The fact is that when President Clinton was in office, there was budget surplus. Now, I want to make sure that I state this correctly, because I do believe this fact is sometimes misunderstood. When Clinton left office, his budget for the last three years did have a budget surplus. This does not mean that there was no national debt. Still, he was spending less than revenues being brought in, reducing the national debt rather than adding to it. So much for big spending Democrats, right?
Enter President Bush, from the "fiscally conservative" Republican party. What happens? Immediate budgets with deficits. See the chart here! To quote the story on cnn.com:
President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year
So, in Bush's eight years in the White House, he added trillions of dollars to our national debt. Where was this fiscal conservatism when Bush was spending billions of dollars on the Iraq War? Where was the concern when Bush was pushing through his $1.3 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy? Now that the country is in such serious trouble, the Republicans seem to have no problem making a complete 180-degree flip and decrying leaving this debt for our children.
I say, let's make sure there is a viable country to leave for our children and grandchildren. One where the financial system is fixed; where we have solved the problem of oil dependency; where there is health care for anyone who needs it; where there are good-paying jobs for everyone who wants to work; where the nation's infrastructure is not in a bad state of disrepair; where levies hold and where bridges are stable; a nation where the educational system works and provides a quality education for all children.
1 comment:
Silly wabbit! We only need that good stuff for the rich people, doncha know? Because they are the only ones working hard who *deserve* it.
Look I have nothing against people being rich...I want to be rich, just like most folks. And by some standards I already am "rich", and I honestly never have begrudged a single tax dollar I have paid. even for services I clearly don't directly use...like public education (since I'm child-free).
It is to my benefit to have a well-educated public.
It is to everyone's benefit.
And I also believe it is to everyone's benefit to have a basically healthy populace, for that matter.
So, why is it class warfare when we want to make our progressive tax system (note: not socialism, just a progressive tax system) take a little more taxes from the wealthy, but NOT class warfare when we want to continue to slash services or raise taxes that most impact middle and lower classes?
Enquiring minds want to know. You know, besides the obvious answers of disingenuousness and selfishness.
Post a Comment