Ah yes the same bill that took the taxable amount of social security from 50 to 85% (funny you didn't mention that) and also wrote the budgets for 1998, 1999 and 2000 (oh wait that was still Clinton and the Republicans that did the budget).

That bill did play a part but even after its passage deficits were still projected.  Spending cuts, a surging dotcom economy that few saw coming, and extra money from Social Security were also contributing factors: the economy being one of the biggest.

I would expect nothing less from a die hard than to ignore who wrote and passed the budgets, ignore the emerging economy that helped produced an influx of income for the government all to pat their party on the back while giving no credit to the other side. Myopic views like this are part of what is fueling the great divide.

Why is it funny that I didn’t mention that? I didn’t mention any of the specific provisions that were imposed like raising the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, raising the top corporate tax from 34% to 38%, Alternative Minimum Tax increased from 24% to 28%, 4.3 cent increase for fuel taxes, limit on itemized deductions, expanded earned income tax credit, got rid of the income cap on Medicare taxes, and reduced military spending. It was a bill meant to balance budgets by increasing revenue and reducing spending and it did exactly that.

I’m not really sure what “gotcha” you’re trying to hit me with. Yes, of course it couldn’t happen without the booming economy and yes, Republicans were more moderate and easier to compromise with in the 90s compared to today’s MAGA wing.

Republican presidents oversaw massive tax cuts in the 80s, 00s & 10s and in my opinion, if we had a Republican president in the 90s we would have gotten another major tax cut bill that would have further contributed to the debt rather than the tax increases we saw under a Democratic president that helped balance the budget.

So you think that:

1.) Russia, out of nowhere, started planned this invasion within a few months of getting Biden getting elected?

2.) Russia who had been talking about Ukraine for years, suddenly decided not to invade during Trump's presidency, despite the fact that Trump was incredibly soft on Russia, praising Putin.

We're just going to ignore the conflict that continued during the Trump administration.

>More than 110 Ukrainian service members were killed in 2019.

https://www.rferl.org/a/two-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-over-bloody-weekend-in-donbas/30413810.html

We're going to just ignore that Putin continued to push on some of these issues during the Trump administration.  

>President Putin first suggested in 2019 that Russian-speaking residents might suffer a Srebrenica-like massacre if Ukraine regained full control of Donbas without guarantees.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56678665

No, no it must be Biden's fault. 

Because when I mentioned that a Republican House and Senate had the last balanced budget you shifted to the 93 bill in what appeared to be an attempt to discredit what I pointed out.  You also seemed to be on the "tax the rich" kick when you failed to mention the changes to SS and the extra gas tax that hurt the working poor.

From my point of view both sides suck.  Its just the democrats remind me more of this than the republicans:

I “shifted” to that bill because if you take those exact same budgets from the late 90s and take away the increased revenue provided by that bill than those budgets all of a sudden become deficits.

Yes, that bill did have certain provisions that increased taxes for low/middle income Americans and that sucks but I look at the bill as a whole and it seems like it was the wealthy & corporations that took the biggest hit. I can say the thing in reverse for the 2017 tax cuts, it had certain provisions that helped everyday Americans like increasing the child tax credit, however something like 80% of the benefits went to the wealthy and corporations so I view it overall as negative.