Talk:Fiscal conservatism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kitaferd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

2006 comments
Do non-Americans call these policies "fiscal conservatism", or is that an American phrase? If it's an international ideology, can we get some help in making this page less Ameri-centric? Ryan McDaniel 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a purely American phrase. Also, we have too many articles to describe the same thing: economic liberalism, economic libertarianism, free market, laissez-faire. This one should be made a redirect, either to one of the aforementioned articles or to American conservatism. -- Nikodemos 05:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, even Americans don't refer to these policies (in the article as of 21 March 2006) as fiscal conservatism. The article is very nicely written, and seemingly NPOV.  Unfortunately, every instance of the phrase "fiscal conservatism" needs to be replaced with some other phrase (perhaps "economic conservatism") and the article should be moved accordingly.
 * Fiscal conservatism is, basically, opposition to government (or other) debt. It has nothing to do with cutting taxes or privatizing government services.  In fact, fiscal conservatism can involve raising taxes; that is, as a fiscal conservative you can advocate big government, just as long as you pay for it rather than borrow money for it.
 * Analogically, think of the crotchety old farmer in Maine who always paid cash for everything, versus the late-20th-century farmer in Iowa who went deep into debt. The former would be a fiscal conservative.  The latter might be hard-working and forward-thinking, and he might even be good for the economy; he's just not a fiscal conservative. -- Muffuletta 07:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Muffuletta is right. Fiscal conservatism is not wanting government debt. Economic conservatism is actually advocated by the Democratic Party more so than the Republican Party. Economic Liberalism is not the same as fiscal conservatism, which is contrary to what Nikodemos was stating. Economic Liberalism is where people want little to no government interference on the economy. Compared to fiscal conservatism where they don't want government debt. No government debt is normally achieved through a lot of government interference on the economy, such as taxes. So economic liberalism is close to be the opposite of fiscal conservatism. However, this article leads people to believe that they are the same so someone should change it. I won't because I am too lazy. {{subst:Unsigned|

Article restored
I restored this article from a redirect since since there is some material from Fiscal Conservatism(Free Market Conservatism) that could be moved here. I removed the long list of supposed fiscal conservatives since it was unencyclopedic and not clearly defined.

If somebody thinks this should still be a redirect, that's fine too, but it looks like plenty could be written about the subject. Wmahan. 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just think the article is redundant, as noted above. I favour merging all information into other articles, particularly American conservatism, since "fiscal conservatism" is an exclusively American term. -- Nikodemos 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I reinstated the article. I doubt no references can be found to describe the term properly. Intangible 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that there are no references, but that the term is a synonym for economic liberalism. That is why I favour a redirect and the merging of information into American conservatism. -- Nikodemos 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not synonymous, because the political end of fiscal conservatism does not have to be solely based on economic liberalism or liberalism in itself. Intangible 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, political end...? I'm confused. -- Nikodemos 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If a senator supports a balanced budget, it does not necessarily mean the senator believes this on the grounds of economic liberalism. Maybe religion is the basis of the senator's support for a balanced budget, although I agree that Reagan's platform (which did not really set off at all in practice), was based on such a economic liberalism. Intangible 01:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Left Wing article?
Is there actually any page describing left wing economic ideology? Since "economic liberalism" is actually a policy endorsed by conservatives, I expected to get an article describing liberal economic ideology when I searched "economic conservatism", but was instead redirected to this page, which is actually more conservative doctrine. If there is such a page (describing liberal economics), please contact me, and if not, one certainly needs to be written. ~ Ludo716
 * I think the current page represents a very narrow POV. I would rather see this page improved.  Fiscal conservatism is a widely used phrase...although people tend to use it as a bit of a catch-phrase, I do think it describes something very real, and something highly non-partisan.  The current page makes it seem like fiscal conservatism is somehow tied to neoliberalism, which I think is totally inaccurate.  Cazort (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe economics of the American center left is social democracy which is economic liberalism and right of socialism but includes more statist policies such as increasing regulation more so than conservative economic liberals. Also, you can describe the economics as social democrat though they have different histories with social democrats being at one point socialist and communists before reforming to social capitalism or welfare capitalism as its called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.194 (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Economic Progressivism
Socialism would be the traditional left-wing economic position, and is the appropriate counterpart to economic liberalism in Europe. Economic progressivism would be the term for the liberal position in America, which suggests a more moderate stance than socialism does; I would contrast economic progressivism with economic conservatism, as that is the American term for economic liberalism. (Confused yet?)Economic progrssivism does have its own article, although it is short.

