Moderates only...

[Larry Gude]

OK, seems pretty clear we got us Bush vs. Kerry.

As you moderates are responsible for pretty much every President, answer me a few questions. Remember, you guys are in charge.

(If you are 100% or near 100% your party, please stay out for now.)

#1. As a moderate this means you would say "I will wait to see who the actual candidates are, then make my choice". Now that we know who, have you made a choice?

#2. Is Kerry the 'kept man' (Mr. Heinz) decisive against him to you?

#3. Is doubts about Bush's Guard record decisive against him?

#4. Will Kerry's Senate voting record be decisive in your choice? For or against?

#5. Is Iraq going good or bad decisive? Please state which way.

#6. Is the economy decisive? Why? Taxes? Defecit?

#7. Are social issues decisive, gay marriage, Social Security, partial birth abortion, dropping the FCC hammer on Janet Jackson, judicial nominees, etc...?

#8. You own thoughts.

Please give me a yes or no for #1-7 and a brief explanation.

For #8, please describe whatever it is that is decisive for you that is not covered to your satisfaction in the other questions.

Presidential elections are spectator sports for about 40% of us who will vote party no matter what. The 20% in the middle is where the ball game is.

Tell me what you're thinking!

 

[jlabsher]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
OK, seems pretty clear we got us Bush vs. Kerry.

As you moderates are responsible for pretty much every President, answer me a few questions. Remember, you guys are in charge.

(If you are 100% or near 100% your party, please stay out for now.)

O.K. everybody here calls me a democratic radical, but I have voted both parties 50-50 since I've been 18, so I guess I count. Plus, I'm surrounded by more radical dems than reps at work. (Kind of evens out my visits to this board)

#1. As a moderate this means you would say "I will wait to see who the actual candidates are, then make my choice". Now that we know who, have you made a choice?

made it a couple of years ago

#2. Is Kerry the 'kept man' (Mr. Heinz) decisive against him to you?

never heard it mentioned before this

#3. Is doubts about Bush's Guard record decisive against him?

I don't think so, the mainstream dems will stay away from it, won't see it in any ads.

#4. Will Kerry's Senate voting record be decisive in your choice? For or against?
I think the reps will play this as their main advertising strategy against Kerry. They will bang it out incessantly on the trail, on the tv and whenever they get a chance. They still seem to think that moderates are scared by the word liberal. Actually most moderates could give a rats azz.

#5. Is Iraq going good or bad decisive? Please state which way.
May be dubya's achilles heel, no wmd, no easy exit, no cheering throngs on the nightly news, no osama. The heartland could care less about the need for time and all the intricate detail we hear about here in the center of the universe, they just don't want their loved ones called up to guard/reserve deployments.

#6. Is the economy decisive? Why? Taxes? Defecit?
I think this may be a wash, deficit, unemployment, tax breaks...most of us are sick of hearing this crap ad-nauseum being spewed by people who know nothing (and most economists know nothing--it makes less sense than Nietszche and Sartre on mushrooms)

#7. Are social issues decisive, gay marriage, Social Security, partial birth abortion, dropping the FCC hammer on Janet Jackson, judicial nominees, etc...?
maybe, will dubya go the way of the righteous, and will it bite him in the butt? Will his exclusion of gay marriage from his compassionate conservatism screw him. Will the reps blame all the moral downfall on Clinton? Most "educated" moderates, (meaning the ones who have more than a 6th grade or sunday school education) know that the gov't can't regulate morality, and we can have the most moral leader in the world and still be an immoral country.
#8. You own thoughts.
I think I've got to get back to work

 

[SamSpade]

#1. As a moderate this means you would say "I will wait to see who the actual candidates are, then make my choice". Now that we know who, have you made a choice?

--- None of the Democratic candidates held much appeal, *except* possibly Lieberman. He at least had integrity, and was willing to call it like it is, even if it meant going against party line.

#2. Is Kerry the 'kept man' (Mr. Heinz) decisive against him to you?

--- No. But having a loud-mouthed and crazy wife might.

#3. Is doubts about Bush's Guard record decisive against him?

--- A molehill. Much ado about nothing.

#4. Will Kerry's Senate voting record be decisive in your choice? For or against?

--- Not really. His waffle on the war and his remarks on "policing" convince me he has no idea how to be commander in chief. If 9/11 were to happen AGAIN, no way in hell do I want him in the White House.

#5. Is Iraq going good or bad decisive? Please state which way.

--- No. It is IMPORTANT for the world. But it won't change my decision.

