res- I think you're constructing a bit of a strawman here.
After all i haven't heard anyone say that the dishonestly labeled tax rebates are the sole cause of our return to deficits. It's the future tax-cuts which are greatly hurting future revenue projections. So projected deficits can absolutely be tied to the tax bill.
Actually I've read quite a few people dishonestly say the tax cuts are the sole cause of our deficits. Further, you've constructed a strawman by stating as if fact, projected deficits can be tied to the tax bill. The growth in our deficit which has gone up throughout the Clinton years, can be mainly attributed to the slowdown in our economy and a growth in spending. It's still an open questions whether our tax cuts will generated revenue long term, or reduce revenues.
I give Clinton credit for running surpluses during the last expansion. Reagan ran unprecedented deficits for anytime, but even more incredible that he did it during an expansion. So like it or not Clinton gets some credit for our low interest rates, low inflation, and the fact that we're in relatively good fiscal shape going in to this slowdown
Clinton never ran a surplus. Unless one uses fraudulant accounting methods. The deficit continued to grow throughout the Clinton years. Social Security is borrowed money, not surplus money. Reagan grew the economy and dramatically increased revenue to the government while cutting taxes. Congress (led by spendoholic Tip O'neil) increases spending like an Emeldo Marcus dropped off in a Kinney shoe store.
Bush is doing a lot of things wrong. A generalized rhetorical spin statement without providing any real analysis. His budgets are dishonest, Another generalized spin phrase direct from the talking points of Dashle/Gephard. that doesn't inspire confidence. His job approval numbers are still high, considered confidence barometers by most standards. His administration is very close to many of the corporate "evildoers." Corporations aren't "evildoers". Most of the accounting scandals will be found to be legal loopholes which Clinton indirectly created when he limited CEO pay and encouraged stock option packages. That doesn't inspire confidence. Another generalized talking point phrase which has no bearing in reality. Wall Street doesn't like his economic team, they long for Robert Rubin. Rubin was one of the main players involved with changing the business environment to encourage stock options for CEO pay. Harvey Pitt was lead attorney for Andersen, Enron's CEO got to help pick the head of the FERC which would regulate Enron. These things don't inspire confidence. This lack of confidence in our current team leads the dollar to slide which leads foreign money to leave our soil which only exacerbates the problems.
Lack of confidence, lack of confidence, lack of confidence. You've said it so many times I can conclude it's the latest talking point Democrat memo. Means absolutely nothing objectively. The market doesn't wait for a President to give it confidence. The market responds to corporate performance and projections on future corporate performance. It's as simple as that. |
