On Feb 12, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> Another straw in the wind.
>
> HRC:
>
> "So when I hear Senator Obama talk about that, I wonder which
> fights he
> wouldn't fight. Would he have not fought to get to a balanced
> budget and
> a surplus and help create 22 million new jobs?"
>
> a) Clinton did not balance the budget. He did reduce the deficit.
> b) Neither the balanced budget nor Clinton "create(ed) 22 million new
> jobs." This is reactionary fiscal doctrine.
> c) A commitment to the BB or worse, surplus, is profoundly
> reactionary,
> not least alongside a commitment to maintain the defense budget.
Max, I don't get the point of running chronic deficits, even if they're stable. Ok as a countercyclical stimulus, but why not tax rich people instead of borrowing from them? And why get so hot over the balance? Aren't the crucial political questions how the money is raised and how it's spent? The Scandinavian social democracies have been fiscally prudent, no?
Clinton didn't personally balance the budget - he needed some help from Congress. But what do you mean by (a)? The unadjusted federal budget balance went from -4.5% of GDP in 1993 to +2.5% in 2000. Cyclically adjusted by the CBO, it went from -3.0% to +1.5%.
Why do you think the rate of job growth during the Clinton years three or four times that of the Bush years?
Doug