Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because ultimately I think that the president -- at least a strong president -- has more power than you seem to think. Reagan managed to push through spending cuts when he wanted to, and tax increases when he needed to. It wasn't the dem-controlled congress that prevented him from balancing the budget; it was his tax-cutting (until even he -- unlike Bush 2 -- realized that you gotta pay for at least some stuff you want to buy) and his military spending. Those who disagree, please identify all years in which Reagan submitted a balanced budget to congress for approval.
|
Wrong. Reagan was a pragmatist, far more so than W. He wanted a tax cut but had to get it through the DEM controlled congress, so he struck a deal with Tip. This has been documented everywhere.
I, and I bet every R on this board, would agree, however, that W has no excuse for the size of the budget defs he's run up. It would be understandable to have run up a def for the military spending necessary to fight the war and protect the country, but everything above that is not excusable.
Quote:
Dems controlled congress, and we had deficits. Repubs control congress, and we have deficits. Repubs control the white house, and we have deficits, regardless of whether it's a dem congress or a repub congress, regardless of whether it's a recession or economically flush times. Dems control the white house..... and there's no more deficit. Draw your own conclusions (mine is that Clinton actually meant the fiscal prudence he preached -- and knew that he had to perform, because otherwise Ross Perot would run again on a platform that was largely about dealing with the deficit).
|
I think Clinton was a convert. Surely you are not suggesting that, absent the 94 takeover and the contract with amercia, that Clinton would have been the def hawk that he was? This notwithstanding, he should get his fair share of credit for not standing in the way. But to say that this was solely a Clinton driven endeavor is just a joke.
