U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-18-2015, 09:18 AM
 
17 posts, read 7,340 times
Reputation: 19

Advertisements

So even if that's true does that mean we should no longer balance the budget. What kind of solution is that. I'm tired of you liberals bringing up the past instead of dealing with what is present. Well George bush did it.......That does not make it ok
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-18-2015, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Lewes, Delaware
3,466 posts, read 3,138,496 times
Reputation: 1876
I've only been alive since 1972 so the only republican that could even spell Budget was Bush senior, and he wasn't in long enough to do so anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2015, 10:55 AM
 
Location: North America
19,634 posts, read 12,398,417 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

#Exposing Republican Lies#

Basically because both sides talk a good game, but neither want a balanced budget. Just ask any of them to cut a pet project and watch the steam rise from their heads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,526,608 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
Republicans passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, if there hadn't been that little 9/11 incident and the subsequent war that both Democrats and Republicans voted for, and continued to vote to fund year after year, there probably would have been a balanced budget under Bush. We saw what happened after the Democrats got control of the House and Senate, MASSIVE spending spree that only doubled under Obama.
Thank you for the revisionist history.

Higher taxes was the main reason the budget was balanced (surplused) in the 1990s. The main reason the budget fell into deficit was the 2001 and 2003 tax-cuts.

The CBO estimated that the 2001 tax-cut:
"would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period";

AND:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 [the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003] would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period. "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,526,608 times
Reputation: 5606
Incidentally, balanced budgets are not necessary for a healthy economy and balanced budgets in times of depressed economies is actually bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,425 posts, read 8,753,180 times
Reputation: 7732
Because the Democats have controlled Congress during the vast majority of those years. Civics 101...the Congress controls spending not the POTUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:28 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,085,470 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

#Exposing Republican Lies#
Not all Republicans are the same, some like GW Bush were just as hooked on big federal government solutions as democrats are.

At least we have republican voters voicing concern over this runaway federal spending during Bush and Obama, there have not been any democrats voicing their concern since 2009.

Reagan was stuck with Tip O'Neil in control of the purse strings in congress, so blame Congress for much of the spending. Unlike weak-kneed repubs like boehner, when the dems hold the purse strings they actually take advantage of that power granted to them in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:36 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 8,085,470 times
Reputation: 4247
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Thank you for the revisionist history.

Higher taxes was the main reason the budget was balanced (surplused) in the 1990s. The main reason the budget fell into deficit was the 2001 and 2003 tax-cuts.

The CBO estimated that the 2001 tax-cut:
"would decrease governmental receipts by $70 billion in 2001, by $512 billion over the 2001-2006 period, and by $1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period";

AND:

"The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and CBO estimate that H.R. 2 [the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003] would increase budget deficits by $60.8 billion in 2003, by $342.9 billion over the 2003-2008 period, and by $349.7 billion over the 2003-2013 period. "
Your rhetoric was contradicted by your own facts and figures.

How could tax breaks be "the main reason the budget fell into deficit" when you cite the CBO stating revenue losses of "$1.26 trillion over the 2001-2011 period" when Bush added $4.2 trillion in new deficits over the 2001-2009 time period, with a total of $8.9 trillion over the 2001-2011 time period?

Not so much the "main reason" after all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:44 AM
 
633 posts, read 459,801 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Ahhh, one minute the Republicans are responsible, the next minute, both of them are to blame..

got it..

Care to tell me why federal spending has been falling since the GOP has taken over Congress?
simply put, because the (republican controlled) congress is dysfunctional.

Quote:
A. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) established a 12 member Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (or “super committee”) charged with reducing the deficit by an additional $1.2 - $1.5 trillion over ten years. The BCA also included a sequestration hammer should the super committee fail, a provision intended to “force” the super committee to act.

Despite the threat of sequestration, the super committee failed. Announcing its inability to reach an agreement on November 21, 2011, the members of the bipartisan committee stated that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."

So, as established in the BCA, sequestration was triggered when the super committee failed to reach an agreement. Sequestration generates automatic cuts for each of nine years, FY 13-21, totaling $1.2 trillion. Sequestration was originally scheduled to take effect on Jan. 2, 2013. However, it was delayed for two months - until March 1, 2013, by the deal struck on New Year's Eve, called the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.


Now, without Congressional action to prevent sequestration, the first round of cuts will take place on March 1, 2013. The 2013 cuts apply to “discretionary” spending and are divided between reductions to defense ($500 billion) and non-defense ($700 billion).
Sequestration - Frequently Asked Questions

The cuts triggered by Sequestration were not intentional- they were a side effect of the budget control act of 2011. Where did that come from?

Quote:
The bill was the final chance in a series of proposals to resolve the 2011 United States debt-ceiling crisis, which featured bitter divisions between the parties and also pronounced splits within them. Earlier ideas included the Obama-Boehner $4 trillion "Grand Bargain",[13] the House Republican Cut, Cap and Balance Act, and the McConnell-Reid "Plan B" fallback. All eventually failed to gain enough general political or specific Congressional support to move into law, as the midnight August 2, 2011, deadline for an unprecedented U.S. sovereign default drew nearer and nearer.[14]
The solution came from White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, who, on July 12, 2011, proposed a compulsory trigger that would go into effect if another agreement was not made on tax increases and/or budget cuts equal to or greater than the debt ceiling increase by a future date.
Ultimately, the intent of the sequester was to secure the commitment of both sides to future negotiation by means of an enforcement mechanism that would be unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats alike. President Obama agreed to the plan. House Speaker John Boehner expressed reservations, but also agreed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget...ol_Act_of_2011

That wasn't a republican proposal, though they agreed to it since nothing else was working. The act intended those cuts as a penalty SO BAD that the joint supercommittee (6 dems, 6 repubs) would be forced to balance the budget through negotiation to avoid them.

The supercommittee failed and the cuts kicked in automatically, which is why spending has been falling. You can't really put this one on the republicans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,379 posts, read 7,934,664 times
Reputation: 6636
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

#Exposing Republican Lies#


The President is just one branch of government. He can only propose a budget. The house controls the purse. Under Clinton, both the house and senate were controlled by Republicans, so they should get credit for the surplus which they created in 98', 99', 00' and 01'. All Billy had to do was sign them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burger Fan View Post

The supercommittee failed and the cuts kicked in automatically, which is why spending has been falling. You can't really put this one on the republicans.
They're still blaming GWB nearly 7 years later, so of course they can blame Republicans! ...even if they look stupid doing so
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top