Fiscal conservatism would be opposed to prodigality, which doesn't doesn't describe any one's stated position, as far as I know, but is regularly used to demonize opponents (often, ironically enough, with the phrase "tax and spend.")

- Andrew R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.128.133 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The traditonal left-wing economic positition is raising taxes to raise public spending, not known as prodigality to anyone who supports it, as it is not a neutral term. An example of this is Healthcare, such as in the United Kingdom, where Universal Healthcare (NHS) was a policy brought in by Labour and is supported by the National Insurance tax. Socialism is a very broad term to apply as a counterpart of fiscal conservativism, because it implies a supposed 'distribution of the means of production' which doesn't necessarily represent short term fiscal policy on the side of Socialist parties. Aquataris (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Taxation without Representation
What's this got to do with fiscal conservatism at all? In fact, the whole article is basically "Economic History of the United States". --Aioth 07:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that and thought the same thing, but came here to check. I'll remove it, it is irrelevant.  --Xyzzyva (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues
I removed this section. It does nothing to define or give history on the article's topic. It is merely a partisan take on the last two presidents on this issue. Here's the copy I deleted: The Clinton Administration created a fairly sizable budget surplus by the end of the 1990s. In 2000, George W. Bush ran for President on a platform of limiting the scope of government and cutting taxes, while still maintaining the surplus. However, during his time in office, President Bush has drastically increased federal spending while continuing to cut taxes. A growing number of Republicans have grown exasperated with the tremendous deficit growth that has taken place in recent years. Some have argued that Bush's apathy towards creating a balanced budget and his willingness to increase spending on Medicare and other social programs betray conservative principles. Democrats have criticized Bush for excessive spending also, though they tend to focus more on the Iraq War and other costly military expenditures, and on tax cuts that reduce federal revenues and increase the deficit. --PFR 19:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagonomics
The information about tax revenues increasing is based on partisan sources and sources within the Reagan administration. It is in conflict with the information in Reagonomics which presents a more balanced and correct picture based on actual evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiviedit (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous version has been restored to reflect the same - Wikiviedit 27 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiviedit (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its common knowlege that tax revenue increased under Reagan. Even the liberal Media Matters admits it. The big question is would revenue have increased further had taxes not been cut.

From 1981 to 1988, revenues in current dollars increased from $599.3 billion to $909.3 billion.--Media Matters 

Here we have statistics that show GDP Growth under Reagan  

Your sources are just as biased a mine. Mine have real statistics as well. But they all show that tax revenue DID increase under Reagan. Don't fool yourself into thinking some how your evidence could not just be a product of someone elses imagination as well. There are partisan sources Perhaps YOU should look at the actual evidence and keep your negative bias to yourself.

