Can Hillary reduce the debt?

[Kulindahr]

The Bush tax cuts “added about $1.7 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2008.” [Link]

The cost of the Bush tax cuts “will remain the largest component of deficits for the foreseeable future.” [Link]

​

The conservative response to that graph would be to end the Bush tax cuts, because obviously they "fixed" something that wasn't broken and thereby made it worse.

I think actual conservatism is well summed-up in a phrase from the New Testament, "Hold fast to that which is good". The Bush tax cuts are obviously not good for our country, so they should not be held on to. Yet ironically it is those who crow most loudly about being Christian who ignore this concept from the Bible!

 

[Kulindahr]

The tax cuts were of course an element of the deficit spending. In any event, deficits only exist because we spend more than the income. It is very democrat to suggest that taxes should equal spending. It should be the other way around.

At the moment, the right has managed to push federal spending o such bare-bones levels for everything but the military that to cut any more is treasonous. At that point, the conservative response is to invoke another good theme from the New Testament, and insist that "To whom much has been given, from him shall much be required". The economic structure of this country has enabled a very few to become obscenely wealthy; it is time to call on them to pay the debts that have been accrued.

And infantile name-calling over who ran up what and who can't be trusted not to spend more is pointless: the point is that patriots would step forward and call on those who able to give accordingly as they have been blessed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes. Alas, it tends to become a political tool, by both parties, and that problem is amplified by the partisan nature of our media. Clearly deficit spending is out of hand--a trillion or so a year. But Congress cannot check or balance, if it will be demonized in the press for trying. A Republican Pres and Congress might try to reduce the deficit, but it would predictably result in a recession; a political disaster.

And this is where elections become bad for democracy: people won't vote for anyone willing to step up and be responsible.

Of course GOP efforts to reduce the deficit would cause recession, because they would take even more money out of the hands of those who actually spend it, increasing poverty and thus crime.

Anyone with sense would just admit the Bush tax cuts were and remain bad, and end them, and then go on to increase upper brackets further with that revenue going to pay down the debt, not do anything in the general budget -- indeed, those numbers should be kept out of budget accounting period, just as Social Security and Medicare should be because they are pay-based programs, not tax-based (however the payment may be collected). Get those numbers of out the way and we'd be able to see what the real situation is.

 

[opinterph]

I believe that Bill had a balanced budget, I don't believe that our national debt was reduced during this time.

Ah -- good point of distinction.

So balancing the budget is a necessary but not sufficient condition for paying down the debt.

The national debt was at risk of being eliminated.

Amazingly, President Clinton left office in January 2001 with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

The Abject Failure of Reaganomics (consortiumnews.com; October 2013)

 

[Benvolio]

The national debt was at risk of being eliminated.

It was done by Bill plus the Republican Congress.

 

[hotatlboi]

It was done by Bill plus the Republican Congress.

So a Clinton and an R Congress got some good things done.

Looks like we're getting another chance to run that same formula.

 

[Kulindahr]

So a Clinton and an R Congress got some good things done.

Looks like we're getting another chance to run that same formula.

Except now we have the Tea Party fanatics who believe that refusal to compromise is a virtue.

 

[Benvolio]

So a Clinton and an R Congress got some good things done.

Looks like we're getting another chance to run that same formula.

The budget surplus came about more as a result of gridlock than getting things done. It was largely the result of the peace dividend after Reagan and Bush ended the Cold War.

 

[kallipolis]

^To facilitate a better understanding of the facts this article provides more substance:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-ignores-bipartisan-support-for-defense-cuts/

I quote:

But they are selectively choosing numbers that make it appear that the military cuts were Clinton's alone. In fact, the cuts were prompted by the end of the Cold War during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.

During Bush's presidency, he and Congress agreed to a sharp drop in military personnel. Active-duty military declined from 2.2-million to 1.8-million. Total defense forces also shrank, from 3.3-million to 2.9-million.

The Republicans are trying to portray Clinton and the Democrats as weak on defense and to make the peace dividend look like a partisan effort. But contrary to the Republicans' claims, the post-Cold War shrinkage of the U.S. military was very much a bipartisan effort. It began under a Republican president and a Democratic Congress and continued under a Democratic president and a Republican Congress.

 

[Kulindahr]

The budget surplus came about more as a result of gridlock than getting things done. It was largely the result of the peace dividend after Reagan and Bush ended the Cold War.

The "peace dividend" required laws to be passed to achieve it; military spending didn't cut itself.