Proof that Bill Clinton is not the reason for the balanced budgets of the 1990s

[Craig234]

Craig, don't crap my thread with your walls of BS.

The facts are clear Bill Clinton NEVER talked about a balanced budget prior to June 13 1995.

I will post the posts I've posted previously to your same lies for years, showing how you ignore the facts being pointed out to you over and over and over and over. You're lying.

You never answer the facts. You ignore them and post the same lies again.

That's clear. They're posted right above - why don't you answer them now?

We know why.

 

[ProfJohn]

What facts??

All I see is your opinion.

I posted article after article to back up my claims and you post a wall of text.

Answer me one question.
In February 1995 Clinton didn't want to balance the budget
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/03/u...s-budget-falls-well-short-of-gop-demands.html

In June 1995 Clinton WANTS to balance the budget
http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-06-...sident-clinton-last-night-republicans-clinton


What changed his mind? Don't tell me the economy changed that much is 4 months.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I think PJ just passed Anarchist.

Hey Anarchist, it's time to step up your game!

 

[Craig234]

Let's make it very easy for you, PJ - one post for you to read and respond to.

I'll just repeat a correction to your lie, Democrats reduced the deficit about the same his first 2 years in office as it was reduced in later years with a Republican congress.

Now, this thread you ignore can be quoted the next time you repeat the same lie again.

8-8-10

His policy gets no credit because there was NO policy!!!!!!

That was my entire point.

Clinton did not institute a plan to balance the budget. Clinton did not even think about a balanced budget. All Clinton wanted to do was raise taxes and increase some spending and get to what he thought was an acceptable budget deficit, which was $200 billion per year for ever.

Read his first three state of the union addresses and see what he actually said about the budget deficit.

To pretend that Bill Clinton gets credit for the balanced budget is to ignore the ample historical evidence that Clinton had no plans to balance the budget prior to the Republican take over.

Of course he had a policy, that included deficit reduction, a set of spending priorities to cut spending and waste in places, and increase spending in some places, including his tax increase on the top two percent that every right-wing commentator I've seen said would guarantee disaster for the economy - lower growth, skyrocketing deficits and unemployment.

It just so happened that his deficit reduction worked turned into deficit elimination with things like the tech boom. Regardless, reduction or elimination, it was the right direction.

Finally, after the 12 years of huge Republican deficits. It was huge for him to get that done. For Democrats to get that done, before Republicans got control and reversed it.

Your argument is like saying that Al Gore funding the development of the internet expecting 10 million people to use it an hour a week, and instead 50 million people use it 10 hours a week, mean that he deserves no credit for pushing its funding. "Look, right there in his estimates it says it won't be used as much as it was!!!! he had no plans for it to be huge!!!!"

If Apple computer predicted the iPod would sell less than it did, obviously it gets no credit for the iPod. "Look right at their own estimate that it would not sell like it did!!!!"

While the President's budget isn't the same thing ,it's not a coincidence that the deficits skyrocketed under 12 years of Republicans and then reduced each of 8 years to zero under Clinton - and for that matter, that they then shot back up as soon as the Republicans regained the Presidency. It's not exact the effects of their budgeting on how much tax revenue will come in with the economy's ups and down, but the result was remarkable, whether reduced or eliminated deficits.

Ya, 'there are no facts'

 

[nobodyknows]

Let's think about this...

1993+94 Clinton never speaks about a balanced budget. He didn't increase taxes to balance the budget either.

1994 The GOP runs on the promise of a balanced budget, and win.

1995 Clinton still doesn't talk about a balanced budget and presents a budget that will NEVER be balanced.

1995 The GOP refused to budget on its pledge to balance the budget and threatens to shut down the government

June 1995 Totally out of the blue Clinton starts to talk about a balanced budget.

1995/95 They come to an agreement to pass the budget.


So who do you give credit to? The guys who wanted to balance the budget from day one or the guy who came to the table only after being pushed and pulled?

