American Fiscal Policy

[Sector 7]

That was a great graphic. The Reagan and Bush era debts were greater primarily due to defense spending. The Soviet Union tried to keep up with Reagan era defense spending and failed. Their economy collapsed.

The Clinton era created a surplus again by drastically cutting defense spending (because we had no perceived major threats at the time) and other spending cuts. Fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, radical groups like Al Qaeda grew during his administration. That lead to more defense spending during the next Bush era. I'm not justifying or condemning. I am just pointing out that each administration had different challenges and priorities.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...orst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/30/deficit-more-cut-half-2009

http://zfacts.com/national-debt-facts

This graphic best illustrates what President Bill Clinton said in his speech to the Democratic National Convention, that our nation tends to prosper under Democratic administrations.

When the U.S. committed to the "war on terrorism" abroad, it was a war that seemingly has no end in sight. There is always a reaction to every action. But, the consequences for invading Afghanistan were different from the consequences for invading Iraq.

Different, but not better.

We spent an incredible amount in resources, money, and human lives.

What do we have to show for it? Have we made the world safer? Have we made the US safer?

Well, one could argue that we have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11, therefore taking the fight to terrorist organizations abroad forces them to expend their resources on fighting American interests there instead of here.

We still haven't found those WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction] which were the stated intent of George W. Bush and company for invading Iraq.

Your statement is false: Tell the victims of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack "that we have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11". I do not think the response will be a pleasant one.

 

[fonzob1]

Your statement is false: Tell the victims of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack "that we have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11". I do not think the response will be a pleasant one.

Clearly I meant by terrorist organizations rather than homegrown terrorists. The Boston bombers were homegrown (although they may have been influenced by extremist ideology abroad). I agree independent acts of terrorism are a problem too.

 

[J.T.B.]

That was a great graphic. The Reagan and Bush era debts were greater primarily due to defense spending. The Soviet Union tried to keep up with Reagan era defense spending and failed. Their economy collapsed.

The Clinton era created a surplus again by drastically cutting defense spending (because we had no perceived major threats at the time) and other spending cuts. Fiscal conservatism.

The "Peace Dividend" defense cuts started under Bush 41, though Clinton budgets benefited, too. But Clinton also pushed through a big increase in 1993 on high-earning income and corporate taxes. That's not usually associated with "conservative" economic policy, at least not these days.

The other thing that happened was a big revenue increase from a good economy riding on the "dot-com boom." As most economists agree, deficit cutting is something that should be done in good times. Cutting government spending in a recession, when consumer spending is already low, is about the opposite of the way to help an ailing economy, as the past six years should show pretty clearly. Though Democratic lawmakers largely caved on the issue, it's pretty obvious where the impetus was coming from. So I gave "Democrats" a slight edge over "neither."