What have Republicons ever done for America's middle class?

323 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Capital wrote:Pierpont

Capital wrote:
Pierpont wrote:

Which brings us AGAIN back to whether those GOP spending cuts mattered compared in increasing revenue…and if so, by how much… SOMETHING YOU STILL HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED. But that means going through those old CBO reports from the 90's and as we know… you're too goddamn lazy to bother. Empty claims suit you better.

Why would I have to go through the CBO to show the Rate of Spending was at its lowest in 60 years?

You won't do it because, as said countless times: you're too godamn lazy. If you CARED about getting to the truth, you'd do it. As for the rate of spending, you've repeatedly made this claim. I don't you recall posting the evidence. Have you explained why a 5 year sample is better than a 2, 4, 10? Have you explained why of all the numbers you chose to get your Magic Number... why on, off, or total budget spending is a better yardstick? I've asked for this now 3-4 times. I may have missed your reply.

Quote:
If you choose to believe that Revenue is independent of Expenditures. That is you cross to bear. I have repeatedly showed you that Expenditures grew at the lowest rate during the GOP House with is the direct result of the Near Surplus Federal budget.
Back to the old Orwellian One Variable theory of Budgets?

Quote:
The rate of revenue was nothing special, what was special and Notable was the Expenditures of Congress.

I know your Orwellian Right view of budgets requires you to dismiss revenues and credit the Surplus to spending cuts. YET YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOW PROOF THOSE SPENDING CUTS WERE ENOUGH TO MATTER. All you have are your typical empty assertions and a Magic Number that explains nothing. You've probably written 50 posts on this topic AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN PROOF ANYTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE OR RELEVANT. As for the rate of revenue growth CONTEXT MATTERS!!!  Even fantastic revenue growth does little if there's too big of a hole to dig out of. In Clinton's case the disastrous effects of Reagan ERTA tax cuts were being reversed starting the very next year with two tax hikes then, and another in 83. There was a big tax hike in 1990 and another in 93. It took all that work AND a decent economy to get to a surplus… and the first thing the GOP under Newt AND Bush is try to sabotage that surplus instead of pay down debt.

And you're being more disingenuous that usual. If in just about every post on the topic you credit cuts in spending as eliminating the deficit... and maybe ONCE mention REVENUE, then don't blame me for your inability to explain what is obviously demented thinking.

Underlying all your Orwellian Right budget bullsh*t is the assumption that no matter what the deficit or debt, the Right can pass all the irresponsible tax cuts it wants… and the ONLY response must be to cut spending. The GOP's irresponsibility must never be reversed. Even now… with ALL the excuses made for having 2001 tax cut long gone… and with 10 TRILLION more in debt… you NEVER see any GOPer talk a SANE response: that the tax cuts WERE A MISTAKE TO BEGIN WITH. The GOP has taken common sense off the table and is sabotaging the collective IQ of the nation. You're a perfect example.

Capital
Capital's picture
Pierpont wrote:  You won't do

Pierpont wrote:

 You won't do it because, as said countless times: you're too godamn lazy

You have been wrong on just about everything,  why would this be any different. 

Quote:
I don't you recall posting the evidence. Have you explained why a 5 year sample is better than a 2, 4, 10? Have you explained why of all the numbers you chose to get your Magic Number... why on, off, or total budget spending is a better yardstick? I've asked for this now 3-4 times. I may have missed your reply.

Numbers were from the Taxpolicycenter link form post #156,  they matched you numbers from whatever link you were posting.  I used the 5 year tend for its ease and relevance.  If you with to run different trends,  Free country.   Numbers were Total Expenditures,  There is no On or Off Budget numbers.   My guess is you’ll ask 5 more times..  Because you are stupid. 

Quote:
Back to the old Orwellian One Variable theory of Budgets?  
   

Right back to your complete lack of understanding of Economics and accounting.  Yea… 

Quote:
I know your Orwellian Right view of budgets requires you to dismiss revenues and credit the Surplus to spending cuts. YET YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOW PROOF THOSE SPENDING CUTS WERE ENOUGH TO MATTER
  

I’m done…  My patience with the handicapped is exhausted.  I awe struck by the sheer level of Obstinence.  I’d rather read Supreme Court Briefs, than your posts.   Believe what you will about the late 90’s.  This is a free country.   Nobody has of yet mandated you live your life by the facts.