Assuming all that were true, WTF happened when "W" took over?

 

[ProfJohn]

Assuming all that were true, WTF happened when "W" took over?

W sucked is what happened.

They decided that deficits don't matter.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let's make it very easy for you, PJ - one post for you to read and respond to.

I'll just repeat a correction to your lie, Democrats reduced the deficit about the same his first 2 years in office as it was reduced in later years with a Republican congress.

Craig...

February no balanced budget
June balanced budget

Why the change in mind?

 

[Craig234]

What facts??

All I see is your opinion.

So, you lie about the posts in the same thread.

First, opinions are perfectly valid. Well, mine are, not yours. But you deny facts, so let's talk about those.

Is the information posted above a fact or opinion:

Democrats reduced the deficit his first two years when they were totally in control, about the same amount as the deficit was reduced each of his later years?

Is the information posted above a fact or opinion:

Clinton had a stated policy of deficit reduction. The economy did better than earlier predicted, changing deficit reduction into deficit elimination.

Your entire argument is that the fact the economic predictions were lower earlier, so that his policies would only reduce the deficit, mean he 'did not want to balance the budget'.

You use the fact the earlier economic predictions were lower to lie that 'Bill Clinton is not the reason for the balanced budgets'.

He's not, entirely, of course. But his policies - passed over the furious objections of virtually all Republicans and without their votes - did the opposite of what they said, and the economy did well, and the budget was balanced. He is much more deserving of credit for those things than the Republicans who did everything they could to block him.

You have done nothing but post a lie you have repeated for years, that the economic predictions keeping Clinton from talking about a balanced budget earlier prove that his policies do not deserve credit for balancing the budget. It's an outrageous and despicable lie, about a Democrat who balanced the budget unlike Republicans before and after him who grew it to historic highs.

You're lying.

I posted article after article to back up my claims and you post a wall of text.

Answer me one question.
In February 1995 Clinton didn't want to balance the budget
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/03/u...s-budget-falls-well-short-of-gop-demands.html

In June 1995 Clinton WANTS to balance the budget
http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-06-...sident-clinton-last-night-republicans-clinton


What changed his mind? Don't tell me the economy changed that much is 4 months.

And another flavor of the same lie. Whenever Clinton first mentioned a balanced budget, it would be 'overnight', and you could say 'the economy didn't change drastically overnight!'

No, it was more gradual.

Earlier, he talked about deficit reduction. Then Republicans pushed 'balanced budget' a lot and in your link, he then said he planned to balance the budget by 2005.

Of course, after both your links, the improving economy led to a balanced budget years sooner than that.

 

[Craig234]

Since PJ completely failed to respond, a repost of this.

Let's make it very easy for you, PJ - one post for you to read and respond to.

I'll just repeat a correction to your lie, Democrats reduced the deficit about the same his first 2 years in office as it was reduced in later years with a Republican congress.

Now, this thread you ignore can be quoted the next time you repeat the same lie again.

8-8-10

His policy gets no credit because there was NO policy!!!!!!

That was my entire point.

Clinton did not institute a plan to balance the budget. Clinton did not even think about a balanced budget. All Clinton wanted to do was raise taxes and increase some spending and get to what he thought was an acceptable budget deficit, which was $200 billion per year for ever.

Read his first three state of the union addresses and see what he actually said about the budget deficit.

To pretend that Bill Clinton gets credit for the balanced budget is to ignore the ample historical evidence that Clinton had no plans to balance the budget prior to the Republican take over.

Of course he had a policy, that included deficit reduction, a set of spending priorities to cut spending and waste in places, and increase spending in some places, including his tax increase on the top two percent that every right-wing commentator I've seen said would guarantee disaster for the economy - lower growth, skyrocketing deficits and unemployment.

It just so happened that his deficit reduction worked turned into deficit elimination with things like the tech boom. Regardless, reduction or elimination, it was the right direction.

Finally, after the 12 years of huge Republican deficits. It was huge for him to get that done. For Democrats to get that done, before Republicans got control and reversed it.

