Sorry Sparky, Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in 1993, the year Clinton took office.
The "balanced budget" you're referring to (which is false) was done with a republican congress some years later, get your facts straight!
Economic Recovery Moving Slow
- Thread starter ashleyhoward
- Start date
The "balanced budget" you're referring to (which is false) was done with a republican congress some years later, get your facts straight!
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
No need to be condescending my friend, a simple yeah you're right will do!
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected
Al Gore didnt cast the deciding vote on a budget bill
It was actually for playground equiptment
your claim was the vote was cast for a SURPLUS generating budget.
Are you trying to slime your way out of being wrong?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Are you saying the 93 budget didnt help out the surplus?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
1993 Deficit Reduction: A lesson on taxes, economic growth, and jobs—as reported by America’s premier CONSERVATIVE financial daily news publication:
The Wall Street Journal
[HR][/HR]
Conservative politicians always threaten the public that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers' wages will go down.
Conservatives’ hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supporters—the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s—to be able to keep more of their money.
Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is much more likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve America’s problems—and save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.
Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." —Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." —Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
So, what was the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the the 1993 deficit reduction legislation?
A Vote for Clinton’s Economic Program Becomes
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
And what was the Journal’s take on the subject three years later?
Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
(Note: For the deficit reduction, the Journal gave more credit to Clinton’s tax increases than to the cost-cutting Republican Congress.)
And another year later—the Journal is still giving credit to "tax-on-wealthy" for the deficit reduction:
Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
hey Beenthere
going to change your name to
"not here"
going to change your name to
"not here"
Sorry once again Sparky, President Clinton LOWERED taxes on investors and businesses.
And you still haven't admitted his so called surplus came with a republican led congress, I'm waiting.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
you got your ass handed to you
and you cant back peddle this either
1993 Deficit Reduction: A lesson on taxes, economic growth, and jobs—as reported by America’s premier CONSERVATIVE financial daily news publication:
The Wall Street Journal
[HR][/HR]
Conservative politicians always threaten the public that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers' wages will go down.
Conservatives’ hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supporters—the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s—to be able to keep more of their money.
Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is much more likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve America’s problems—and save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.
Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." —Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." —Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
So, what was the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the the 1993 deficit reduction legislation?
A Vote for Clinton’s Economic Program Becomes
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
And what was the Journal’s take on the subject three years later?
Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
(Note: For the deficit reduction, the Journal gave more credit to Clinton’s tax increases than to the cost-cutting Republican Congress.)
And another year later—the Journal is still giving credit to "tax-on-wealthy" for the deficit reduction:
Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
Don't have to backpedal Sparky, do you really think this is the first time I've argued this point with a leftie? LMAO
Type "budget surplus myth" in your Google search bar. When you find the part where Clinton robbed the SS surplus from the social security trust fund to pay down the deficit, get back to me. Anyone can figure this out by looking at the gross national debt which is the public debt + intergovernmental debt (social security trust fund). Never once was the gross national debt balanced.
BTW, are you going to deny that Bill Clinton lowered taxes on the rich and businesses?
Here Chesus, I'll help ya out.
In 1993, Clinton raised taxes on upper-income Americans, boosting the top rate to nearly 40 percent. But the higher tax rates didn't boost government revenues as Democrats and the administration hoped, despite the economy coming out of a short and shallow recession.
The tax increases added very little to Treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree. Clinton boasts about his budget surpluses, but they did not occur until after the Republican-run Congress sent him a deficit-reducing bill in 1997 that he signed reluctantly. Among its tax cut provisions, it cut the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent.
The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
you got your ass handed to you
and you cant back peddle this either
1993 Deficit Reduction: A lesson on taxes, economic growth, and jobs—as reported by America’s premier CONSERVATIVE financial daily news publication:
The Wall Street Journal
[HR][/HR]
Conservative politicians always threaten the public that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers' wages will go down.
Conservatives’ hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supporters—the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s—to be able to keep more of their money.
Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is much more likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve America’s problems—and save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.
Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." —Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." —Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." —Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." —Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." —Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." —Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
So, what was the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of the the 1993 deficit reduction legislation?
A Vote for Clinton’s Economic Program Becomes
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
And what was the Journal’s take on the subject three years later?
Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to ’93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. —WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
(Note: For the deficit reduction, the Journal gave more credit to Clinton’s tax increases than to the cost-cutting Republican Congress.)
And another year later—the Journal is still giving credit to "tax-on-wealthy" for the deficit reduction:
Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldn’t generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now there’s growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffers—enough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of April—appears to have come mostly from the nation’s biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting…
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said there’d be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." —WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
When you find yourself trying to change the subject or copy and pasting two page long junk that doesn't support your argument, you FAIL.
