Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gauntlet" data-source="post: 564620" data-attributes="member: 545529"><p>First, it&#039;s not apt to compare this situation to WW2, Vietnam, etc. Second, to understand why we have this deficit, you have to understand why we had a surplus in the first place. Clinton slashed government spending, the number of tax-paying citizens increased at a much higher rate than the population, the stock market was booming with 30% growth which worked it&#039;s way into significantly higher capital gains, and the tax legislation passed in &#039;93 resulted in much higher revenues than expected.&nbsp; Soon after it was passed, many members of Congress lost their seat because the move was politically unpopular, but in the end helped the US reach it&#039;s first surplus since &#039;69. Anyways, in &#039;99 the economy was reaching a standstill, and the CBO predicted that the surplus would be cut almost in half by the end of the 2000 fiscal year, and perhaps as low as 1/4 of the $200+ billion by 2002. Couple this with increases in social security and medicare payments, a war and a recession, and you get a deficit. Is the deficit unreasonably high? Yes. But there are reasons for it, and nothing within either candidates platform suggest that we will reach a surplus anytime soon.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Gauntlet, post: 564620, member: 545529"] First, it's not apt to compare this situation to WW2, Vietnam, etc. Second, to understand why we have this deficit, you have to understand why we had a surplus in the first place. Clinton slashed government spending, the number of tax-paying citizens increased at a much higher rate than the population, the stock market was booming with 30% growth which worked it's way into significantly higher capital gains, and the tax legislation passed in '93 resulted in much higher revenues than expected. Soon after it was passed, many members of Congress lost their seat because the move was politically unpopular, but in the end helped the US reach it's first surplus since '69. Anyways, in '99 the economy was reaching a standstill, and the CBO predicted that the surplus would be cut almost in half by the end of the 2000 fiscal year, and perhaps as low as 1/4 of the $200+ billion by 2002. Couple this with increases in social security and medicare payments, a war and a recession, and you get a deficit. Is the deficit unreasonably high? Yes. But there are reasons for it, and nothing within either candidates platform suggest that we will reach a surplus anytime soon. [/QUOTE]

Verification