So, claiming this problem is bipartisan is nonsense. I’ll blame the dems for lots of stuff, but wildly inflationary fiscal policies and intentionally destructive economic policies aren’t on the list.
So, claiming this problem is bipartisan is nonsense. I’ll blame the dems for lots of stuff, but wildly inflationary fiscal policies and intentionally destructive economic policies aren’t on the list.
Then came 1994, and the "Contract With America". Republicans took over Congress. Their next budget made significant cuts then, not after Clinton was out of office. That's how "Clinton balanced the budget" - by a Republican Congress forcing him to live up to his words.
Lest you think this is a partisan statement, let me note that Republican Congresses never balance the budget when a Republican is President. But the historical record is that it wasn't just Clinton's achievement - a Republican Congress had to make him do what he wanted to make the next president do.
Then at some point they just stopped pretending to balance it at all, and no one seemed to care much.
When have any of these presidents successfully pushed for reducing the federal deficit during their tenures? Any actual reductions to the debt you’ve seen?
What’s causing you to focus on presidents rather than congressional actions?
How do you think fiscal policy keeps getting passed through congress when there’s largely two parties that have to agree to get it done?
Because the deficit was positive between 1997 and 2001, during Bill Clinton’s second term as POTUS.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN
A surplus in the billions for a few years did not meaningfully change a federal debt that’s in the trillions. Further, the surplus that paid down public debt was completely wiped out by social security and Medicare liabilities during that time
Better than nothing you might say, but not the structural change needed to get the US out of the hole
> How did you come to the conclusion that Clinton balanced the budget?
Having a surplus means your budget is balanced and then some.
> When have any of these presidents successfully pushed for reducing the federal deficit during their tenures? Any actual reductions to the debt you’ve seen?
You specifically mention deficits, and a surplus leads to an actual reduction in debt.
> What’s causing you to focus on presidents rather than congressional actions?
The same congress that was in charge during surplus was more than happy to put us in high deficit again.
> How do you think fiscal policy keeps getting passed through congress when there’s largely two parties that have to agree to get it done?
Gridlock is a great way of not spending money. More to the point: Clinton was ok with cutting spending as much as he was with raising taxes. He treated the deficit as if it were actually important unlike Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.
The story of US policies since the 70s is the republicans fuck some shit up, democrats almost fix it or rarely sometimes actually fix it, then people say the democrats are bad with money because reasons, and then the republicans come back in and fuck it up even more.
I mean, after the con that we call Reaganomics how are we still entertaining this bullshit? Do we truly never learn?
Early indications suggest he has already ruined it with tariffs, erratic jailing of skilled laborers and gutting of the government programs and agencies that were supporting the investment in the first place. The dollar has dropped 10% since inauguration day, inflation is way up and the deficit is ballooning.
SS/Medicare will bankrupt the country without reforms.
Congress has been stealing money from the fund for years, but that’s not Social Security’s fault. Claiming it needs reform is like blaming account holders after the president of the bank embezzles their deposits.