Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Didn't the Republican Congress force the balanced budgets, and Clinton jumped on board once he realized he had no choice. He had as much to do with the drive to balance the budget as he had to do with welfare reform. That is, he was against it, but realized it would be politically damaging to veto it, so his co-opted it as his own.
Please don't sing his praises over this; that's silly.
|
Yes, let's all conclude that President Clinton was secretly against the federal government having a balanced budget, and that his public stance favoring fiscal restraint was a mere facade for the stereotypic pathological desire to spend in excess of revenue, which of course he had to hide from the electorate in 1992, him being a knee-jerk liar and all. Let's also conclude that the Republican majority heroically rammed a balanced budget down Clinton's throat, but concluded in 2001 that, while it should have credit for all balanced budgets between 1993 and 2000, this was now considered a Very Bad Idea by some Very Smart Economists, and the perspective of time allowed us to see that it's Very Wise to spend more than one has, because one's children will be richer and will have nothing better to do with the public fisc than service debt incurred in 2004.
Because that is the most plausible way to reconcile then and now.
Having login problems? I thought you reserved dumb partisan statements for your other socks.
Edited to add: I just realized you were "having me on," as the British say. Clinton being unwilling to do something that polling showed was overwhelmingly popular, and would get him reelected with the margin that he ultimately experienced in 1996?Clinton's will was indistinguishable from whatever the most advanced polling technology showed was a foregone conclusion.