 

Feel free to response to this discussion until your blue in the face,  using every ad hom and strawman you can muster.  

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
TRANSLATION OF CAP'S LAST

TRANSLATION OF CAP'S LAST POST: He hopes another smokescreen of bluff and bluster will convince us all that he MUST be correct despite his inability to prove anything he says is true or relevant. Gee Cap, the only one that buys your pathetic excuses is you. Time to scamper off again Pee Wee!

BTW, thanks for FINALLY providing a wee bit of background on your Magic Number. As I thought… the sample is just arbitrary. A 5 year sample is meaningless because, as I've said before, it doesn't synch with any Congressional or Presidential terms and As I've already demonstrated even trying to link budgets to a specific Party may not prove anything. Newt could not undo the Clinton Tax hike, but you posted a graph and claimed the reduction of the Clinton deficit had to be credited to the GOP even if the GOP OPPOSED the bill that brought in those  revenues.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Cap wrote:P wrote: I know

Cap wrote:
P wrote:
I know your Orwellian Right view of budgets requires you to dismiss revenues and credit the Surplus to spending cuts. YET YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOW PROOF THOSE SPENDING CUTS WERE ENOUGH TO MATTER
  

I’m done…  My patience with the handicapped is exhausted.  I awe struck by the sheer level of Obstinence.  I’d rather read Supreme Court Briefs, than your posts.   Believe what you will about the late 90’s.  This is a free country.   Nobody has of yet mandated you live your life by the facts.

And thanks for this admission you refuse to make ANY effort to get the numbers that might prove what you claim. How many times have I asked?
And that sums up your "contributions" here. Lots of empty claims, half-assed arguments, and a refusal to do any real research.    

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
So, Newton became Speaker at

So, Newton became Speaker at the same time the US economy was growing at its fastest, sustained level since the 1950's, and Das Kapital is trying to argue that the reason the budget got closer to balance is because of Newton's paltry spending restrictions? 

In the 1990's the high economic growth, and job growth lead to more taxpayers, paying more taxes, forming more households, and generating more revenues while simultaneously leading to fewer people needing government services.

Rep. Paul Munster, and Das Kapital's idea to cut spending when we're still in the trough of the worst recession since the Great Depression will lead to fewer jobs, leading to fewer people paying their bills, putting more Americans living in tents, caves, or vans down by the river. 

Don't listen to the advice of the momumentally moronic and galctically stupid. Unless the idea behind your plan is to drive the US into the Third World ditch...

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
If I have any last thoughts

If I have any last thoughts on the Clinton era... it's that it took almost 20 years of work to undo the devastating effects of Reagan's irresponsible 1981 tax cuts and create that true on-budget surplus... and that reversal started in 1982.

People in BOTH Parties helped at times as did a record economic boom. And as soon as the GOP had complete control, they pissed it all away in 2001. Bush ran on a tax cut, sure. But he also ran on preserving the surplus to pay down debt. We can only assume he lied. With 6 trillion in existing debt the GOP passed a massive tax cut with NO trigger that it would end if the surplus disappeared. If Bush knew paying down debt would protect Social Security, he also had to know creating more debt would weaken SS. Bush and the GOP did not stop there… they passed additional tax cuts to drive revenues so low that in the past 11 years revenues in constant dollars only exceeded FY2000 in 2 of those years. Yet the GOP claims there's no problem with low revenues.

This reveals the fiscal schizophrenia in the GOP between the old-time fiscal conservatives and the Tax Cut Crazies... and the latter have won. There no longer are any sane fiscal voices in the GOP. They've been expelled. The New GOP all buys into the Orwellian half-truth that ALL budget problems are spending problems even if revenues have been stagnant for over a decade.

God help us when one of our political parties so revels in such insanity they'd prefer to bring the nation down than question their Tax Cut dogma.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote:So, Newton

Phaedrus76 wrote:
So, Newton became Speaker at the same time the US economy was growing at its fastest, sustained level since the 1950's, and Das Kapital is trying to argue that the reason the budget got closer to balance is because of Newton's paltry spending restrictions?

Everything done to either cut spending or raise revenues helped get us to a surplus. I'm trying to track down my numbers for Newt's budget cuts. I seem to remember that they only amounted to about 20% of what was needed... but I can't be definitive until I track down those numbers.