#6. Is the economy decisive? Why? Taxes? Defecit?

--- I'm not crazy about the fact that Bush hasn't vetoed anything and managed to spend too much. But I have no reason to believe *Kerry* will reign in spending. *Everywhere* Bush is assailed for spending too much, the Democrats have responded with "it doesn't do enough". Translation - spend MORE on it. Kerry's waffling again, is the point - he could just as well raise spending after the election, and explain why he had to do that to curtail spending. I don't believe the guy.

#7. Are social issues decisive, gay marriage, Social Security, partial birth abortion, dropping the FCC hammer on Janet Jackson, judicial nominees, etc...?

--- The FCC thing is alarming. Alarming enough to wonder what the hell the Republicans are up to. I have no problem with a company saying "we have standards". I *do* have a problem with a GOVERNMENT that has them. The other issues - I could give a crap about them. What I care about is my job, my safety, my schools, and the welfare of my community. No one will save Social Security because everyone wants to ignore the 800 pound gorilla. So those issues are moot.

#8. You own thoughts.
---- I'll comment later.....

 

[Ken King]

#1. As a moderate this means you would say "I will wait to see who the actual candidates are, then make my choice". Now that we know who, have you made a choice?

Granted Kerry probably has it sewn up after today, but it doesn’t seem the Democrats want to win.

#2. Is Kerry the 'kept man' (Mr. Heinz) decisive against him to you?

No. But Kerry the seeker of women with money is.

#3. Is doubts about Bush's Guard record decisive against him?

What doubts, he received an Honorable Discharge.

#4. Will Kerry's Senate voting record be decisive in your choice? For or against?

No more then him just being a Senator. These guys only know about taxing and spending, not about deciding and leading.

#5. Is Iraq going good or bad decisive? Please state which way.

Going good, should be an advantage for Bush.

#6. Is the economy decisive? Why? Taxes? Defecit?

Not really, for me it has been a long stretch of good times even with the problems. Tax cut was needed, now Congress needs to reign in their spending.

#7. Are social issues decisive, gay marriage, Social Security, partial birth abortion, dropping the FCC hammer on Janet Jackson, judicial nominees, etc...?

Nope, there are so many with so many alternatives if you decide it on social issues alone you won’t find a winner in the group.

#8. You own thoughts.

Decisive for me, I don’t think it is currently broke (at the President level) so why fix it. Now Congress is a whole different ball of wax, but nothing a few pounds of high explosives couldn’t fix.

 

[Tonio]

#1. As a moderate this means you would say "I will wait to see who the actual candidates are, then make my choice". Now that we know who, have you made a choice? Not yet. I'm disappointed in Bush that he uses terms like "defense of marriage" in pushing to amend the Constitution. It's fearmongering and it's beneath him. But it's not yet enough to sway my vote.

#2. Is Kerry the 'kept man' (Mr. Heinz) decisive against him to you? No. While I believe that marriage should be a partnership between equals, I don't think Kerry is emasculated because his wife has the money.

#3. Is doubts about Bush's Guard record decisive against him?Only if it can be proved that he has lied about his service, and I haven't seen decisive evidence one way or the other. Everything that I've read about it only seems to bring up more questions. Still, the Democrats' hammering away at this feels like :

#4. Will Kerry's Senate voting record be decisive in your choice? For or against? I need to find out more about his Senate record.

#5. Is Iraq going good or bad decisive? Please state which way. Toppling Saddam was the right thing to do, not just from a WMD perspective but also from a regional power perspective. I don't know if Bush and those around him lied about WMD. But I was bothered by their push for invasion from a political perspective. It seemed like they were using WMD and terrorism to justify the invasion, instead of arguing Wolfowitz's case for removing Saddam to stabilize the region. America has always considered itself the country that never starts a war (although we sure as hell will finish one, as the Japanese learned). Bush could have used the invasion to start a national debate about whether preemptive war is a good defense.

#6. Is the economy decisive? Why? Taxes? Defecit? Before 9/11, Bush seemed to be pushing his tax cut at all costs, which concerned me. I haven't seen any benefit from his cuts myself. My wife is a stay-at-home mom now, so we're earning less than we did in 2001. But our federal income taxes are higher than three years ago, even with two kids and the $400 credit.

#7. Are social issues decisive, gay marriage, Social Security, partial birth abortion, dropping the FCC hammer on Janet Jackson, judicial nominees, etc...? Definitely yes. I already covered gay marriage in answer 1. Politicians of all stripes are grandstanding over broadcast indecency right now, and I don't blame Bush for that. But I am concerned about Michael Powell's record as FCC head. He has seemed too cozy with conglomerates like Clear Channel.

