- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,665
- Reaction score
- 863
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I can appreciate the distinction between Debt Held by the Public and the Total Debt. You are correct that from a Total Debt perspective, there we did not have a surplus in the late 1990's, but that deficit was the lowest it had been in nearly half a century. Do not get so hung up in the political semantics that you miss the point: the deficit was very, very manageable during the Clinton years. It got out of control during the ensuing administration(s).
Well, the point you just made doesn't address my point. Since you arrived mid-discussion, you have not seen my point. Not your fault, but I did not want to go through the explanation yet another time. Before, I get to my point, let me address your point. I am pleased to see you admit that there was no surplus during the
1990s; however, you have neglected to point out another fact of those days. That fact is Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Clinton signed the bills they passed. They both get credit. You will not find me defending the deficits of the Bush Era.
My point was that Reagan agreed to raise taxes in exchange for cuts in expenditures. The Dems got their tax increases, but Reagan did not get his expenditure cuts. That was the 1980s. I provided proof of that long ago. In the 1990s, Mr. Read My Lips, came to an agreement again with the Dems. This time it was $3 of expenditure cuts for $1 tax increase. The tax increase was implemented, but the Dems only cut 27 cents. These are the lies to which I speak. No offense, but I don't trust the Dems. I don't really trust the GOP all that much either. I'm afraid they will get snookered by a third lie.