yeah, he balanced the budget by loosening the 'rules' on borrowing for home purchases....allowing for folks who really couldn't afford the upkeep, to purchase homes then pay into the tax levys heaped upon them by the localities, there by lessening the burden of the Feds to shovel fake $$ down...but they could push those mandates, kind of like a 'Godfather' of sorts......
oh,,,it was balanced for a hot second.....
the loosening of the financial rules came after the budget came into balance in Fiscal 1988 --- the GOP really balanced the budget in the 1990's through the efforts of FIRST -- President George HW Bush in getting the Democratic Congress to agree to "spending caps" in 1990 and Newt Gingrinch the GOP in Congress forcing Clinton and the Democrats in Congress to abide by the original "spending caps" and go further.
There are some analysts who suggest that the Federal budget was not truly balanced in the late 1990's -- #1) because FICA contributions were at historically high levels as baby Boomers entered there peak earning years -- if you "back out" FICA contributions (which IMHO should not be added to the General Fund) the Federal Budget would have still been in deficit in the late 1990's.
#2) and I admit that I can't find the documentation to prove this -- but a former Clinton administration official admitted that the Clinton White House "doctored" some numbers in the late 1990's which made federal revenues and spending - and the economic outlook - look better than they really were. So the claims that "W" Bush spoiled the Clinton plan for at least 10 years of balanced budgets was totally bogus .... teh FACT is that Clinton's forecasts of balanced budgets for the next 10 years (beginning in 199 was based on fuzzy numbers.
(On Bush -- remember this is when he gave in to the new taxes to get the "budget caps"... I quite distinctly remember him saying that he would rather be a one term president and move the US towards a balanced budget.)
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Reagan! One of The Most Popular US Presidents!!! Well, sorta...
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years (behind Kennedy & Clinton.)
Reagan's average approval rating during his presidency (52.8%) is not spectacular. It places Reagan BEHIND Kennedy, Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Johnson and George H.W. Bush, although you'd never know it if you listen to the Rave Reviews of today's Conservatives.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Reagan's 1981 tax cut slashed the marginal rate on the WEALTHIEST Americans from 70 percent to 50 percent. But: Reagan's "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Reagan! One of The Most Popular US Presidents!!! Well, sorta...
It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years (behind Kennedy & Clinton.)
Reagan's average approval rating during his presidency (52.8%) is not spectacular. It places Reagan BEHIND Kennedy, Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Johnson and George H.W. Bush, although you'd never know it if you listen to the Rave Reviews of today's Conservatives.
you know us Americans.....we looooooove our actors/actresses......we like anything sold to us with a nice smile a wink and a nod.... as long as it feels good......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Reagan legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s, & Reagan prevented Roe v. Wade abortion ruling from being overturned by appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court who mostly upheld abortion rights for her 25 years as a justice.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Reagan Was A Fiscal Conservative!!! NOPE! During the years of Ronald Reagan national debt in the United States nearly tripled.
The national debt of the United States had increased slowly from the 1900s, it rose from $43 million in the 1940s to $930 million in 1980. Under Reagan, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion... three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Reagan legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s, & Reagan prevented Roe v. Wade abortion ruling from being overturned by appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court who mostly upheld abortion rights for her 25 years as a justice.
Oh box, how you are so good at simplifying and revising history. Reagan sign the bill after changing the language to limit abortions to incest, rape, and death of the mother. The California state legislator had the majority to override Reagan's veto, so Reagan changed wording in the law in efforts to reduce at-will abortions.
Box, you twist the facts to make it sound like Reagan sponsored the legislation. You are shameless.
Oh box, how you are so good at simplifying and revising history. Reagan sign the bill after changing the language to limit abortions to incest, rape, and death of the mother. The California state legislator had the majority to override Reagan's veto, so Reagan changed wording in the law in efforts to reduce at-will abortions.
Box, you twist the facts to make it sound like Reagan sponsored the legislation. You are shameless.
so see.....the choice is that if the mother is dead then why bother saving the child because no one else will do it......so it IS the woman's choice because everyone else are miles and miles aways from the issue.....including the penis.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Box, you twist the facts to make it sound like Reagan sponsored the legislation. You are shameless.
Reagan limited his opposition to abortion to appease the Right.
IF you think I "made it sound like Reagan sponsored the bill" I posted facts. No where did I post he "sponsored" anything about abortion. If you came to that conclusion, that's your problem.
Reagan put Sandra Day O'Connor, a Pro Choice Judge, in the Supreme Court. He could have opted for a Anti-Choice appointment, BUT HE DIDN'T.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
'Baby Doe' Rules Proposed UPI Published: December 8, 1984 WASHINGTON, Dec. 7— The Reagan Administration, saying ''quality of life'' must play no role in deciding whether infants should live, proposed rules Friday requiring treatment of handicapped newborn babies except in extreme cases.
The ''Baby Doe'' rules would carry out a law signed by President Reagan Oct. 9 requiring treatment and nutrition of most handicapped newborns.
The only exceptions are when the infant is irreversibly comatose, the treatment would merely prolong dying, or the treatment would not prolong the infant's life and would therefore be ''inhumane.''
The issue was brought to public attention two years ago in the case of an Indiana infant known as ''Baby Doe'' who died after his parents refused to authorize nutrition and corrective surgery for him.
'Baby Doe' Rules Proposed UPI Published: December 8, 1984 WASHINGTON, Dec. 7— The Reagan Administration, saying ''quality of life'' must play no role in deciding whether infants should live, proposed rules Friday requiring treatment of handicapped newborn babies except in extreme cases.
This legislation is about INFANTS... and I support it.
It has nothing to do with Reagan's record on abortion.
Unless you are one of those people who can't distinguish between a fetus and a baby.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The only exceptions are when the infant is irreversibly comatose, the treatment would merely prolong dying, or the treatment would not prolong the infant's life and would therefore be ''inhumane.''
Quoted Text
The Reagan Administration, saying ''quality of life'' must play no role in deciding whether infants should live, proposed rules Friday requiring treatment of handicapped newborn babies except in extreme cases.
these are all feel good statements......it is very subjective to the parents and he is referring to INFANTS...not fetus'......
are they laws or guidelines.....ALOT of what we see that is signed (especially feel good items) are guidelines or acts......it's a conversation without end..
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
From Cicero's link: "EDITOR'S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review's Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission."
Spring 1983...The beginning of the '84 election cycle. HUH! Wonder why Reagan opted to print an Anti Choice article just before the election cycle began??? VOTES??? No Way!
Reagan's (and Sandra Day O'Connor's) record speak for themselves.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
From the CATO Institute --1999 -- Notice the chart at the end of the article -- the budget did not have a surplus until Fiscal 1998 --- Fiscal 1998 fell in the 2nd year of Bill Clinton's SECOND TERM. Not the second year of his first term.
No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget
by Stephen Moore
This article appeared on cato.org on October 8, 1998.
PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:
ShareThis Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.
Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office.
And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?
Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.
We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion.
Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.
Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."
And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.
The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton's budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending -- proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It's funny, but back in January the White House didn't seem too concerned about saving the surplus for "shoring up Social Security."
Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.
We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?
So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won't be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.)
The budget surpluses over the next five years could exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing.
Who Really Balanced the Budget Federal Deficits (Billions $) Clinton Baseline* Actual 1994 $203 $203 1995 175 164 1996 205 107 1997 210 22 1998 210 +60 * Congressional Budget Office forecast, April 1995.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
was based on fuzzy numbers.
Logged