P.S. if your so confident about your info. you should go have a field day on the Reaganomics page.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You should look at tax revenues as a proportion of GDP not absolute numbers which always increase. Anyways, I am not American and I have no interest in taking partisan positions on American politics. - Wikiviedit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiviedit (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GDP growth went up as the US recovered from recession. However, tax revenues as a proportion of GDP went down according to official statistics put out by the US government. The sources you give are really not reliable, non-partisan sources. A fundamental problem with most of your sources is they quote income tax revenue plus payroll tax. Payroll tax was increased by the Reagan administration and hence it is no surprise that total income tax plus payroll tax revenue went up. Please look at income tax revenue only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiviedit (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but is there some reason why the man who set the record for biggest fiscal deficits, Ronald Reagan, is mentioned on this page is something resembling a positive tone? After all, this isn't a page about tax cuts, right? And, a fiscal conservative first and foremost hates big imbalances (deficit or surplus), right? So why in the world is there a section on Reagan, but not on the only president in recent years to actually reverse the rot, Mr William Jefferson Clinton? Yes, I'm a Democrat. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, one is surprised to see Reagan mentioned here as a fiscal conservative. In fact, Clinton would be considered a fiscal conservative due to his focus on reducing the fiscal deficit. Cutting taxes funded by borrowing is not fiscal conservatism. (140.254.78.114 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 20:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Famous Fiscal Conservatives
Has anyone considered putting up a list of famous fiscal conservatives on this page? --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How is trickle-down not mentioned in any of this??

Scrap the Article
"Fiscal conservatives" and "economic conservatives" or "free market conservatives" are not the same thing. "Fiscal conservatism" refers to balancing budgets and nothing more. It makes very little sense to speak of a philosophy or historical tradition of "fiscal conservatism." "Fiscal conservatism" is a lot more tactical or small-scale a thing than that. Until you get it right, best shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.109 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommend moving
Recommend moving to Fiscal conservativism in North America so a non-North American centric article can flourish. North American politics can be connected with summarization and a "more on topic" link -- Guroadrunner (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please maintain NPOV
I just did some editing on the "Bush/Obama" section. Please, try not to use weasel words, or editorialize. WP:WORDS and all that. I also left some peppered all over that section. I am in no way trying to suggest that Obama hasn't increased the deficit; I just want someone to add a citation or two when they say it. WP:V, don'tchaknow. Anyway, if you're editing something political and current, step back, take a deep breath, look for neutral sources, and if you have a friend on the other side of the political aisle, have them collaborate with you. No partisan stuff, pleaseandthx. Will (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Free Trade?
Fiscal conservatives don't necessarily believe in free trade. Please change it, as someone like Ron Paul would be an example to the contrary.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Reagan?
I realise some have already brought this up above, but it's still odd to see the Reagan administration described as 'fiscal conservative', even rhetorically. Under Reagan, taxes were cut and spending increased, leading to an increase in the deficit: surely that's the precise opposite of fiscal conservatism, whatever that's called? Robofish (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Careful......I'm no fan either way, but I believe you may be over simplifying things in this ire. (I'm neither democrat nor republican)--To be fair to common usage at least, a fiscal conservative is someone interested in reducing spending.  Government spending vs. the spending of the populace?  Raising taxes is confusing here, because it causes all of us to spend in the short term.  Reducing taxes causes us all to spend less in the short term.  Consider then: Government spending increases UNfunded by populace spending increases (via taxes) falls into *which* category in the minds of the pundits on each extreme?  I believe this tends to hover at the center of most arguments.  (Take whichever side you like, this is only my observation).Tgm1024 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange source for defining the concept
For some strange reason the introductory sentence is sourced to public policy book on corrections. Can we find a better source for this. I expect that there may be certain contextual aspects of prisons and jails which do not generalize to society at large. aprock (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and restored the previous lede as more descriptive of article body and more straightforward. aprock (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