 

[Bruzilla]

Larry... unlike Jlabsher, I won't try to pass myself off as a moderate. However, I would like to make a prediction and say that I do not think that moderates are going to be the swing vote this year.

I will go on record as saying that I think Bush is going to win, and win big. Between Kerry's record, his constant wishy-washyness on issues, and the personal crap (both in Vietnam and the bedroom) that I think is going to be exposed during the campaign, I think Bush will get a pretty sizeable chunk of the Democratic voters.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SamSpade
[BI have no problem with a company saying "we have standards". I *do* have a problem with a GOVERNMENT that has them. [/B]

That made me gasp when I read it. You have a problem with a goverment that has standards?

That's all - not a moderate and won't even try to pretend I considered voting for John Kerry.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
#1. As a moderate this means you would say "I will wait to see who the actual candidates are, then make my choice". Now that we know who, have you made a choice?

#2. Is Kerry the 'kept man' (Mr. Heinz) decisive against him to you?

#3. Is doubts about Bush's Guard record decisive against him?

#4. Will Kerry's Senate voting record be decisive in your choice? For or against?

#5. Is Iraq going good or bad decisive? Please state which way.

#6. Is the economy decisive? Why? Taxes? Defecit?

#7. Are social issues decisive, gay marriage, Social Security, partial birth abortion, dropping the FCC hammer on Janet Jackson, judicial nominees, etc...?

#8. You own thoughts.

I am of course inclined to vote Democratic, but I definitely consider myself a moderate (I would vote for the right kind of Republican like John McCain or Gordon Smith). So I think that I can play along here.

1. I have decided from all the issues that President Bush has to be defeated because of his inability to formulate a decent budget. That means that I have two choices: John Kerry (the nominee of my party) and the third parties. I do not like Kerry's status as the nominee of my party and it may be enough for me to decide to just vote Libertarian (it's not like Bush will win Maryland's electors and it's not like my vote for Kerry would help - maybe my vote should be a protest vote, not sure yet).
2. Mr. Kerry's wife has no bearing on my decision to vote. She seems to be quite an elegant person and I really do not have any reason to hate her or Kerry for deciding to marry her. I am more into what the senator has to say about what we need to do in this country.
3. Bush's Guard record has no bearing either on my decision. This election is about the future, not the Vietnam war.
4. John Kerry's voting record seems to be somewhat decent in my opinion. While there are major inconsistencies and points of disagreement for Kerry's record, if it is decisive, it will be for him. As I said earlier, what is Kerry saying about the future and not his past.
5. Going into Iraq was the correct course of action for this nation to take, but the process to do that could have been much better. I believe that the next president must change the US's policy concerning internationalizing the effort there in order to make the situation in Iraq better.
6. The economy is definitely decisive and this is the major reason why I may be voting for Kerry and against Bush. Trade agreements and our tax code have finally caught up to us here in America as American jobs are the leading export of this nation. We have to stop our export of jobs to Mexico where slave wages are dominant and our outsouring of jobs to India. The tax system has to be fixed so that our budget will be under control. The best way to stimulate the economy is not to decrease income taxes for the rich, but to provide business tax cuts and middle class income tax cuts. The deficit has to be taken under control and the job market has to be made better (this is the toughest job market for graduating college seniors in a decade - something that hits especially close to me). Kerry has a pretty solid plan from what I have seen while it seems to me that Bush's plan amounts to ineffective income tax reductions for the rich.
7. Social issues are not decisive for me because I think that the nation is so divided over the issues that nothing will ever be changed. Abortion rights are here to stay, the death penalty is here to stay, etc. But it is fun to talk about them. Just for the record here's a synopsis on my stances on those issues: Abortion - for parental notification laws and the partial birth abortion ban, but abortion should be legal in the first trimester; Death penalty - the most serious crimes deserve the ultimate penalty (shame on John Kerry for thinking otherwise); Organized prayer in public schools - absolutely not, violates separation of church and state and I can still pray in school without organizing it; Same-sex marriage - opposed to an ammendment; marriage is a states' right; the FCC - why the hell is Howard Stern off the air?.
8. I do not consider Social Security a social issue and consider it more of a fiscal notion. I think that the best way to fix the program is to create voluntary private accounts for current workers while maintaining current benefit levels for retirees (somewhat like President Bush's proposal, but voluntary). The Medicare drug benefit that was just passed is awful - very expensive and nothing but a corporate tax giveaway. We should have the reimportation of drugs and a drug benefit that is only for those that truly need it.