Your argument is like saying that Al Gore funding the development of the internet expecting 10 million people to use it an hour a week, and instead 50 million people use it 10 hours a week, mean that he deserves no credit for pushing its funding. "Look, right there in his estimates it says it won't be used as much as it was!!!! he had no plans for it to be huge!!!!"

If Apple computer predicted the iPod would sell less than it did, obviously it gets no credit for the iPod. "Look right at their own estimate that it would not sell like it did!!!!"

While the President's budget isn't the same thing ,it's not a coincidence that the deficits skyrocketed under 12 years of Republicans and then reduced each of 8 years to zero under Clinton - and for that matter, that they then shot back up as soon as the Republicans regained the Presidency. It's not exact the effects of their budgeting on how much tax revenue will come in with the economy's ups and down, but the result was remarkable, whether reduced or eliminated deficits.

Ya, 'there are no facts'

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, quit posting walls of crap.

 

[nobodyknows]

W sucked is what happened.

They decided that deficits don't matter.

Yet bush had a 75% approval rating in his own party at the end of his terms

 

[ProfJohn]

Yet bush had a 75% approval rating in his own party at the end of his terms

Maybe they realized what they were getting with Obama?

Look at the trend:
Bush sucks
Bush sucks
Oh Shit! We got Obama??
I miss Bush already...

 

[Craig234]

Craig, quit posting walls of crap.

And you dodge the issues pointing out your lies again.

 

[Craig234]

Since PJ completely failed to respond, a repost of this.

Let's make it very easy for you, PJ - one post for you to read and respond to.

I'll just repeat a correction to your lie, Democrats reduced the deficit about the same his first 2 years in office as it was reduced in later years with a Republican congress.

Now, this thread you ignore can be quoted the next time you repeat the same lie again.

8-8-10

His policy gets no credit because there was NO policy!!!!!!

That was my entire point.

Clinton did not institute a plan to balance the budget. Clinton did not even think about a balanced budget. All Clinton wanted to do was raise taxes and increase some spending and get to what he thought was an acceptable budget deficit, which was $200 billion per year for ever.

Read his first three state of the union addresses and see what he actually said about the budget deficit.

To pretend that Bill Clinton gets credit for the balanced budget is to ignore the ample historical evidence that Clinton had no plans to balance the budget prior to the Republican take over.

Of course he had a policy, that included deficit reduction, a set of spending priorities to cut spending and waste in places, and increase spending in some places, including his tax increase on the top two percent that every right-wing commentator I've seen said would guarantee disaster for the economy - lower growth, skyrocketing deficits and unemployment.

It just so happened that his deficit reduction worked turned into deficit elimination with things like the tech boom. Regardless, reduction or elimination, it was the right direction.

Finally, after the 12 years of huge Republican deficits. It was huge for him to get that done. For Democrats to get that done, before Republicans got control and reversed it.

Your argument is like saying that Al Gore funding the development of the internet expecting 10 million people to use it an hour a week, and instead 50 million people use it 10 hours a week, mean that he deserves no credit for pushing its funding. "Look, right there in his estimates it says it won't be used as much as it was!!!! he had no plans for it to be huge!!!!"

If Apple computer predicted the iPod would sell less than it did, obviously it gets no credit for the iPod. "Look right at their own estimate that it would not sell like it did!!!!"

While the President's budget isn't the same thing ,it's not a coincidence that the deficits skyrocketed under 12 years of Republicans and then reduced each of 8 years to zero under Clinton - and for that matter, that they then shot back up as soon as the Republicans regained the Presidency. It's not exact the effects of their budgeting on how much tax revenue will come in with the economy's ups and down, but the result was remarkable, whether reduced or eliminated deficits.

Ya, 'there are no facts'

 

[Anarchist420]

The sad thing is that Prof John and Craig will argue till until hell freezes over, when neither one of them is completely right.

