Pocket, you need to try really hard and focus on things I've actually said...
Right away you jump on this strawman because you're incapable of refuting my actual statements. I pointed to a specific instance where tax cuts resulted in greater revenue. That is a fact, as opposed to your unsubstantiated opinion about the tax cuts not being "paid for".
No, you're Keynesian economic theory doesn't work. Government spending does not drive the private sector into prosperity, it crushes it. By your logic (two can play that silly game) we should institute a policy of 100% taxation and the economy would skyrocket.
I'll keep the numbers small so you don't have to take your shoes off to keep count... Let's pretend you have a job. Now in this job you earn $1 a day but you spend $3 a day, this activity results in a daily deficit and creates debt.
Now lets really do some pretending and say that you earned yourself a raise to $2 a day, but you also raise your spending to $6 a day. You still have a daily deficit and are still accumulating debt.
See how that works? If you increase revenue but also increase spending, it results in a deficit/debt being created.
You would have to reduce your spending to be equal to your revenue to eliminate your deficit and you would have to further reduce your spending to be less than your revenue in order to decrease your debt.
While it is true that Clinton's tax policy was higher than Bush's, it is untrue (false) to say the Clinton policy resulted in greater revenue.
The federal revenue under Clinton was less than it was under Bush - True.
Government spending under Clinton was less than it was under Bush - True.
Look back on the example I gave. Clinton's tax policy brought in less than the Bush tax policy, but Clinton's spending was also less than Bush's. It is controlling your spending to be equal to, or less than, your revenue that results in balanced budgets. When spending is greater than your revenue, you get deficits and debt.
Just as I'm sure you "forget" that the Republicans took over the House during Clinton's tenure on a platform of reducing government spending and shortly thereafter the government began spending less than was brought in through revenue... But you'll probably argue that was all Clinton waving his magic wand and the Republican's played no role in the reduction of spending, right?
Out of control spending... at least as far is pertinent to this conversation.
Under Bush, revenue increased by 23% but spending increased by 51%, again when spending is greater than revenue, it results in a deficit and the accumulation of debt.
Would you say the same about Clinton and the Republican takeover of the House? ...Clinton was just a suit who did whatever the Republicans wanted? Or is it more likely that the two parties had to work together to cut spending, just as they worked together when they drastically increased spending to the point where it was once again greater than revenue?
As PLC points out... it is a shared responsibility. Both parties were, and continue to be, responsible for government spending being greater than it's revenue. Saying it's all the fault of just one side or the other is childish nonsense.