So in summary I am against President Bush's reelection because of his domestic policies (his war on terror is based in sound judgement, maybe not the best execution), and am not sure whether to vote Kerry (like his economic policy somewhat, but see him as nothing but a New England elitest that will say anything to get elected) or a third party (Libertarian leading the way).

 

[Larry Gude]

Thank you all...

...for responding. I'm enjoying this as it is so much more educational and therefore fun than a typical left v. right discusion where everything is predictable conflict.

It is 'conventional wisdom' political shop talk that it is always the economy that decides the Presidential election. If it's bad, the incumbent loses; Ford, Carter, Bush I. If it's good the incumbent wins; Reagan, Clinton.

I'm asking all who responded, is it fair to say, from reading your posts, that there is a single huge issue and that it is the economy? If so, Kerry should win.

If so, let's move on to what you all will expect to see in the first year or two of President Kerry's first term and we'll focus on the economy if it is agreed that that is the key here.

Sounds like significant tax hikes for one.

And

Trade barriers intended to save US jobs for two.

Discusion?

Please feel free to take the discusion to other issues if you feel they are more significant.

Bruz, I'm with you. I see a total wipeout of Kerry once people get a load of him, but, my opinion is set and therefore worthless in this thread.

to all!

 

[tlatchaw]

You're looking for a moderate ANYTHING on these forums? Seems to me that the people who take the time to post things here all have very strong opinions one way or the other.

Brave attempt, but I don't think that there are any moderates around here. (myself included!)

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
You're looking for a moderate ANYTHING on these forums? Seems to me that the people who take the time to post things here all have very strong opinions one way or the other.

True. I have strong opinions about parties and party loyalty (both are for the birds, I believe) and about ideology and doctrine often being used as straitjackets for thought.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by tlatchaw


You're looking for a moderate ANYTHING on these forums? Seems to me that the people who take the time to post things here all have very strong opinions one way or the other.

Brave attempt, but I don't think that there are any moderates around here. (myself included!)

Interesting. I've always considered myself a moderate. I once had an acquaintance publicly joke about me that way. I'm a registered Democrat.

But we haven't had many Democrats around here who are moderate. We sure don't at the head of the ticket. We don't have many who can flatly go against party line and say "you know what? going into Iraq was the RIGHT thing to do, and I don't care what the party line is". I've always hated the group-think of ANY party, and I voted for Perot in '96 because I hated to hear it then. I like men with integrity.

I try to hear the reason people give for their decisions. If a candidate says "I voted against that missile system because it had a rider on it I was opposed to" or "it was *clearly* unsafe, dangerous and more costly than alternatives", I can accept that. But you won't get that on the evening news or in political ads. All you will here is "bad for the economy" "against the environment" "eats Viet Cong babies and picks wings off flies" "better Red than dead!" and so on. Because sadly, most of the voting population never looks too deeply. A lot DO - maybe you do, maybe I do, but the mass of voters will go in, pick the national candidates based mostly on guts and perception, vote for lesser candidates mostly on NAME recognition and party, and that's it.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Interesting. I've always considered myself a moderate.

Most people consider themselves this way

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Most people consider themselves this way

Not me - I consider myself a right-winger. Which is why I'm not particularly jumping around for Bush. But I do want to see him play out this War on Tara thing and get it solidified before someone else can come in and screw it up.

 

[Bruzilla]

I really liked rraley's comments, especially this one because I think it echos the sentiment of a lot of voters: "The economy is definitely decisive and this is the major reason why I may be voting for Kerry and against Bush. Trade agreements and our tax code have finally caught up to us here in America as American jobs are the leading export of this nation. We have to stop our export of jobs to Mexico where slave wages are dominant and our outsouring of jobs to India. The tax system has to be fixed so that our budget will be under control. The best way to stimulate the economy is not to decrease income taxes for the rich, but to provide business tax cuts and middle class income tax cuts. The deficit has to be taken under control and the job market has to be made better (this is the toughest job market for graduating college seniors in a decade - something that hits especially close to me). Kerry has a pretty solid plan from what I have seen while it seems to me that Bush's plan amounts to ineffective income tax reductions for the rich."