Either way, it's sad that all that work was pissed away… and now that the GOP has expelled all the old fiscal conservatives and created so much debt…  they believe this is the perfect Starve The Beast moment and the deficit/debt can be used as a pretense to destroy the Democratic Safety Net. Crazies like Paul Ryan are going in for the kill. Of course they've taken repairing the damage Bush did with his irresponsible tax cuts off the table.  

  

Capital
Capital's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: So, Newton

Phaedrus76 wrote:

So, Newton became Speaker at the same time the US economy was growing at its fastest, sustained level since the 1950's, and Das Kapital is trying to argue that the reason the budget got closer to balance is because of Newton's paltry spending restrictions? 

In the 1990's the high economic growth, and job growth lead to more taxpayers, paying more taxes, forming more households, and generating more revenues while simultaneously leading to fewer people needing government services.

That is adorable,  said with such conviction,  one might just think you knew what you are talking about.    Sure whatever you say <pat on the head>   Maybe you were asleep in the late 90's. 

As far as you increased revenues.   95-99, rate or increase equals 85-89, 70-74 and falls short of 75-79 ,65-69, 50-54.   Revenues were unremarkable.  However 95-99 rate of expeditures is the lowest (dare I say Ever) at least to the 50's. 

Fewer people needing services was not the reason. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital wrote:As far as you

 

Capital wrote:
As far as you increased revenues. 95-99, rate or increase equals 85-89, 70-74 and falls short of 75-79 ,65-69, 50-54. Revenues were unremarkable. However 95-99 rate of expenditures is the lowest (dare I say Ever) at least to the 50's.

Fewer people needing services was not the reason.

Blah blah... more numbers pulled from? We're to take your word these numbers are accurate let alone meaningful? Have you never heard of actually presenting numbers in some useful format, explaining your methodology, and giving us a credible source we can evaluate evidence for ourselves? Or is that what the big kids do when they get to 5th grade?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Capital wrote: Phaedrus76

Capital wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

So, Newton became Speaker at the same time the US economy was growing at its fastest, sustained level since the 1950's, and Das Kapital is trying to argue that the reason the budget got closer to balance is because of Newton's paltry spending restrictions? 

In the 1990's the high economic growth, and job growth lead to more taxpayers, paying more taxes, forming more households, and generating more revenues while simultaneously leading to fewer people needing government services.

That is adorable,  said with such conviction,  one might just think you knew what you are talking about.    Sure whatever you say <pat on the head>   Maybe you were asleep in the late 90's. 

As far as you increased revenues.   95-99, rate or increase equals 85-89, 70-74 and falls short of 75-79 ,65-69, 50-54.   Revenues were unremarkable.  However 95-99 rate of expeditures is the lowest (dare I say Ever) at least to the 50's. 

Fewer people needing services was not the reason. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP...

tax revenue and expenditures as a % of gdp. Using % of gdp is the most useful tool for studying the issue, it washes out inflation, and other factors. 

Revenue is essentially flat from 1983 to 1993. Then it climbs by 2% of gdp, to 2000, it drops in 2001, due to the recession, plus 9-11. Then the Bush tax cuts bleed revenues far below historical norms, and spending. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Phaedrus76 wrote:Revenue is

 

Phaedrus76 wrote:
Revenue is essentially flat from 1983 to 1993. Then it climbs by 2% of gdp, to 2000, it drops in 2001, due to the recession, plus 9-11. Then the Bush tax cuts bleed revenues far below historical norms, and spending.
I'm not a big fan of such measurements because they are relative to a factor unrelated to the question at hand. And we see how this can be abused. In the early Bush2 years when the surplus was gone and huge deficits returned the Orwellian Right think tanks were saying those deficits were no big deal because it was within some safe percentage of the GDP.

 Why would these Right wingers suddenly embrace huge deficits? It's because they knew paying down debt... in 2001 about $6 trillion, would undermine the Starve The Beast strategy which required growing debt to destroy the New Deal and Great Society safety net programs. And running deficits is a great way to buy votes today by stealing from future taxpayers. The GOP could play Santa with the constituents and when out of power... the Dems would have to clean up the mess... and that debt would restrain them from playing Santa with their own constituents... hence the violent reactions by the GOP to Obama's spending even if much of it was to keep the economy on life supports. The GOP spent 30 years trying to put the Dems in a fiscal straightjacket and would not tolerate them breaking out.

Capital
Capital's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: revenue and

Phaedrus76 wrote:

revenue and expenditures as a % of gdp. Using % of gdp is the most useful tool for studying the issue, it washes out inflation, and other factors. 

