|
|
| Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) (102291) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:54:53 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Andrew Kirschner on Mon Feb 27 23:47:25 2006. Do you mean the requirements of social security would have cancelled out the surplus.That's exactly what I'm saying. As respects both parties contributing to the late 90's surpluses, I agree completely with a qualifier. Bill Clinton contributed to that -- but it was without the support of much of his party. I don't think one can really say that the entire Democratic party was behind the actions needed to balance the budget in the late 90's because huge factions of the party wanted to cut off Clinton's head for even thinking about it. It wasn't until Clinton's problems with Ms. Lewinsky became public that the Democrats really re-rallied around their president. As respects needing a divergence of leadership in the House/Senate/White House in order to control spending, I generally agree again. There is a small handful of people on both sides who I see as being so economically disciplined that as president they would contain spending even if their own party were in power. Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Joe Lieberman -- possibly a few others, but I can't think of them immediately. |
|
|
|