Let me get this straight. Did "Newt and the boys" help engineer the "huge tax increase"?

 

Nah they were done in his first 2 years when your boys controlled the House, the Senate and the White House.

Truthfully the internet bubble and strong stock market driving the economy of the mid 90's was more responsible than anything anyone in DC did.

SO I guess we should give Al Gore all of the credit, after all he invented the internet.

Maybe he is meaning how under this President the Deficit is between $500 Billion to $1 Trillion higher than any year for the previous administration. Even with the project decrease for 2013 to $900 Billion, that is still higher than any of the the Bush War (with 2 wars being fought) years by over $400 Billion.

 

I don't think that's what he meant.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/05/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-federal-deficit-growing/

 

 

Cantor said, "What we are trying to do is fund the government and make sure also that we take away the kinds of things that are standing in the way of a growing economy (and) a better health care, and all the while keeping our eye focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit."

I don't think that's what he meant.

 

PolitiFact | Eric Cantor says the federal deficit is ?growing?

 

 

 

Cantor said, "What we are trying to do is fund the government and make sure also that we take away the kinds of things that are standing in the way of a growing economy (and) a better health care, and all the while keeping our eye focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit."

 

The deficit has grown by $6 trillion dollars in the five years of this administration. I'd call that a growing deficit, and I agree it is the ultimate problem.

Clinton "balanced" the budget by carving the fourth largest fighting force in the world out of our own military.. I guess most folks do not remember all the base closings, lost jobs, and lost earnings for the small towns and cities that supported the military posts..

The deficit has grown by $6 trillion dollars in the five years of this administration. .

 

I think this post(which I assume is accurate) shows the challenge of making any claims about "reduction" or "increase."

 

For those who follow it closer than I :

 

Are you saying that the President has added a lot to the deficit (stimulus /tax cut) and YET at the same time the net result of the deficit is that it has gone down each year over the last few years?

 

I do struggle with hearing "it's growing" when the chart I linked shows otherwise.

I think this post(which I assume is accurate) shows the challenge of making any claims about "reduction" or "increase."

 

For those who follow it closer than I :

 

Are you saying that the President has added a lot to the deficit (stimulus /tax cut) and YET at the same time the net result of the deficit is that it has gone down each year over the last few years?

 

I do struggle with hearing "it's growing" when the chart I linked shows otherwise.

 

It may be growing at a lesser rate than it was 4 years ago, but the deficit is still going to grow by $900 billion this year and that is nearly double that of any other period in time outside of this administration.

 

They are still going to spend more money this year than they did last year.

 

You here all this talk of cuts. No budget that I know of has actually been cut. They are just not being increased as fast as they were.

 

Not sure who gets the credit for that, the administration or the republicans getting control of one house.

 

Or Newt and the boys?

 

Both. If you are going to credit presidents. Then include congress.

 

HUGE tax increase helped.

 

But that would nullify the lowering taxes generates more revenue theory.

But that would nullify the lowering taxes generates more revenue theory.

 

Could, not would. And that's ok by me.

For the record I've noticed many of you are confusing the deficit with the debt. The Deficit is the yearly budget, the debt is the overall obligations the U.S. has from all years combined. The Debt does continue to grow. The deficit while it has shrunk a little , is still very much in the negative. There is no possible way any sain person could call for more spending with the annual deficit is so high.

Clinton "balanced" the budget by carving the fourth largest fighting force in the world out of our own military.. I guess most folks do not remember all the base closings, lost jobs, and lost earnings for the small towns and cities that supported the military posts..

 

Which is why I think it is unwise to look at the debt numbers in a vacumn. It's great on paper that there were surpluses during the Clinton years, but if that came at the expense of reducing military readiness that would have to be addressed in the future, I'm not sure it was such a good thing. President Clinton also reduced intelligence budgets. I'm not going to assert that his reductions to the intelligence budget made 9/11 "possible", but I don't know that such can be ruled out either. In any event, by the end of Clinton's Presidency he and Tenet realized that intelligence spending had been cut way too dramatically and it was increased. Too little too late is for others to argue.

 

I can make my savings accounts look really great on December 31st of any year, but if I do so by not properly maintaining my home or other assets, causing me to have even greater expenditures in the next calendar year, is that really a good thing?

 

President Obama has reduced federal spending in part by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but if such causes us to have to go back over there during the next President's term and spend huge amounts, will it be fair to compliment President Obama for reducing spending and criticize the next President for increased spending?

 

Looking at the numbers by themselves can be misleading I think.

Clinton "balanced" the budget by carving the fourth largest fighting force in the world out of our own military.. I guess most folks do not remember all the base closings, lost jobs, and lost earnings for the small towns and cities that supported the military posts..

 

Cammando I wont disagree with you, but at that specify time, did we need a military as big as we had?

Which is why I think it is unwise to look at the debt numbers in a vacumn. It's great on paper that there were surpluses during the Clinton years, but if that came at the expense of reducing military readiness that would have to be addressed in the future, I'm not sure it was such a good thing. President Clinton also reduced intelligence budgets. I'm not going to assert that his reductions to the intelligence budget made 9/11 "possible", but I don't know that such can be ruled out either. In any event, by the end of Clinton's Presidency he and Tenet realized that intelligence spending had been cut way too dramatically and it was increased. Too little too late is for others to argue.

 

I can make my savings accounts look really great on December 31st of any year, but if I do so by not properly maintaining my home or other assets, causing me to have even greater expenditures in the next calendar year, is that really a good thing?

 

President Obama has reduced federal spending in part by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but if such causes us to have to go back over there during the next President's term and spend huge amounts, will it be fair to compliment President Obama for reducing spending and criticize the next President for increased spending?

 

Looking at the numbers by themselves can be misleading I think.

 

Actual data shows a shrinkage of the DoD budget and also all other spending except Social Security, Treasury and HHS. So yet, Clinton (and congress) cashed in on the post-Reagan peace dividend. But they also actually cut real government spending.

 

The following is from real WH data. The scary part is when you map pre-Clinton trend lines to the projections (this are dated by about a year or so but still fairly accurate) the spending projected is well above, very well above the historical trend from pre-Clinton times.

 

So under Clinton (and the later the Repub controlled congress) is that military and general spending went materially down. Along with it - Treasury spending went down since the deficite turned into a surplus and we were actually paying off debt for the first time in a few years. Lets ignore Social Security - mostly off budget anyway. That leaves HHS. HHS starts to uptick from the historical trend line. But it is only an uptick. Under Bush this uptick accelerates and under Obama it literally almost goes exponential.

 

As the projections shows Treasury (debt) and HHS (medicare, medicade and ACHA) are astronomically above their pre-Clinton trend lines and the overall budget is well above that trend line. That is not simply sustainable in any way.

 

Clinton "balanced" the budget by carving the fourth largest fighting force in the world out of our own military.. I guess most folks do not remember all the base closings, lost jobs, and lost earnings for the small towns and cities that supported the military posts..

 

Base closings are still going on more than a decade after he left. BRAC was a Bush policy. Seems like all those lost jobs were a bipartisan effort.