There are a lot of people who have been inundated with the belief that we can keep jobs in America, keep inflation and costs of consumer goods down, keep taxes down, keep the environment safe, provide universal healthcare, and increase wages... all at the same time. Sorry, but there's no politican on the planet who can do that no matter what they promise.

Many US jobs have been going overseas for years, and not just because of lower wages. It's also because of over-regulation of a lot of industries, especially personnel and environmental issues, and lawsuits. Growing up in Pittsburgh I watched the steel worker unions single handedly hand the US steel market over to the Germans and Japanese. The vast steel makers of Pittsburgh went under because the unions and their members didn't want to face up to the fact that foreign steel was cheaper, and they refused to make concessions... so who lost? They did.

When I helped run a small manufacturing company in Florida, we sold window treatments directly to decorators and installers, wholesale. We used to hear complaints about places like Home Depot and Lowes because they were able to undersell our customers and how the big manufacturers like Hunter Douglas shouldn't be selling to the big home stores. At times like this I would ask them "where do you go to get all your tools, screws, and other hardware? Do you go to the higher-cost independent hardware store or Home Depot?" The answer was always the same... silence. The lesson learned is that American consumers will almost always choose lower cost over any other consideration.

So, let's say that Kerry pulls off a major magic trick and gets foreign countries to enforce strict labor laws. What happens back here in the United States? Are foreign companies going to "eat" the increased costs of doing business? No, they are going to pass them off to the consumer. So that made in China kid's shirt that costs $10 now will cost $20. Will these increased costs mean that more businesses will return to the US? Remember that labor costs are just one part of the problem. Since companies are just going to pass along the increased labor costs to their consumers, there's no reason for them to take on all the beurocratic headaches of the EPA, NLB, employment groups, etc. Actually, all this is mute because the foreign countries in question care about their economies, not the US's, and they aren't going to do anything they don't have to do.

Businesses exist in a very delicate balance of receivables, payables, and regulations. When you start monkeying around with any of these three items, you effect all three. Kerry talks a good story, but in the end there's not a dang thing he can do. If you increase costs, to a US or Foreign business, the costs of consumer goods and inflation are going to go up. See what that does to the economy... better yet... ask someone who was around when Jimmy Carter was in office.

As for taxes, I ask why do some people think that if you increase the tax rates on the wealthy that you're going to get more money? The Rich aren't the Rich because they're stupid. They are going to protect their money and shelter it rather than invest it. They might be making 5% instead of 25%, but that's better than a loss. So the end result will be less investment in business and no additional money in the coffers. It may mean more money being spent on municipal improvements as the wealthy invest in bond issues, but in the end the Rich will recoup their investments plus interest, and won't pay any taxes on either. Again, we lose.

Don't buy into all the Democratic hype about tax cuts for the Rich. The fact that our economy is growing very well despite unemployment numbers shows that companies are investing in technology in order to grow. They have to do this if they are going to compete globally. Just watch the commercials for IBM, Dell, etc. They don't tout the ability to do more with more people, they tout being able to do more with less people. The days of masses of people doing mechanical tasks is over, and Americans need to realize this and change their focus over to learning new skills. They shouldn't be given false hopes that their jobs are secure when they aren't, and that's about all Kerry has to offer.

 

[rraley]

This is a nice little debate here devoid of the old type of political attacks. Some real substance here.

First of all, I am most definitely under the impression that we can do all the things that Bruzilla mentioned. That kind of a thing only happens in utopia (which as humans, we can never accomplish). But we can do our best in order to accomplish the goals of universal health care, higher wages, more jobs, etc.

US jobs have gone overseas due to a combination of things. Yes, sensible regulation here has caused some corporations to decide to go to nations where they have no one to answer to and little to no laws to follow. People can blame labor, but the fact remains that labor has the right to earn a decent wage (and yes, sometimes they do go a little too far and hurt more than they help) and work in good conditions. The reason corporations leave the country is not because we have sound environmental standards, but because they want their bottom line to look better and slave wages in Thailand will do that.

I recently read in Time magazine as well that the reason that foreign goods (like cars) are so cheap is because the main cost of American goods is not the materials that are used to make them, but rather benefits for the worker, especially health care benefits. Foreign nations like Japan have national health care and as a result, employers do not have to pay for the health care of their workers. As a result, Japanese cars are $2,000 cheaper than American cars. Now I am not saying that we should have national health care but I think that the government should help American businesses to pay for workers' health insurance to increase our competition overseas and at home.

