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.
I disagree with your premise that the left would be against a balanced budget more than the right.
The only disagreement would be where the cuts and revenue came from. If it came from cuts to defense and revenue from taxes on higher earners, the right would be up in arms and the vast majority of the left would be in favor.
If it came from cuts to social programs and revenue from middle/lower class taxes, the left would have a problem.
The left is not against balanced budgets. Clinton was the last president to have one. W Bush gave it away.
It's true that Clinton was the president when we last had a balanced federal budget, but CLINTON wasn't the one who balanced it. Very interesting and worthwhile reading in the link below. Here is just a small clip.
"Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.
Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George H.W. Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that G. H. W. Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George H. W. Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office.
And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?
Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years[/color]."
So, as President, Clinton had two choices when presented the budget worked out by the Republican House and approved by the Republican Senate. He could either sign it into law or veto it, at which point his veto would have been rapidly overridden and the bill would be come law anyway. Clinton chose to sign.
Read the rest of it at the link. It's not all that long.
It's true that Clinton was the president when we last had a balanced federal budget, but CLINTON wasn't the one who balanced it. Very interesting and worthwhile reading in the link below. Here is just a small clip.
"Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.
Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George H.W. Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that G. H. W. Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George H. W. Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office.
And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?
Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years[/color]."
So, as President, Clinton had two choices when presented the budget worked out by the Republican House and approved by the Republican Senate. He could either sign it into law or veto it, at which point his veto would have been rapidly overridden and the bill would be come law anyway. Clinton chose to sign.
Read the rest of it at the link. It's not all that long.
I’m well aware of the history. It does not disprove my assertion that the content of a Budget is far more important politically than whether or not it is balanced.
Democrats are not against a balanced budget any more than today’s republicans are. The disagreement is solely around who pays and which programs get cut.
Democrats are not against a balanced budget any more than today’s republicans are. The disagreement is solely around who pays and which programs get cut.
Well, of course. It's ALWAYS the issue of whose ox gets gored. The Dems (for the most part) want even more money (taxes) from those already providing 90% or so of the federal income taxes paid, while at the same time increasing the benefits (freebies) to those who pay little or nothing (which is predominantly the Dems' constituency). In effect, the Dems are buying the votes of a huge portion of their constituency with money taken from other people (mostly Republicans). It doesn't take Einstein to figure out which side is in favor of tax cuts and which side wants more spending.
Well, of course. It's ALWAYS the issue of whose ox gets gored. The Dems (for the most part) want even more money (taxes) from those already providing 90% or so of the federal income taxes paid, while at the same time increasing the benefits (freebies) to those who pay little or nothing (which is predominantly the Dems' constituency). In effect, the Dems are buying the votes of a huge portion of their constituency with money taken from other people (mostly Republicans). It doesn't take Einstein to figure out which side is in favor of tax cuts and which side wants more spending.
Poor white people are voting republican. It’s much more an urban/rural divide anymore. The demographics are not supporting your assertion. Middle class suburbanites and well-to-do urbanites are becoming the most important voting block for the Dems. This is not about vote buying. It’s about what people value. Most Dems would like to see military spending cuts instead of social service cuts.
Poor white people are voting republican. It’s much more an urban/rural divide anymore. The demographics are not supporting your assertion. Middle class suburbanites and well-to-do urbanites are becoming the most important voting block for the Dems. This is not about vote buying. It’s about what people value. Most Dems would like to see military spending cuts instead of social service cuts.
I'm willing to listen to and consider cuts of any kind and tax increases of any kind provided someone presents them in a reasonable BALANCED budget that makes sense and leads to a balanced budget. However, that is not typically what we hear. All we hear are one-sided arguments that have zero chance of enactment... just like the troll who started this thread.
I'm willing to listen to and consider cuts of any kind and tax increases of any kind provided someone presents them in a reasonable BALANCED budget that makes sense and leads to a balanced budget. However, that is not typically what we hear. All we hear are one-sided arguments that have zero chance of enactment... just like the troll who started this thread.
The assertion, I think, is that everyone wants to reduce their own tax-burden, but nobody is willing to reduce their own benefits (be those straight-up welfare, retirement-benefits or tax deductions). Everyone is a fiscal conservative with their own money, and a profligate liberal (or outright socialist) with other people's money.
But to Skydog's point, it does also seem to me, that Democrats' principal gains are among urban/suburban affluent white people. Rural and poorer white people are increasing leaning Republican. This is happening, I think, more for cultural than for economic reasons.
Someone who is a fiscal conservative would look at their budget and see what needs to be cut down... what I find funny is that most fiscal conservatives ignore our military budget. They say, well we don't need taxes because we should cut welfare etc... well what about military spending, that is the real out of whack thing. We spend something like what the next 10 countries COMBINED? That's why I say there are no real fiscal conservatives. They like to cherry pick cute things here and there, but really they don't care about the budget. They just want to move the funds around to what they like. The Tea Party in the Republican Party is a cancer, luckily, Republicans got most of it out or got it in remission, similar to the AOC types are a cancer to the Democratic party, we will see if they are able to cure themselves.
I agree with on the military spending.
But what about health care? Liberals assume government controlled health care is the solution to all our problems. Yet was spend 8% of GDP on Medicare/Medicaid. Yet those programs only cover 1/2 our population. Other developed countries cover 3/4 or even their entire populations when they spend 8% of GDP on health care, yet we only cover 1/2. Yet liberals think the only way to make health care more efficient is a "single payer" system.
A few liberals like Bill Maher (who I don't like or agree with often) sees through that BS:
"One of the candidates has to say: 'Americans eat sh*t--and too much of it'. All the candidates will talk about their health plans, but no one will mention the key factor--The citizens won't lift a finger to help.
....Here it is in a nutshell from the New York Times: 'Poor diet is the leading cause of mortality in the United States'."
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.
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.
