Originally posted by eljefejesusSo there you go, there is no unwillingness, it is impossible to just stop spending, especially considering the ongoing wars in the middle-east, and all the costs involved.
you could call it inability rather than unwillingness,
and you could start with slight reductions in spending rather than huge increases.
Also, lets not forget the people responsible this, and yes, Im talking about the bush administration.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIgnorance on your part or willful deception?
Um.... huh????
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed into law and signed by President William Jefferson Clinton with every single one of every single Republican voting against it.
Follow the discussion about cutting spending.
The 1993 OBRA you mentioned was a tax-raising bill, which changes the topic. You didn't get the point I made that the Republicans pushed to cut spending. You challenged it by showing that the Democrats supported raising taxes instead. I suspect ignorance on your part.
An alternative by Republican John Kasich would have balanced the budget by cutting spending.
http://www.answers.com/topic/omnibus-budget-reconciliation-act-of-1993
Did you miss the rest of the 90's? 1994 was a Republican landslide election. Ever hear of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans' Contract With Amerca that some Democrats attacked as a contract on america?
"Controlling the Growth of Government: The Fiscal Responsibility Act
A key ingredient, both explicit and implicit, in the Contract is a fundamental change in the character of government in the United States. The very first item in the Contract With America sought "to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses." The key components of this act were a line-item veto and balanced budget/tax limitation amendment. The line-item veto would allow the President to strike specific spending provisions in bills without having to veto the entire bill, and thus eliminate unnecessary spending. This provision passed both the House and Senate in slightly different forms, and President Clinton promises to sign it into law. On the other hand, the balanced budget amendment, which required a two-thirds vote to change the Constitution, was defeated. Even though not succeeding in passing the amendment itself, the House did pass a balanced budget resolution, which in the short term would have the same effect. Thus, the concept of balancing the budget has remained a central theme in the U.S. Congress; the means of achieving this could only come from a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.
The effort to eliminate unnecessary federal government programs has proven to be one of the biggest challenges facing the new Congress. Initial enthusiasm about eliminating unjustifiable federal programs, such as subsidies to the arts and humanities as well as public television and radio, generated fierce and well-organized opposition by the special-interest groups who benefit from the programs. Thus, instead of immediately eliminating them, the Congress only voted to phase them out over several years. What this means in Washington is that the battle is renewed each year.
The key lesson for anyone wanting to scale back the size of government is that it is best to eliminate a program immediately, as that engenders just as much opposition as reducing funding for a program. Only when a program is totally eliminated is the battle over that program won; in contrast, incremental reduction simply means revisiting the issue every year."
http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilosophy/hl549.cfm
Originally posted by generalissimoWhy do you keep saying "stop spending"... how is it impossible to reduce spending when the war does not even make up the majority of spending. In fact, Obama himself has kept troops in both countries and ran his campaign in part on continuing the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin.
So there you go, there is no unwillingness, it is impossible to just stop spending, especially considering the ongoing wars in the middle-east, and all the costs involved.
Also, lets not forget the people responsible this, and yes, Im talking about the bush administration.
Originally posted by eljefejesusIn ACTUALITY the Bill is had a nearly 1-1 ratio of tax increases *and* spending cuts.
Ignorance on your part or willful deception?
Follow the discussion about cutting spending.
The 1993 OBRA you mentioned was a tax-raising bill, which changes the topic. You didn't get the point I made that the Republicans pushed to cut spending. You challenged it by showing that the Democrats supported raising taxes instead. I suspect ignorance on your part.
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993
Legislation in the United States that raised certain taxes on certain income, including on some entitlements like Social Security. It was part of the broader Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised taxes and cut some government spending in order to reduce the federal deficit. The Act came out of a theory that large deficits lead to inflation; this theory was rejected by both New Deal liberals and supply-side economics conservatives, both of whom believed that deficits are relatively unimportant. While the theory behind the Act remains controversial, it led to a projected budget surplus toward the end of the 1990s
Question, was that willful deception or just ignorance on your part? I suspect that latter.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou didn't cite any support or quote for this 1:1 ratio you claim.
In ACTUALITY the Bill is had a nearly 1-1 ratio of tax increases *and* spending cuts.
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993
Legislation in the United States that raised certain taxes on certain income, including on some entitlements like Social Security. It was part of the broader Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised taxes and ...[text shortened]... s
Question, was that willful deception or just ignorance on your part? I suspect that latter.
It also fails to support your position that Republicans did not put the brakes on spending moreso than did Clinton.
Although you are welcome to start supporting the claim you just made on that ratio, the argument would still stand; the Republicans deserve the true credit for the 1990's push to reduce government spending rather than Clinton.
Originally posted by eljefejesuswhy would you reduce spending (now) if it helps the economy?
Why do you keep saying "stop spending"... how is it impossible to reduce spending when the war does not even make up the majority of spending. In fact, Obama himself has kept troops in both countries and ran his campaign in part on continuing the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI actually think OBRA 93 was, in general, a good bill; just as I think that Clinton was, in general, a good President in terms of economic policy.
In ACTUALITY the Bill is had a nearly 1-1 ratio of tax increases *and* spending cuts.
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993
Legislation in the United States that raised certain taxes on certain income, including on some entitlements like Social Security. It was part of the broader Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised taxes and ...[text shortened]... s
Question, was that willful deception or just ignorance on your part? I suspect that latter.
However, there's no question that Congressional Republicans caused Clinton to adopt conservative economic policies like welfare reform, signing NAFTA and the tax cut of 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Reconciliation_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
Those policies almost certainly helped stimulate the economic growth of the late 90s, whether or not you believe they were good ideas in the long run.