Machiavelli Wrote:I just want to pay as we go. I want a balanced budget. The thing I really can't stand about some of you guys is you want the tax cuts and you want to spend more.

Tax cuts result in increased tax revenues, in the long run. So, to a limited extent, and in the long run, maybe tax cuts can work with increased spending - later.

I think the problem is the disconnect between income and spending. I was once called to a creditor's meeting. The company had been run by two partners. One handled buying, the other sales. Maybe they should have worked together. It is an example of what happens with government.

A balanced budget is a good thing( a surplus is better), but there are times when it cannot, and should not, be done. Wartime is one example. WWII was fought on debt. We are at war now. I can just see the next president saying to a foreign country, "We are going to declare war on you if you don't stop what you are doing, and ifwe have the cash. Hold the phone while I call my accountant."

A lot of people run their own house on a balanced budget - I suspect everyone on this forum does. But when a project comes up that requires extradinary expenditure, we borrow. Small ones, like a new computer, may result in a a bulge in credit card balances for a few months. Others, like a house or car, may result in long term payments. But they would all be impossible if we all individually had to live according to a balanced budget amendment.

As for Clinton, the economic expansion was in its second year when he took the oath of office, and the recession was in its second year when Bush took his oath of office. The so called "Clinton years" could have been the "Yellow Dog years" had we elected a yellow dog instead. Just because I'm sitting on my porch when the sun rises doesn't mean i caused it. I will say that Clinton didn't do a lot to hurt the expansion, although he did try once. He sure could have done a lot worse.