insurance aren't for cost limits, covering pre-existing conditions, kids covered by parents, forbidden dropping of the chronically ill and etc

 

parts of the obamacare bill are good. Most of it is bad. Why should the rest of us subsidize keeping unemployable 26 year olds on their parents insurance? why should the rest of us subsidize contraceptives for single women? Why should someone be fined for choosing not to buy insurance? Why should some govt beaurocrat decide what surgeries you can have?

 

because it's good for the country and the right thing to do

 

OK, I see, poorer quality medical care at higher cost is a good thing??????? There was no health care crisis that needed drastic measures such as obamacare to fix. NO ONE in the USA was being denied medical care. There was no problem. This is nothing but govt intrusion into the private marketplace and another loss of american freedom. It will end up costing every one of us more and the care we get will be severely degraded.

 

you've got things backwards, as usual

you don't know what you're talking about

http://www.healthcare.gov/mycare

 

you don't know what you're talking about

here's the evidence supporting my claim

http://www.healthcare.gov/mycare

 

what a crock of s**t, you post a propaganda piece and think it proves something???

No one in the USA, even those here illegally, was turned away from a hospital if they needed medical care. Those of us who had insurance were paying for the ones that did not--------------Now, it will be much the same, but there will be a huge expensive govt beaurocracy to suck up billions that could be going to provide care for people. This is nothing but liberal foolishness.