Revenue is essentially flat from 1983 to 1993. Then it climbs by 2% of gdp, to 2000, it drops in 2001, due to the recession, plus 9-11. Then the Bush tax cuts bleed revenues far below historical norms, and spending. 

You really think % of GDP is the most useful.  Even though it gives the False impression of declining Spending. 

And By "Essentially flat" you of course are refering to 92% increase in revenues.  From 600.6 Billion to 1154.3 Trillion.

It shows Declining expeditures where they Rose 35%. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Capital wrote:Maybe you

 

Capital wrote:
Maybe you were asleep in the late 90's.

As far as you increased revenues. 95-99, rate or increase equals 85-89, 70-74 and falls short of 75-79 ,65-69, 50-54. Revenues were unremarkable. However 95-99 rate of expeditures is the lowest (dare I say Ever) at least to the 50's.

I can't wait for you to prove this using clear numbers from a credible site and presented in a manner we all can understand. But I doubt that will happen.

Again, your arbitrary 5 year sample period IS WORTHLESS since it fails to correspond to any administration or Congress. And just what are your calculations so we can VERIFY them? As usual, you seem to be pulling numbers out of your butt and making claims we all must believe you. It's time you grow up Cap and learn something about intelligent forum discussion.

 

 

chilidog
I am sceptical of that table,

I am sceptical of that table, as I've posted.

I'm also sceptical of the "constant 2005" dollars.  I seem to recall that one CPI deflator used to be relied upon using 1982 (1983) as the baseline. I'm sure the CBO went back to the raw data of 1946 and applied the 2005 deflator properly, but I don't know how meaningful that is.  I'm guessing that the price of hay and alfalfa was more relevant in 1946 than it was in 2005.  Ditto with the price of cell phone service in 1982 and 2005.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
chilidog wrote:I'm also

chilidog wrote:
I'm also sceptical of the "constant 2005" dollars.  I seem to recall that one CPI deflator used to be relied upon using 1982 (1983) as the baseline. I'm sure the CBO went back to the raw data of 1946 and applied the 2005 deflator properly, but I don't know how meaningful that is.  I'm guessing that the price of hay and alfalfa was more relevant in 1946 than it was in 2005.  Ditto with the price of cell phone service in 1982 and 2005.
I think you're confusing the distortions in some Price Of Living adjustments to a simple use of a inflator/deflator number to old budget numbers. Use of constant dollars get's rid of the inflation factor when comparing budgets from different years. Probably a better way is use of constant dollars AND adjusting to population.   

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Pierpont wrote:Capital

Pierpont wrote:
Capital wrote:
As far as you increased revenues. 95-99, rate or increase equals 85-89, 70-74 and falls short of 75-79 ,65-69, 50-54. Revenues were unremarkable. However 95-99 rate of expenditures is the lowest (dare I say Ever) at least to the 50's.

Fewer people needing services was not the reason.

Blah blah... more numbers pulled from? We're to take your word these numbers are accurate let alone meaningful? Have you never heard of actually presenting numbers in some useful format, explaining your methodology, and giving us a credible source we can evaluate evidence for ourselves? Or is that what the big kids do when they get to 5th grade?

Trying to figure out Cap's posts one needs a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring. Here's a no nonsense comparison of Reagan vs Clinton revenues... the rate of growth over 8 years using Constant 2005 dollars to control for inflation. Numbers from the Historical Budget tables...

REVENUES IN 2005 CONSTANT DOLLARS: Table 1.3—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS IN CURRENT DOLLARS, CONSTANT (FY 2005) DOLLARS… in Tillions

FY81 $1.2514      FY88 $1.4211 = 13.56% increase over 8 years or 1.695% annually.

If we look at total Clinton revenues in constant dollars

FY93 $1.5115      FY00 $2.3100  = 52.8% increase over 8 years or 6.6% annually

As usual Cap's numbers distort more than they enlighten. There are only three explanations… either he's incompetent, he deliberately hopes to mislead, or he cherry picks stats to maintain his religious belief that the far Right has a monopoly on truth, justice, and the American way.

