Why "change", you ask?

I'm glad you asked that question -

Here, let me show you:

Note well, the image of the scholar....

Attached Images

bush_3.jpg (18.0 KB, 1 views)

Republican talking points. Clinton's military was plenty strong, but not bloated. Notice the loyal Bush supporter's inability to come to terms with the Iraq debacle.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

When considering the cost of the Iraq war that gridlock hasn't stopped, I think the net would decrease. At the very least, it wouldn't increase noticeably, which is what has happened drastically under 6 years of Republican rule.

That didn't happen in 93-94. Domestic spending remained stable while military spending was trimmed.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

Quote:
Another expense that began to compress and then fall by the late 90's was national debt interest, which in part was made possible by the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, which brought in hundreds of billions in new revenues. The budget reports under Bush2 still benefit from that today, although you wouldn't know it by looking at the totals.

Adjusted for GDP, 1995 was the turning point. 0.9 percent of the 2.3 percent reduction in Outlays from 1995 to 2000 was debt interest. Page 6.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

There is a delay between when fiscal policies are enacted and debt interest is affected. Only in the last couple of years are we beginning to see the increase in debt from the early 00's fiscal policies.

Much of the other 1.4 percent was the strong economic growth increasing the denominator. Total spending actually increased 5.1% between 1999 and 2000 and discretionary spending increased 7.5%. Since the economy was particularly hot in the latter part of the 90's, these spending increases appeared ok as a percentage of GDP. Strong economies can hide poor spending habits.

Quote:
When surpluses arrived in the late 90's, Congress exploited loopholes in PAYGO and began making "emergency" appropriations. Then came 2001 and a $1.3 billion violation of PAYGO (the first tax cut) was shamelessly signed, although it was justified on the grounds of expected surpluses early that year. Still, it contained no trigger mechanisms to rollback the cuts if deficits arrived. In 2002, PAYGO officially expired and all hell broke loose. We did not see such violations when Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency.

Are you referring to:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3632820.shtml

In contrary to your claim, PAYGO is meant to deter tax cuts when there are no offsetting measures to pay for them. Yes, Republicans are still looking to violate PAYGO, including the president, although replacing Bush with a Democrat would have been enough for compliance, since his veto threat deterred any action. Tax cuts are fun when there's no proposal to pay for them.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

I was just being a Communist.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Oh no. Not again.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Actually 1996 and even then it was slight (1/10th two years). It wasn't until 1998 that it hit 2/10th and then larger decreases followed.

Real strong economic growth didn't occur until the late 90's. Economic growth 1993/94 wasn't that different from 1995, 96, 97 (maybe even 9 when discretionary spending was down sharply. Additionally, as GDP increases it makes sense that discretionary spending would also increase. You're also mixing apples and oranges. In one place you point to the numbers in 1993/94 needing to be adjusted for GDP. Then you refer to real numbers and don't adjust for GDP when referring to 1999.

I am referring to that and good for the Republicans and Bush. Apparently the Democrats forgot the other side of the equation...spending cuts. Which is exactly why I say PAYGO is an excuse to raise taxes. If they wanted to follow PAYGO and cut taxes for AMT relief all they had to do was cut spending and they would have followed PAYGO. But they don't want to cut spending. They want to increase taxes. So they ignored it instead.

There are plenty of offsetting measures to pay for them. There are two sides to that equation and, like I said, the just want to raise taxes which is why they ignored the other side. Sure, replacing Bush with a democrat would have been enough for compliance. They would raise taxes, predictably and stereotypically.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Overspending when the economy is very hot is not a good way to run government. It's better to keep spending fairly steady as to better handle the ups and downs. Military spending is discretionary, and should not be increased over inflation because the economy is hot. Nor should it be decreased during a downturn. Mandatory spending shouldn't have significant adjustments either. Social security, for instance, shouldn't be increased over inflation because the economy is hot. Nor should it be decreased during an economic slowdown. Thus, in addition to falling debt interest in part due to actions of an earlier Congress, using percent of GDP to evaluate how well Congress and the President handled spending in the late 90's is misleading.

I am? I adjusted debt interest to GDP to counter an argument that spending dropped much more in the late 90's, which used the GDP adjustment. Where did I refer to 1993-1994 regarding a GDP adjustment?

Actually, the new PAYGO rules cover both spending and taxes. Bush's Medicare expansion, for example, would have been more difficult to implement with these rules, since it would have required in a reduction in spending elsewhere or a new tax. Thus, it's also a deterrance to new spending. Ultimately, though, its primary purpose is to help control budget deficits. It has been proven very effective in doing just that. Claiming that these rules are "an excuse to raise taxes" is nothing more than a Republican talking point. A more valid criticism is that it doesn't apply to any discretionary spending (separate rules govern this). I'd personally like to see these rules expanded to military spending, which has represented the largest increase in spending over the past several years.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-12-07bud.htm

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003