Is fiscal/budgetary discipline and huge tax cuts an oxymoron? These are widely known GOP beliefs.

[웃 910]

Very simple formula

1992 - Terrible economy + Terrible Deficits + Clinton '93 tax cuts = PROSPERITY

2000 - Perfect economy + Years of surpluses + Bush '01 tax cuts = A Prosperity Easily Destroyed

A key part of each equation....

In the 1992 equation you have GOP opponents saying the economy will be destroyed - Complete opposite

In the 2000 equation you have opponents saying the economy will be destroyed - It was.

Why is this hard to grasp?

A Prosperity Easy to Destroy

February 2001:

"In 1992, the unemployment rate was over 7 percent, the fiscal deficit was $290 billion and projected by the Congressional Budget Office to grow to over $500 billion in 2001 from there, the federal debt had quadrupled over the preceding 12 years and was projected to double again by 2001, and the prevailing view was that economic conditions would remain mediocre well into the future.

The economic transformation that followed included massive job creation, rising incomes, low inflation, unemployment now at 4.2 percent, and today's large current and projected surpluses. Many factors contributed to this transformation, including globalization, new technologies, vast corporate restructuring, and our flexible labor and capital markets. But I think there is no doubt that key and indispensable to this was the restoration of fiscal discipline, beginning with the deficit reduction program of 1993.

Just how dramatic a change in economic policy this was is evidenced by the vituperativeness of the opposition, with strident predictions of vast increases in unemployment and recession.

Instead, fiscal discipline contributed greatly to lower interest rates and, very, very importantly, restoration of confidence by consumers and business after deficits had come to symbolize a much broader set of concerns about our ability to manage our affairs. The result was increased demand; increased investment, especially in the new technologies; increased productivity; and sustained growth in gross domestic product, jobs and incomes.

The political impetus in Washington is toward tax cuts and spending. Real progress has been made over the past decade toward a political mindset of discipline, but that is always highly vulnerable, and a very large tax cut is a significant step back to the political mindset that produced the deficits and quadrupling of the debt from 1980 to 1992."

[웃 910]

Corrected below. Should be Clinton '93 tax increases. It is an interesting formula though indeed.

Very simple formula

1992 - Terrible economy + Terrible Deficits + Clinton '93 tax cuts INCREASES = PROSPERITY

2000 - Perfect economy + Years of surpluses + Bush '01 tax cuts = A Prosperity Easily Destroyed

A key part of each equation....

In the 1992 equation you have GOP opponents saying the economy will be destroyed - Complete opposite

In the 2000 equation you have opponents saying the economy will be destroyed - It was.

Why is this hard to grasp?

A Prosperity Easy to Destroy

February 2001:

"In 1992, the unemployment rate was over 7 percent, the fiscal deficit was $290 billion and projected by the Congressional Budget Office to grow to over $500 billion in 2001 from there, the federal debt had quadrupled over the preceding 12 years and was projected to double again by 2001, and the prevailing view was that economic conditions would remain mediocre well into the future.

The economic transformation that followed included massive job creation, rising incomes, low inflation, unemployment now at 4.2 percent, and today's large current and projected surpluses. Many factors contributed to this transformation, including globalization, new technologies, vast corporate restructuring, and our flexible labor and capital markets. But I think there is no doubt that key and indispensable to this was the restoration of fiscal discipline, beginning with the deficit reduction program of 1993.

Just how dramatic a change in economic policy this was is evidenced by the vituperativeness of the opposition, with strident predictions of vast increases in unemployment and recession.

Instead, fiscal discipline contributed greatly to lower interest rates and, very, very importantly, restoration of confidence by consumers and business after deficits had come to symbolize a much broader set of concerns about our ability to manage our affairs. The result was increased demand; increased investment, especially in the new technologies; increased productivity; and sustained growth in gross domestic product, jobs and incomes.

The political impetus in Washington is toward tax cuts and spending. Real progress has been made over the past decade toward a political mindset of discipline, but that is always highly vulnerable, and a very large tax cut is a significant step back to the political mindset that produced the deficits and quadrupling of the debt from 1980 to 1992."

[dalegg 143]

It is interesting how the tax rates vs deficit of the 90s looks to be the perfect mix and yet neither political party wants to go back to them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is interesting how the tax rates vs deficit of the 90s looks to be the perfect mix and yet neither political party wants to go back to them.

As Rubin projected back in 2001: The suggestion that tax cuts could be rescinded if projected surpluses don't materialize seems unlikely politically.

It's clear by now that the projected surpluses did not materialize and yet we can't seem to rescind even a dime of this deathblow tax cut package.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Our big tax breaks and the GOP belief that they are fiscal/budget conservatives an oxymoron?

Eric?

[웃 910]

Eric?

I noticed that too. I've been having a lot of trouble with our/are, their/they're/there, and it/it's lately. Not that I don't understand the differences. I'm just catching these errors a lot when re-reading my posts.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Eric?

Is his grammer really that bad, or is he messing with us?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I noticed that too. I've been having a lot of trouble with our/are, their/they're/there, and it/it's lately. Not that I don't understand the differences. I'm just catching these errors a lot when re-reading my posts.

You are thinking phonetically. Not much you can do about that. Maybe someone could find a decent add-on grammar checker that works on the fly like Chrome's spell checker.