I already knew that Bill Clinton initially opposed balanced budgets. And he never balanced the budget anyway, i.e., he never had a true Federal surplus.

The Congressional GOP made no sincere effort to balance the budget either, even if they supported more deficit reduction than Clinton did.

The last administration to retire debt without creating more debt than it retired was that of Coolidge.

 

[glenn1]

Craig, don't crap my thread with your walls of BS.

The facts are clear Bill Clinton NEVER talked about a balanced budget prior to June 13 1995.

Yet somehow balanced budgets happened despite what he said or didn't say. I'm not typically a big cheerleader of Democratic economic policies but it so happens that Clinton did better at deficit reduction than any other President during my lifetime. If you're judging on results rather than rhetoric, then Clinton beats any Republican on this.

 

[Craig234]

The sad thing is that Prof John and Craig will argue till until hell freezes over, when neither one of them is completely right.

You're the one far from right with that comment.

In fact, you can't even be bothered to discuss the issues - to recognize what is right and wrong in that discussion.

Instead, you just post the usual bizarre Anarchist version.

Clinton balanced the budget (which is not the same as a "surplus", as you say).

He's usually credited with a surplus of hundreds of billions; but that's using the federal government's accounting where borrowed Social Security money isn't counted as debt.

I count it as debt - which leaves him with about a balanced budget.

I already knew that Bill Clinton initially opposed balanced budgets. And he never balanced the budget anyway, i.e., he never had a true Federal surplus.

However, the Congressional GOP made no sincere effort to balance the budget either.

The last administration to retire debt without creating more debt than it retired was that of Coolidge.

 

[senseamp]

Clinton is the sole reason. Even if there was something that Republicans did, they only did it because Clinton was president. As soon as Clinton left they went back to their "deficits don't matter" mantra. If you want fiscal conservatism, you have to have a Democrat in the White House.

 

[ProfJohn]

Clinton is the sole reason. Even if there was something that Republicans did, they only did it because Clinton was president. As soon as Clinton left they went back to their "deficits don't matter" mantra. If you want fiscal conservatism, you have to have a Democrat in the White House.

We have one there now... what happened?

 

[child of wonder]

Well I think I have proof of who is responsible for our balanced budget.

Jesus Christ you're fucking stupid. Like a little kid arguing as hard as he can with the grown ups and despite what any adult says, he'll just never get it.

 

[Slew Foot]

Clinton got lucky that he got out before the internet bubble popped.

 

[senseamp]

We have one there now... what happened?

You should know what happened between Clinton and Obama.

 

[Jhhnn]

W sucked is what happened.

They decided that deficits don't matter.

It's not like W was a dictator. He had a cabinet of his choosing, dozens (hundreds) of appointees & advisors, plus a Congress with his party in the majority in both houses, and the biggest political windfall since Pearl Harbor in 9/11. He also had an irrational faith in deregulated trickledown economics, and a chairman of the FRB who shared that delusion.

They *all* sucked, and they still do. They sucked at preventing the most incredible credit bubble in the history of finance, and they now suck even worse at dealing with the consequences.

In deregulated capitalism, we can't have an irrational boom w/o a follow-up irrational bust, and Repubs intend to deliver that directly to the twitching back orifice of the middle and working classes, with great feeling.

The hearts & flowers phase is over- it's time to pound the bitch into the hospital, convince her that it's really all her fault.

 

[Thump553]

I think PJ just passed Anarchist.

Hey Anarchist, it's time to step up your game!

Nah, most anarchist420 threads are funnier. PJ's are really just kind of sad. Both do long for the good old days of the neocon though, but each will vehemently deny that until their dying breath.

 

[Craig234]

Clinton got lucky that he got out before the internet bubble popped.

Yes - but that's only one part of the economy. We'd have been *far* better off with him (Gore, actually) in the recession, which we would still have had.

We wouldn't have had a tax cut so heavily weighted for the rich, we wouldn't have had one of our biggest entitlements ever so generous to big pharma, no Iraq war etc.