Would the U.S. Have Maintained a Surplus if Gore Won in 2000? For How Long?

[Bo]

I'm interested in hearing people's opinions on this matter.

[phk]

No.

Gore was going to institute tax cuts.... just not as big as Bush's (revenue cut) and the dot com bubble had peaked in March 2000 (another revenue cutter).

But assuming the dot-com bubble kept going for another year. The Nasdaq peaks on March 10, 2001 this time and its like in the low 7000s. Gore would not be re-elected in 2004.

[Bo]

Anyone else?

[Sam Spade]

No chance.

[The Duke]

No.

1. The 9/11 attacks still happen, dragging us into an expensive military campaign and dragging down the economy.

2. Speaking of the economy, we were already entering a recession when the Presidential term started, which reduced revenue unexpectedly.

3. Gore's platfrom was filled with expensive domestic policy initiatives and $800 billion in tax breaks.

4. The surplus projections were always too optimistic, and were based in part on accounting tricks involving the AMT, Medicare reimbursements, etc. (Many of which are still being used today to give us overly optimistic forecasts).

[opebo]

Of course it would have, for at least a couple more years.  Had a real liberal been elected in 2000 surpluses could easily have been maintained for the next eight years, but as others have pointed out, Gore was a quite right-wing candidate.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

how did the recession effect the surplus without accounting for the tax cuts?

[Mr.Phips]

The surplus would have lasted until 2002, when a small deficit(probably around $20 billion) would have reappeared because of the recession.  The deficits would have been smaller because I dont think 9/11 would have happened and I dont think Gore's tax cuts would have passed a Republican Congress.  There also wouldnt be the same kind of reckless spending Bush and the Republicans passed(Iraq war included).  We would have went back into surpluses by around 2004 and they would have lasted until 2008, just after the 2007 recession started. 

[The Duke]

how did the recession effect the surplus without accounting for the tax cuts?

Slower economic growth means less revenue.

[Bo]

The surplus would have lasted until 2002, when a small deficit(probably around $20 billion) would have reappeared because of the recession.  The deficits would have been smaller because I dont think 9/11 would have happened and I dont think Gore's tax cuts would have passed a Republican Congress.  There also wouldnt be the same kind of reckless spending Bush and the Republicans passed(Iraq war included).  We would have went back into surpluses by around 2004 and they would have lasted until 2008, just after the 2007 recession started. 

I think the GOP Congress would have passed Gore's tax cuts, since the GOP portrays themsleves as the party of tax cuts, and thus not passing tax cuts meant to help ordinary Americans (during a recession) would have made them look like hypocrites and ruined their popularity. As for 9/11, I still think it would have happened, but we can disagree on this. Also, do you think Gore would have been reelected and who do you think his GOP opponent would have been in 2004?

[phk]

how did the recession effect the surplus without accounting for the tax cuts?

Just look at changes in revenue, and add in the relative impact of the tax cuts.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Shoulda coulda woulda.

[rob in cal]

I think we would have had more surpluses since the congressional GOP would act more fiscally conservative with a Democratic president than they did under W.  Thats why I'm hoping for a Speaker Boehner, to go along with President Obama. 

[Bo]

I think we would have had more surpluses since the congressional GOP would act more fiscally conservative with a Democratic president than they did under W.  Thats why I'm hoping for a Speaker Boehner, to go along with President Obama. 

How many more surpluses, though? Bush Jr. had just one surplus (2001) but that doesn't mean Gore would have always had surpluses because the economy was pretty bad between 2001 and 2003 and also in 2008 (if Gore would have been reelected, which I seriously doubt).

[Mr.Phips]

I think we would have had more surpluses since the congressional GOP would act more fiscally conservative with a Democratic president than they did under W.  Thats why I'm hoping for a Speaker Boehner, to go along with President Obama. 

There is no way we can go from a $1.6 trillion deficit to a surplus in just two years.

[The Mikado]

Not at all, but without Medicare Part D or the Iraq War or the size of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit would be much more modest (and, of course, the GOP would call Gore a big spender leading to unprecedented deficits).

[Bo]

Not at all, but without Medicare Part D or the Iraq War or the size of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit would be much more modest (and, of course, the GOP would call Gore a big spender leading to unprecedented deficits).

I agree with you about Gore being much more fiscally responsible but I think Gore might have also raised some taxes here and there (and call them "Deficit Reduction Acts", like Reagan did) which might have caused the U.S. to continue having a small surplus (at least for part of Gore's Presidency).