11/20/2010

If spending had been reduced in 2010 to the 2005 level the deficit would have only been $310 billion, not $1.3 trillion

The 2007 budget was the last one that Republicans controlled both the congress and the presidency.

Source is here.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Blogger Chas said...

Markie Marxist sez: "Yeah, if spending had been reduced in 2010 to the 2005 level the deficit would have only been $310 billion, not $1.3 trillion, but then we wouldn't have stuck the American people with such a huge bill for government, so it wouldn't have been good common communist sense. After all, we do want to increase taxation to one hundred percent. This helps! And that's why we did it."

11/20/2010 8:46 PM  
Blogger LB said...

First of all, the last time there was a surplus was under Clinton. It took Bush one year to turn the surplus into a deficit. When was the last time a Republican presided over a balanced budget?

Dwight Eisenhower, '56 & '57 with a Democratically controlled House and Senate. You seem to infer that Republicans need to control both to make this happen. Do you really believe that Republican want a balanced budget?

11/22/2010 12:31 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear LB:
As you know, the Republican congress had to drag Clinton towards that on multiple occasions. Note also that the Dems controlled the Senate for the first two years of the Bush administration. The point here is that the deficits were going down again when the Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency and then they went up again when the Democrats took control of congress again. Right.

11/23/2010 11:01 PM  
Blogger LB said...

I'm not sure what you mean by the Republican congress dragged Clinton towards a balanced budget. I believe that he found a way to compromise on issues with Newt with the goal of balancing the budget. Clinton submitted a balanced budget 3 years ahead of their schedule because of better economic condition than they anticipated.

The statement is accurate. The president submits a proposed budget but the House defines how the money will be spent through its powers from the Constitution. After the budget is submitted, the House follows it for the most part. It’s just the way we do things. From what I can tell, a Republican president hasn’t submitted a balanced budget since Nixon. If the Democrats who controlled the House for the most part hadn’t followed all of the Republican presidents that submitted budget imbalances over the last ~37 years, we wouldn’t have this much debt. It seem like we could stop the bleeding by not listening to the Republican presidents that don't submit a balanced budget. It seems like they like not paying taxes today so that they can borrowing against the future.

11/25/2010 1:49 AM  
Blogger John Lott said...

1) Congress got the budget in balance in half the time that Clinton had planned.
2) Possibly you remember the government shutdown that Clinton blamed on the Republicans trying to cut to much from the budget.
3) Possibly you remember the Clinton vetoes over spending cuts.

11/26/2010 1:44 PM  
Blogger LB said...

1) Congress didn't balance the budget. They followed the balanced budget that Clinton submitted. Tax revenues were more than anyone expected.

2) The shutdown accomplished nothing. The budget wasn't balanced until the next year.

3) It's called negociations. There were spending cuts and tax increases.

4) For the six years that Repubs controlled things during Bushes' term, no balanced budget, more welfare ( prescription drug plan,), no entitlement program cuts, junk legislation ( Patriot Act), basically the status quo.

5) Most Replubs are sell outs because if you cut stuff, you cannot channel it to your good ol' boy friends or you lose votes. Repubs are more interested in staying in power anyway they can.

6) We will see.

11/30/2010 12:04 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home