Either way, in this case he's giving the false impression that if revenue  growth rates were the same under Reagan and Clinton, then the magic factor in getting to a Surplus MUST not have been revenue. Therefore the Clinton Tax Hike CONTRIBUTED NOTHING to getting to a Surplus... and he can credit everything to Newt. 
But as we see the growth rates in real dollars wasn't even close to the same under Reagan and Clinton. This also refutes the Big Lie the Orwellian Right uses to explain why if there was some "revenue boom" after Reagan's ERTA tax cuts, yet still massive deficits… what happened to the money? The Dems must have spent it all. We see this Big Lie from propagandists like Rush who once wrote about tax cuts:

"If it brings in, say, two dollars for every dollar of tax relief, we'll have more money in the treasury – and thus safeguard programs like Social Security! The idea behind tax cuts is to get the economy to grow. The economy is not static. The pie is not one size forever, with no new slices. The object is to grow so we have more people working and paying taxes. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved this with their tax cuts. The Democratic Congress spent every new dollar and more that Reagan brought in, but the fact is that the revenue coming into the treasury nearly doubled over his two terms."  

Ya Rush… just where is that doubling of real revenue? Rush's other lie is that there was some big revenue return after the so-called JFK tax cuts. But the Orwellian Right includes revenue from 3-4 tax HIKES that came soon after. Which SHOULD raise the obvious question why does the Right ALWAYS lie about the benefits of tax cuts? If the evidence were that obvious, they'd not have to lie. Of course they're not talking to a Liberal or Progressive audience. They're manipulating those already on the Right who foolishly trust them. When we see a True Believer like Cap parrot those lies and distortions, we see that their investment in disinformation is paying off.  

 

chilidog
Pierpont wrote: I think

Pierpont wrote:

I think you're confusing the distortions in some Price Of Living adjustments to a simple use of a inflator/deflator number to old budget numbers. Use of constant dollars get's rid of the inflation factor when comparing budgets from different years.

Consider me confused.  Explain to me how the inflator/deflator number is determined.  I would appreciate a link.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  chilidog wrote:Pierpont

 

chilidog wrote:
Pierpont wrote:
I think you're confusing the distortions in some Price Of Living adjustments to a simple use of a inflator/deflator number to old budget numbers. Use of constant dollars get's rid of the inflation factor when comparing budgets from different years.

Consider me confused. Explain to me how the inflator/deflator number is determined. I would appreciate a link.

An Inflator/deflator is merely a formula to adjust the value of one year's money to another year. If one wants to compare 1960 dollars to 1980 dollars they need to be inflated by X. If the reverse, the 1980 dollars need to be deflated. I don't have any site in mind since these numbers run in the background of any on-line calculator. What makes it confusing is the adjustment depends on the final year you're calculating to and sites may differ on the year they choose. So I can't recommend any site except to explain the concept. As an example, one of Cap's links http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 had such a list relative to 2005 dollars. There was a deflator number for each year. When looking at the 2005 row, the deflator had a value of 1… one 2005 dollar was equal to one 2005 dollar.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Capital wrote: Phaedrus76

Capital wrote:

Phaedrus76 wrote:

revenue and expenditures as a % of gdp. Using % of gdp is the most useful tool for studying the issue, it washes out inflation, and other factors. 

Revenue is essentially flat from 1983 to 1993. Then it climbs by 2% of gdp, to 2000, it drops in 2001, due to the recession, plus 9-11. Then the Bush tax cuts bleed revenues far below historical norms, and spending. 

You really think % of GDP is the most useful.  Even though it gives the False impression of declining Spending. 

And By "Essentially flat" you of course are refering to 92% increase in revenues.  From 600.6 Billion to 1154.3 Trillion.

It shows Declining expeditures where they Rose 35%. 

Yes, revenues were flat from 1983 to 1993, when you take into account the growth in the economy. But I think you have convinced me of the need to use your standard. So, return the Pentagon's budget to their 1985 levels, $286 bn. That's the way the Gipper would have done it. I know that you can't believe that the Gipper would have been wrong as to how much we to spend for defense, and clearly that was an optimal level. 

Which, by the way, we now spend $685bn, or an increase of ... 140%.... wow, so take the biggest increased spending out of the equation, and I bet the remaining functions of government have gotten much more efficient out of necessity.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
  Phaedrus76 wrote:Yes,

 

Phaedrus76 wrote:
Yes, revenues were flat from 1983 to 1993, when you take into account the growth in the economy. But I think you have convinced me of the need to use your standard. So, return the Pentagon's budget to their 1985 levels, $286 bn. That's the way the Gipper would have done it. I know that you can't believe that the Gipper would have been wrong as to how much we to spend for defense, and clearly that was an optimal level.