I am not going to advocate for a completely protectionist trade policy (that was one of the main causes of the Great Depression if you get your history books out). But we do need what the popular term is now "fair trade." Trade with the industrialized world is fine right now because those nations have labor and environmental standards. The trade with the Third World is what hurts us the most. Mexico has the worst environment in North America and a government that is not truly democratic. The same can be said for many other nations that we trade with (for instance China). Look the fact of the matter is that we had a $450 billion trade deficit last year and over 700,000 jobs were lost last year. We have to correct that and enforcing labor and environmental steps can do that for us.

A combination of enforcing labor standards and helping business to pay off worker benefits will greatly aid the domestic economy and help to keep jobs here. You can ask Dick Gephardt - Mr. Liberal - or Pat Buchannan - Mr. Conservative - and they will say the same thing on this issue.

On to Mr. Gude's questions. I do not believe that John Kerry's first few years will see huge tax increases (at least not for most of the people on these boards). Yes he will roll back the tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000, which will result in an added $700 billion or so to the national treasury (quite a help to decrease our outrageous deficit). Targeted middle class tax cuts will continue to aid the middle class and allow the budget to maintain fiscal sanity.

And trade agreements will be reviewed so that jobs can stay here due to the implementation of fair trade and a tax system that honors companies that stay here rather than leave.

That is all for now...

 

[Ken King]

If anyone thinks a Senator knows anything about fiscal restraint then they are a fool. Kerry, if elected, will roll back tax cuts, increase taxes in other areas and Congress will gobble it up spending it faster then it comes into the Treasury. If any goes to the deficit I would be totally shocked.

What many forget is that the President, while submitting his desires, only has final approval of what the Congress passes. He can sign it, sit on it (both of which become the law) or he can veto it stating his specific objections. Congress has a practiced ability of keeping their plan close to the chest and delaying submission until such time as they absolutely have to. During this process we get stuck with Continuing Resolutions instead of an actual coming to terms over how and what we spend money on. Or worse we end up with these massive consolidated bills and the President only has ten days with it. If you think Kerry can make it work any better you’re kidding yourselves.

This is one of the reasons that for quite some time Presidents have come from the pool of Governors throughout the nation. These guys have had to actually make decisions instead of wheeling and dealing and porking up the process. Kerry hasn’t been doing any of these things for years, if ever, and I see him ill equipped to take on that task at such a grand scale.

If people want to be upset at someone for the deficit and the state of the budget they should direct their energy at the source of the problem – Congress. If you note Bush has already submitted his proposal for FY05, where is Congress’s version of how we are going to deal with the issue for FY05, after all that is their job isn’t it? When are we going to see it, after the election?

 

[Frank]

Perhaps someone could answer THIS question, made in earnest.

What DID happen to the 'surplus' we had for what, three, four years? Did it get rolled over into the following year's budget, to increase the surplus? Did it get applied directly to the national debt? It's quite obviously not "still there", so it got spent. Where did it go?

I guess knowing that it must have been spent makes me doubt whether or not "surplus" is a good term to use. When we had a "surplus" of student recreation fees at my old alma mater, it accrued over time, and they spent five years trying to figure out what to do with it, eventually building a performing arts center with the extra cash.

Where did it go?

 

[Larry Gude]

The surplus...

...was a projection and in that sense it is gone.

Clinton had, I think, balanced budgets his last two years in office.

The 'surplus' was based on income to the treasury continuing as it had during the tech stock bubble and spending projections staying within reason.

#1, the bubble burst taking with it billions of dollars in capital gains taxes and many more billions of dollars in taxes from all the very good paying tech jobs.

#2. World Com, Enron and Global Crossing, along with a bunch of other companies were caught lying about their business. This not only crushed more great paying jobs but slaughtered employees savings and help further depress the market, further depressing tax income to the feds.

#3 9/11 happened. Between insurance claims, devestation to the airline industry and domestic security expenses, billions more went out the window.

The scary part is that Clintons 'balance' was not real. It included Social Security taxes coming in to the feds as income but EXCLUDED Social Security payments going out from expenses.

That is happening today, meaning the deficit is worse yet by some 100's of billions of dollars.

As far as what 'actually' happened to the 'surplus' it was given back to just about all taxpayers in the form of $300 checks a couple of years ago and in the form of other tax rate cuts to to this day to everyone.

You're right, 'surplus' is like the gas station saying they got everyone to pay an extra $.50 a gallon for gas.

When we learn what it means, it's a bad word.

If we take out increases in defense spending and domestic security spending, Congress has actually cut federal spending (less SS/med) from about 18% of GDP three years ago to about 16% today.