Bush vs Clinton on Fiscal Issues

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 09:44pm

Oddysseus wrote:One good thing about the amendment process is that it ensures we don't shove through reactionary policies (balanced budget, flag burning).

I fail to see how requiring a balanced budget in peace time is a bad thing or particularly reactionary. If anything, I think it would be a good thing.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-24 10:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Oddysseus wrote:One good thing about the amendment process is that it ensures we don't shove through reactionary policies (balanced budget, flag burning).
I fail to see how requiring a balanced budget in peace time is a bad thing or particularly reactionary. If anything, I think it would be a good thing.

My only issue is fiscal responsiblity shouldn't be a constiutional issue. It should just be done. I am a fervant fan of staying on budget. But I don't like having it being set in stone. If an event occurs and the budget needs to be surpassed, I like to think we aren't SOL, that we aren't screwing ourselves up. But as I've learned well from Bush now, their are SO MANY ways around the budget, and boy is he using them to hide the size of his expenditures.

Also, it seems that safe guards could be put in to ensure that we don't leave this country in peril due to a poorly worded amendment. If it is too stringent in release of the cap, then we can end up hurting, but if its too loose, why did we even bother.

It just seems the best choice is to have the admin put out a responsible budget, and take account of what it brings in and puts out. Too bad the Bushs can't do this nearly as well as Clinton.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-24 10:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:BTW, Clinton also ratified free trade agreements while Bush is throwing up walls of protectionism and the biggest farm subsidies in history. Bush's credentials as a fiscal conservative are totally nonexistent.

And I said Bush was a fiscal conservative when?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-02-24 11:30pm

The Kernel wrote

You aren't the group that would have their taxes increased, the rich (whose bracket you aren't in or you would be paying closer to 50%) are the ones who need their taxes increased

So 50% is not enough of their money....????? You do realize that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.3% of all taxes don't you.... and that isn't enough??

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-24 11:31pm

The only explanation that Bush has given for not taxing the wealthy harder is that it will stunt the economy, but Clinton's eight years of economic growth proved this theory to be a bunch of bullshit.

The variance between Clinton and Bush on the highest marginal tax rate is less than 4 percent; not enough to significantly impact the economy.

And high economic growth does not prove that heavily progressive taxation is good, the economy grows in spite of taxation, not because of it.