Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I don't know if I should take that to mean yes you agree or no you don't agree. I won't make an assumption or read into what you wrote.
Spending increased during Clinton's term, I am not aware of any administration that had spending reductions.
In '92 revenues increased 3.4%
In '93 +5.7%
In '94 +9% and stayed above 7% and peaked at 10% in 2000. In 2001 there was a 1.6% decline in revenues.
Who gets the credit or blame for the decline?
Who gets credit or blame for the above norm growth in revenue during the mid and late '90's?
The reasons deficit spending is important is that it lays the foundation for discussion on the debt in my view. Shouldn't finish one topic before starting another? And the OP was about the deficit.
|
As I said, I agree that tax and spending policies have both a short term and long term effect.
And as I also said, looking at the numbers and trends, I dont give Bush I policies much credit for the decrease in the annual deficit EVERY YEAR during the Clinton adminstration. It was primarily due to controlled spending (about 4%/year as opposed to 7%/year for Bush II) by Clinton and a policy that spending increases had to be matched by revenue increases ("pay as you go")
I also agree revenues fell in 2001 as a result of the mild recession and that is something Bush II inherited. But revenues continued to drop for the next 3 years, and I attribute that more to the 2001 tax cut and the 7%/year increase in spending by Bush , much as I attribute the rise in the annual deficit by Bush for four years.
You can see the numbers for revenues, outlays and debt for the years covered (see table 459)
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...ent/fedgov.pdf