Which, by the way, we now spend $685bn, or an increase of ... 140%.... wow, so take the biggest increased spending out of the equation, and I bet the remaining functions of government have gotten much more efficient out of necessity.

Another way to consider the failings of GDP comparisons is to remember that GDP is an arbitrary indicator of economic activity. Capitalism as we know it only brings some costs into the market. While we might today have measurable economic activity for cleaning up pollution etc... 40 years ago we didn't. Factories were free to pollute. The costs to people, property, and the environment were just off the books. As Bobby Kennedy once said… something along these lines, a car accident can be a horrific event to those involved. But all the economic activity involved healing all those injuries and fixing all those cars adds to the GDP and that implies economc growth… even if it's done nothing to improve prosperity.   

chilidog
Pierpont wrote: I think

Pierpont wrote:

I think you're confusing the distortions in some Price Of Living adjustments to a simple use of a inflator/deflator number to old budget numbers. Use of constant dollars get's rid of the inflation factor when comparing budgets from different years.

An Inflator/deflator is merely a formula to adjust the value of one year's money to another year. If one wants to compare 1960 dollars to 1980 dollars they need to be inflated by X. If the reverse, the 1980 dollars need to be deflated.

I think the inflator/deflator number is directly related to the Consumer Price Index.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2017

That's an excel file.  Column C is titled GDP (Chained) Price Index. That is the inflator/deflator number.  The government, be it the OMB, the CBO, whoever, has been f'ing with the Consumer Price Index for years, just like the "official" unemployment rate.  I do not trust it.

So this present table everyone (and by everyone I mean Pierpoint and Capital) is arguing about, is ITSELF subject to argument.  What would this table look like if we used the CPI as measured in, say, 1970? What would it look like if we used a deflator based on the average daily close of the dollar price of gold, or silver?

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
I'm sure everyone's sick of

I'm sure everyone's sick of this thread but I wanted to post some CBO numbers on the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which was passed in Dec 95 becoming active in FY96. Since Clinton signed it, I there may have been some proposed Dem cuts, but I don't yet have the numbers of any difference between GOP and any Dem proposals. In the chart below, which hopefully will display correctly, are the columns for the actual unified deficit for several fiscal years in question, Projections made THE ECONOMIC AND BUDGET OUTLOOK: DECEMBER 1995 UPDATE by the CBO for fiscal effects of the Balanced Budget Act, and their possible impact on the deficit. NOT included are the revenue cuts made from a 1997 tax cut which increased the deficit. That's a project for another time as is the proposed 1998 tax cut was vetoed… but would have cut further into the surplus by the number indicated. Numbers in billions.

        UNIFIED       BBA     WITHOUT        1998           WITH
        BUDGET     CUTS        BBA            tax cut       1998 CUT
FY94 -203.186
FY95 -163.952
FY96 -107.431    -22       -129.431
FY97 -21.884      -24       -45.884
FY98 +69.270     -58        +11.27
FY99 +125.610   -100      +25.61          -6.613  
FY00 +236.241   -133     +103.241      -18.557

My recollection of an earlier discussion on this topic on another board was a bit faulty. Then the right wingers was arguing that if 200 billion deficits were projected from FY94 into the future, and there was a balanced budget by FY98, then it must have been Newt that cut a total of 800 billion from those deficits. The BBA would only have cut 104 billion by FY98… hence my comments that Newt's cuts didn't matter because the cuts only made up for about 13% of the gap. The surplus was coming anyway because of increased revenue. The numbers for the on-budget surplus are not as rosy. It might never have occurred without the BBA cuts. Which SHOULD make us all realize that a BALANCED approach to budgets is essential… one that includes sensible tax hikes and spending cuts as did the original 1993 tax hike… not one that believes in irresponsible tax cuts then slashing spending to compensate. This SHOULD also make us all aware that getting to the Clinton Surplus took a lot of work. Reagan's irresponsible 1981 ERTA tax cuts dug such a hole of red ink two massive tax hikes were passed in 82 and 83. It took nearly 20 years to dig out of the revenue hole Reagan created to get to a surplus and it was almost pissed away in 99 when the GOP proposed a massive 800 billion tax cut,and when Bush drove a stake into it in 2001. Now we have a deeper hole… and a GOP that is more irrational than ever.