Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
During the 70s and 80s, we had protracted periods of deficit; Clinton cleaned that up in the 90s only to see a return in the Bush administration.
Now, we have essentially a two year spike in the deficit because of TARP and the stimulus, but neither of those programs build in a sustained deficit, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts may let us address the part of the equation Bush sent out of whack. And HC Reform was done in a manner that is essentially neutral <insert Sebby's unsubstantiated and unsupported screams of disgust>.
So, at the moment, I am not frightened by deficits.
However, public debt as a percentage of GDP is now back to where it was when Clinton took office, partially as a result of the wars, partially as a result of the erosion of GDP in the recession, partially as a result of TARP and the stimulus. It's not a crisis, but it's a problem of a size comparable to that Clinton was given.
|
All true, but there are two problems with what you say.
First, it doesn't counter Cletus' point, which was "We either need to cut spending or raise taxes." Clinton balanced the budget by, in large part, raising taxes and "cutting" spending (in the sense of cutting the overall increase, as well as making certain actual cuts).
Second, Clinton benefitted from a huge economic expansion (let's leave aside the argument about whether he helped bring that about). That's not enough to reduce the deficit -- I mean, Reagan had that advantage too, and he basically invented the culture of "we don't have to pay for government, we can grow it and bitch about it." (Having his cake, eating it, and savoring it too.) But, still. Obama may see some expansion, but I'm not holding my breath for another Clinton-era expansion.