Go back to your original claim that Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote that gave us a surplus budget, do the research and you will find we never had a budget surplus for another five years!
Until then, you're claiming victory on something totally fabricated. FAIL
Go back to your original claim that Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote that gave us a surplus budget, do the research and you will find we never had a budget surplus for another five years!
Until then, you're claiming victory on something totally fabricated. FAIL
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
I kind of liked Al Gore, his wife Tipper too. I can't remember any of the stuff that happened at the time but I do know our bussiness earnings are down almost 70% of what they were in the last 5 years. We now employ less people than at any other time and it seems that people here aren't spending money because they just don't have it. We never recieved a nickel from the government for anything either. And yes we did build this bussiness ourselves without the help from ol Mitt or Obama. The bussiness we had in Mass closed after Mitt took office due to the huge increase in fees. Some of these increases took place before he came into office and some after. So I'm not blaming him for that it was our choice to close, profits dropped way down and the market was just not as good. Mainly it was insurance companies gouging us and political representation that was just not representative of our views.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
You liked Tipper? The crazy bitch who as head of the PMRC tried banning swearing in music? If she had her way you would go to jail for typing curse words on her husbands invention....the internet.
Look up the song "Startin' Up A Posse" by Anthrax.....It's about Tipper and the PMRC.
Moses Mobetta
Well-Known Member
It was mostly her boobs I liked. I don't remember her political views. Just being honest.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
you got your ass handed to you
and you cant back peddle this either
1993 Deficit Reduction: A lesson on taxes, economic growth, and jobsas reported by Americas premier CONSERVATIVE financial daily news publication:
The Wall Street Journal
[HR][/HR]
Conservative politicians always threaten the public that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers' wages will go down.
Conservatives hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supportersthe ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90sto be able to keep more of their money.
Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is much more likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve Americas problemsand save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.
Heres what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens:
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)
"The tax increase will lead to a recession and will actually increase the deficit." Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
"The tax increase will lead to a recession and will actually increase the deficit." Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up." Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction." Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
So, what was the Wall Street Journals analysis of the the 1993 deficit reduction legislation?
A Vote for Clintons Economic Program Becomes
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didnt touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bills tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"Its the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost Even in those 11 districts more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
The Platform for Often-Misleading GOP Attacks
Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package with a $240 billion tax increase is not "the largest tax increase in history."
The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy; and both recent laws are dwarfed by the tax bills of World War II.
Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didnt touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.
GOP candidates also ignore the bills tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.
"Its the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost Even in those 11 districts more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes. WALL STREET JOURNAL, October 26, 1994, A22.
And what was the Journals take on the subject three years later?
Scary Deficit Forecasts For Clinton Years
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to 93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billionthe lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the worlds advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBOs analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clintons 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
Fade As Tax Revenue Grows
It Rises Faster Than Outlays, Thanks to 93 Budget Bill
And a Steady Economy
Where has the federal deficit gone?
When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billionthe lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.
Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the worlds advanced nations except Norway.
Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress
For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.
By the CBOs analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clintons 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors. WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 1, 1996, A1.
(Note: For the deficit reduction, the Journal gave more credit to Clintons tax increases than to the cost-cutting Republican Congress.)
And another year laterthe Journal is still giving credit to "tax-on-wealthy" for the deficit reduction:
Tax on Wealthy Is Boosting U.S. Revenue Treasury Says 1993 Increase Is Helping Cut the Deficit
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldnt generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now theres growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffersenough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of Aprilappears to have come mostly from the nations biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said thered be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.
President Clinton sold the 1993 income-tax increase as a way to shrink the budget deficit at the expense of the rich.
Republican adversaries predicted it wouldnt generate much revenue because the rich would work less and take bigger deductions. Now theres growing, if still tentative, evidence that Mr. Clinton may have been right after all.
The recent flood of revenue pouring into Treasury coffersenough to push the federal budget to a record $93.94 billion surplus for the month of Aprilappears to have come mostly from the nations biggest earners, indicating that the controversial tax increase may indeed be taking from the rich. "The available data suggest the surge in tax collections has come from the taxpayers with high incomes, who were the only ones affected by the 1993 changes," says Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.
Corporate taxes, which were increased modestly under the 1993 law, also have brought in more revenue, but at about the level the Treasury had been predicting
The package, part of the 1993 budget agreement, drew harsh criticism from the right. Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey, who is now the House majority leader, predicted dire results, "Who can blame many second-earner families for deciding that the sacrifice of a second job is no longer worth it?" he wrote...
"The basic fact is that people looked at the 1993 budget agreement and said thered be a recession, the deficit would go way up and that tax collections would go way down," says Mr. Summers. "What has happened is there has been a boom, the deficit has gone way down and tax collections have gone way up." WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 22, 1997, A2.