dudejcb wrote:I know Reagan ran up the deficit, but I thought it was pretty well under control (manageable) by the time Clinton left office.
It would have NEVER happened if not for the Republican take over of Congress. I know you are old enough to remember that Clinton proposed a balanced budget AFTER he was out of office. The Republicans said
We can do it sooner. That's what the infamous government shutdown was about.
What would have happened to the budget if Hillarycare had been enacted?
What would have happened to the budget if Bill got all that he proposed?
BTW, what would have happened if Reagan got his proposed budgets? Lest not you forget that he was fighting a Democrat House his entire 8 years in office. The enacted budget is a negotiation. Democrats always want to spend more, granted they always propose higher tax rates, but rarely high enough to cover their proposed spending in part because they know that deficits are far less harmful politically than higher taxes. The Republicans also think deficits are an easier sell than less spending, which the big government Republicans soundly reject anyways. This is a major source of the division within the Republican party. Within the Democrat party is there any division over the need for even more concentration of power in Washington?
They want bigger and sure, you can spend 100% of GDP and take 100% of GDP and have a 0% deficit, but I'd much rather have them spending 10% of GDP and run a 1% deficit. How big is too big? That is more important by far than where the money comes from because every penny the government spends, is a penny they must take from someone else.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.