Can John kerry be fiscally responsible like Bill Clinton?

[KanigawaCards7]

I know that im going to get hammered in some fashion for my topic title, but it is so accurate. So far George W. Bush has ran the defecit up two trillion dollars. It is crazy. No president has ever spent money so carelessly. However Kerry's critics say that kerry wont be able to afford his programs. Although he will be able to "afford" them through the bush payment method, i agree that kerry has no way to pay for all his programs. Both men are incredibly liberal spenders, as opposed to Bill Clinton who balanced the budget. I believe that both men are leading us to an economic downfall. So the real question is can kerry be fiscally conservative like Clinton(obviously bush cannot). My answer to my own question is probably not.

[Dynasty]

The fiscal conservatives in the Republican party have started getting upset over government spending in the Bush administration. So, I think you can be sure the a Republican controlled House and a most-likely Republican controlled Senate will force the issue on a President Kerry. It's no coincidence that Clinton's spending came under a semblance control after the big Republican election wins in 1994.

[CORed]

The balanced budget of the Clinton years happened because of a combination of circumstances: The Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of his administration, which allowed some of the Reagan tax cuts to be rolled back. The Eepublicans got control of Congress in 1994, and kept it, and they did a good job of controlling spending, while Clinton's veto power kept them from cutting taxes. The economic boom of the '90's greatly increased revenue.

If democracy has an Achilles' heel, it's fiscal responsibility. Cutting spending and rasing taxes are never popular, but often necessary. The Democrats' core constituecies benefit from spending programs, so the Democrats generally want to spend more. The Republicans' core constituencies benefit most from tax cuts, so Republicans always want to cut taxes. Neither party with full control seems to do a very good job of balancing the budget.

[KanigawaCards7]

excellent posts by the way thank you for the responses.

[ohiou]

"Cutting spending and rasing taxes are never popular, but often necessary."

Everytime in history that there have been meaningful tax cuts, the overall revenue raised by the government increased. It is a fact. Furthermore, the 2004 Nobel Peace prize winner for economics (I forget his name) said that the Bush tax cuts were not large enough. And that if they were larger, the economy would be much better off.

So get out of here with tax increased are necessary. They are only necessary to those social Marxist in this world who believe in leveling outcome, instead of opportunity.

[GWB]

CORed is on target here. Having Republicans control congress is the key to balancing the budget (or holding it down during wartime). Before 1995, the last time the Republicans controled both houses was during Eisenhower, and Eisenhower had balanced budgets and low deficits over this 8 years.

From 1995 to 2000 the Republicans were in control and deficits improved. In 2001 the Democrats took control of the Senate - the end of the good budgets. Of course a War against Terror means we are not in peacetime anymore.

[ACPlayer]

A republican run house has a good chance to control a democratic administration. In his second term, if elected, your namesake will have no trouble continuing his unchecked spending spree. See the last couple of years for an example.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
It's no coincidence that Clinton's spending came under a semblance control after the big Republican election wins in 1994.

[/ QUOTE ]
The change in 94 was very small.

Too bad Republican Congresses and Senates don't do their job when there's a Republican President.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]

The change in 94 was very small.


[/ QUOTE ]

The GOP didn't take over until '95, and congressional actions take some time to show results.

Every time this thread pops up to the top of the board I get the chuckles.

Bill Clinton fiscally responsible. hahahaha that's a good one.

[Cyrus]

You made it short and sweet in your question so I'll try to do the same.

It is impossible for Kerry to do worse than Dubya. The economics of Bush Junior are like the worst nightmares of Bush Senior (him of the "Vooodoo economics!" proclamation fame).

There has never been a tax decrease by any country, anywhere, at any time on human history, when that country was engaged in a war effort. That li'l bit of fact includes the United States. As a matter of fact, of historical, undisputed fact, taxes have always been raised at such times. Always!

And although for obvious political/election reasons, Kerry does not come clean to the American public about this mathematical granite fact, Kerry is more likely to follow pragmatism over ideology and to be fiscally more responsible than Bush. (If John Kerry equals Clinton's performance, it'll be an added bonus) George W Bush is doing precisely the reverse, going for ideology over pragmatism, and quite passionately too.

Fo' mo' years -- of passion!..