Text 14137, 38 rader
Skriven 2010-10-19 18:28:44 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 14135 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: FORGETTING
==================
Replying to a message of Jeff Binkley to Bob Ackley:

 DD>>>> Who was the last president to balance the budget? Wasn't a
 DD>>>> member of the elephant party.

 DD>>>> ENJOY!!!

 JB>>> If you are referring to The Clinton, it was Congress, led by
 JB>>> John  Kasich, who drove down spending.  However, even though the
 JB>>> budget was  balanced, the debt went up.  So while we may call
 JB>>> that an improvement,  over the long run it is a accounting
 JB>>> gimmic.

 BA>> If the debt went up - and it did, in each of Clinton's eight years in
 BA>> office - then expenses exceeded revenues, which is an imbalance The
 BA>> *budget* may have been balanced, but neither the administration nor
 BA>> congress followed it.

 BA>> For years the congress has passed a budget and (theoretically)
 BA>> properly funded its planned expenditures.  Then the congress passes
 BA>> dozens if not hundreds of supplemental spending bills that have no
 BA>> corresponding sources of revenues.  And the debt goes up...

 JB> Indeed.  The best example for the average person to understand is as 
 JB> follows.  Suppose my household budget for a year is $50k and for a
 JB> given  year I spend less than $50k.  However, in that same year I buy
 JB> a new car  for $35k, run up $15k in credit card debt and then take
 JB> out a 2nd  mortgage on my house for another $50k.  I could easily do
 JB> all of that  within my $59k budget but I now have $100k in new debt.

IMO supplemental spending bills should automatically contain their own 
revenue component - half is apportioned to the states whose senators voted for
it and half is apportioned to those congressional districts whose
representatives
voted for it.  That just might get their attention in congress...

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)