Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Then we agree. Good. I might point out though that you've fallen victim here to a common bit of propaganda. We NEVER had a "surplus," we only had a projected surplus, which projection was based largely on the assumption that the grossly over-inflated stock market would never adjust back to reality, which was an assumption that no rational person believed, even then.

I was talking to my brother-in-law the other day, and he also said the surplus was Projected but never really existed. I believe you that it was propaganda. My question is: Who created the Myth of the surplus being real?

Someone has to have twisted the facts to create this myth! Who was it?

Tim

It's spin. It's always spin. You have to read the words carefully and find the alternate meanings. The concept of the surplus, so far as I understand, is that, at the time, the government was taking in more than it was spending. Naturally, politicians assume that no expenses will ever arise, and therefore, because the exact same spending tendencies will continue, the debt will be gone in x number of years. In a world where nothing every happens that is unexpected, this would hold true. Thing is, we don't, so budgets change constantly.

After all, if you're representing your political party, would you announce, "hey, this year we're going to lower the debt some, and we'd like to continue so maybe in the near future the debt is gone", or "we have balanced the budget, and have a surplus for the first time in x years"?

That's the "joy" of spin. Technically, it's true. However, no person in their right mind would think it's accurately representing the facts.

Originally posted by junglejake
That's the "joy" of spin. Technically, it's true. However, no person in their right mind would think it's accurately representing the facts.

So what you're saying is when Bush campaigned on paying for his tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans by using the projected surplus he was not in his right mind. When the Republican Party brushed aside Gore's concerns for social security and suggestions of a 'lock box' concept to not spend the surplus, setting it aside instead for a rainy day, they were definitional insane, and ill informed on the concepts of how economies actually work.

I agree Jake. Republicans suck.

Originally posted by ghost
My question is: Who created the Myth of the surplus being real?

Someone has to have twisted the facts to create this myth! Who was it?

Tim

Look at the 2000 campaign. Bush did. Because he wanted to spend it. And he did and MORE.

Originally posted by RANT

I agree Jake. Republicans suck.

See, the difference between us here is I think politicians suck, and see it done by both Democrats and Republicans, not just the one party I don't support.

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by ghost
My question is: Who created the Myth of the surplus being real?

Someone has to have twisted the facts to create this myth! Who was it?

Tim

Look at the 2000 campaign. Bush did. Because he wanted to spend it. And he did and MORE.

Why am I NOT surprised? Bush is the BIGGEST lier in the government!

So there are TWO big Dicks in the White House: George W. Bush, and Dick Cheny!


Tim

Originally posted by junglejake
See, the difference between us here is I think politicians suck, and see it done by both Democrats and Republicans, not just the one party I don't support.

Politics is by definition corrupt! The difference is some politicians are Much WORSE than others! Talking about politics and corruption, is like talking about mafia and crimmanal activity. Mafia is a crime orginization. My only issue with the republicans is that they seem to take the corruption much further then the Dems do. I'm not picking favorites, Just the Lesser of two Evils!

Anything that is corrupt and preys on the people it's meant to serve sucks!

Tim

It's certain that Dubya did not start the myth that we had a budget surplus. That assertion is clearly irrational. What on Earth would Dubya possibly gain by claiming that we actually had a surplus when Clinton was in office? That is the myth that's being discussed here, and there's absolutely nothing that Dubya could possibly gain by promulgating that myth.

What Dubya did was to dishonestly claim that his tax cuts would be compensated for by the same projected surplus that is at the heart of all of this confusion. He had to have known then, as any rational person did, that there wasn't going to be any budget surplus.

Here's a quick history of the projected surplus:

In 1997, Congress approved a balanced budget plan that was based on spending caps for all discretionary programs. In 1999, it was announced that projections showed that there would be a budget surplus by the year 2006. This surplus depended on two things happening-- the economy had to continue growing at the same pace, bringing the government more tax revenue, and Congress had to obey the budget caps. However, it was already apparent in 1999 that neither of these things was going to happen. The stock market was already in free fall, and Congress had already made it clear that they weren't going to abide by the FY 2000 budget caps, which were set at higher levels than those for the following years. They were already planning on spending more money than the budget caps allowed-- in the first year.

So when Bush claimed that the surplus would make up for his tax cuts, that was clearly a lie. He (or at least his handlers) had to have known, as any rational person did, that the surplus just wasn't going to happen.

However, since his election, more and more people have come to say, as was said on this thread and as introduced this topic, that under Clinton we had a surplus, and that now we don't. That's the myth that's under investigation here, and, as I said, there's clearly nothing that Bush might've gained by starting that myth.

Personally, I don't believe that it's a deliberate bit of propaganda. I think it's a misconception that's taken on a life of its own. I think that the source of this myth is democratic partisans who were honestly confused (and jubilant) in 1999 by the talk about a surplus (as they were no doubt meant to be) and believed that it already existed, rather than that it was only projected. They heard something about a surplus then, and they believed that it already existed. They've simply continued to believe ever since that there was at one time a real surplus, and have never understood that the only surplus there ever was was a projected one.



[edit on 5-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]