Deficit.
 

Too lazy to rebut the rest right now, but according to the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 you are flat wrong. The deficit declined from $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion in 1993, and then to $203 billion in 1994 (when the GOP won the House). Where is this increase in the deficit during Clinton's first two years that you mention?

It also doesn't look like spending went up all that much in this time period, either.

Deficit.
 

Most Republicans have managed to forget this, but during the Clinton years the federal government actually ran budget surpluses, relieving the government of the need to pretend the deficit wasn't so big. So, no.

Deficit.
 

Actually what I'm saying has nothing to do with what Gatti was saying about treatment of the war expenses. Since we're doing the condescending thing today, you might stop for a second and consider the fact that he and I are different people, or at least different socks.

And I think I've been pretty clear that people should not of Bush as stupid.

Other than being completely non-responsive and pedantic, that was an excellent post.

Deficit.
 

Black is white. Night is day. 1992-94 never happened.

eta: stp, and Not Bob has my proxy on this one

Deficit.
 

Thank you.

Deficit.
 

No, as I noted in my original post, there were two different packages passed -- an economic stimulus bill and a tax increase/deficit recuction bill. The GOP opposed both -- their opposition to the stimulus package wasn't surprising, but the GOP deficit hawks surprised the Clintonistas by ducking the deficit package (I guess under your CAFTA standard, they proved that they didn't care about deficits). It passed by one vote in the House.

The markets responded (the "fucking bond traders") to the deficit reduction efforts -- that's what they cared about. 30 year interest rates declined over a point from 1992 to 1993 (7.67 to 6.59). http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...a/a/tcm30y.txt

There was a spike in interest rates in 1994, which caused all sorts of problems in the world economy, or was caused by world problems -- I forget which (ah, the halcyon days of the bankruptcy of Long Term Capital, Orange County, Mexico). But they declined steadily from 1994 forward.

Deficit.
 

1 post hoc
2 you are Notme.

Deficit.
 

I will get to the prior post tomorrow but the decline in long term interest trates from 1992-1993 occurred under Bush I and the recovery. Clinton entered office in 1993 and inherited Bush's 1993 budget. The economic growth's increases in revenue led to the long term bond decline.

The long term interest rates spiked in 1994 because that was when it was clear Clinton and the Democratic Congress were not going to be able to tame the deficit. It was in 1994 when the markets realized the full impact of Clinton's budget that was passed in 1993. Clinton and the Dem congressmen had only two years together and that was when the long term interest rates climbed. Long Term Bond rates are affected by long term US budget prospects. Not this other B.S. you mention.

The Republicans were elected in 1994, and when Congress showed its discipline during the first hundred days of 1995 that is when the bond market started to believe that this Congress might have the discipline to reduce the deficit.

Accounting 101
 

You proved my point.

There was never a surplus. That was this projection based on unsustainable revenues that went down the toilet.

But hey, as the Boards will attest, I loved the "feel good" period of '98 to '00 more than most, so why not fudge the books.

Deficit.
 

1992-1994 was one of the worst employment periods possible.
Not a soul could get a job out of College, and thus everyone went to grad school. And thus creating the bulk of the senior attorneys/MBAs that got laid off between 2001-2003.

Thanks Bill.

The other Hank
 

Hey Now!!!!!

Accounting 101
 

Please refer to the CBO's data re 1999-2001.

Deficit.
 

I am sorry that I assumed that you thought Bush was being duplicitous when he did not ad the Iraq war estimates to his budget. It is good to know that you think his handling of the Bush War expenditures was above board even though you think the total budget estimates were duplicitous.

People on this board make such references all the time. But I am glad you agree that Bush is a very savy person.

Actually you have that backwards. I explained in my post why it is absurd to think that Bush intentionally underestimated the deficit - it has happened quite consistently etc. Instead of addressing my points you made irrelevent points and personal attacks.

Accounting 101
 

Is that the same CBO whose recent projections are being mocked on these pages?

I thought so.

Deficit.
 

The did not vote for the bill because like many Republicans they thought it was irresponsible fiscally. Kerry was going to vote against it because he thought it was an awful bill laden with pork but he changed his mind at the last minute when he realized his vote was needed to make it a tie so Gore could break the tie. All Republicans voted against it and a signficant number of Democrats. It is my memory that the structural deficit did not decrease, but may have once the Tax increases were back credited. I will check that out tomorrow. However, with economic growth you get deficit reduction automatically with increased tax revenues but even in such an environment they needed to increase taxes because of their increased spending. The markets did not consider this fiscal discipline.