February 2012
I agree that fiscal conservatism is primarily about a government living within its means and not leaving a burden of debt but things such as cutting taxes to grow the economy and privatizing to cut costs are the means to fiscal conservatism so I believe those fit under fiscal conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.194 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is fiscal conservatism just a modern term used by the American right to describe classical liberalism as opposed to social liberalism?
I see no difference between fiscal conservatism and classical liberalism from what is in the intro. It looks like it is just a different term to describe classical liberalism. In the U.S. and particularly in the Republican Party, what is considered economic "conservatism" is conservative support of classical liberal economic policy in opposition to the social liberalism of the Democratic Party). If it is the same as classical liberalism, then this article should be made a redirect to classical liberalism--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fiscal conservatism only refers to economic policy, and those concerning taxation and spending. Where ass classical liberalism is a much broader subject, covering topics such as freedom of speech, religion and press. Are they similar, absolutely and I think that speaks to the irony of modern political parties and their "platforms". I do not think this article should be redirected though, it is extensive and deserves its own page.EncycloCritique (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The term should have a well sourced definition, which it currently does not. The definition currently used in the article is very particular to a particular brand of US politics. aprock (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Bush commentary
A user has reverted my removal of the unsourced Bush commentary. Based on the copy in the edit, it looks like it's personal observation, synth/OR. Are there any sources which put Bush's record in the context of fiscal conservatism in general which can be used here? aprock (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a source link. Please improve, please don't remove, for removing mention of this Administration would leave the article sadly incomplete. As to the context of fiscal conservatism, it seems that the magnitude of deficit spending is in and of itself the most relevant aspect of fiscal conservatism as it is defined at the top of the page. Aprock - thanks for suggesting the link, and let me know if you feel that something else needs to be added to make the entry more valid.--Quertysum (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot be a source for wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. However it is appropriate to take a WP:SUMMARY style approach for certain content.  Given that the main article you link to does not mention fiscal conservatism, it seems a stretch to include a summary of that article here. aprock (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your forbearance. I footnoted to an external link. It seems that several of the sections above the Bush section don't satisfy your criteria as you stated in previous comment. The fact that they are not challenged by you for the same criteria makes me concerned that I don't understand you correctly. They all mainly use circular links, and generally don't link to pages that mention fiscal conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quertysum (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sourcing is a general problem in the article. I'll add the appropriate tag.  Adding more unsourced material can't improve things. aprock (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased political attack?
The final sentence of the quoted paragraph doesn't seem to fit in with the heading, "George W. Bush Era" and it seems to me to be nothing more than a political attack upon Obama. Furthermore it seems to be outright fallacious by insinuating that it was Obama himself who was wholly responsible for increasing the debt. Finally, the source number 15 that is used to support this statement presents just a general website with no information relating to the claim of Obama increasing debt by "more than $5 trillion."

Here is the paragraph I am concerned about: "The Bush administration accounted for the second largest increase of the Federal debt of any other president in United States history. In fact, the increase of the Federal debt during Bush's tenure was almost as much as the entire debt accumulated during the previous 200+ years, totaling around $5 trillion. However, since taking office, President Barack Obama has increased the Federal debt by more than $5 trillion."

marsden4 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2012 (GMT)

Clinton Section
I deleted the appendage at the end of the section on the Clinton era in which the article questioned the veracity of the Clinton budget surplus claims. The author cited several sources (6, I believe) but only two were even active links: one to an unpublished, unreviewed website, and one to a passing reference to the Clinton surplus claims in a WSJ editorial piece. Upon a brief internet search, the claims set forth in the deleted sentences are specifically refuted here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/. Chad.newsome (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored this section and updated the broken links. The factcheck.org article does not even address the fact that the total federal debt increased over the years a surplus was claimed. For reference, I checked all of the links, and only two of them were broken.  One from C-SPAN and one from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  Honestly, none of these sources matter compared to the final source which is from gpo.gov and gives the actual historical record of the total debt on pages 139 and 140. Rlantzy2112 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This addition is unnecessary and even with the repaired citations it doesn't factually contradict the provision it attempts to refute but it appears to call it into question. Even the sources that you cited recognize that there was a surplus at the end of the Clinton years.  There is a difference between the national debt and the deficit, and a discussion of that doesn't need to be included here.  The language that this seeks to contradict clearly states that at the Clinton effect on the national debt was 'x' and the surplus was 'y'.  There is no statement that the surplus erased the national debt.  The figures provided in that section are supported by its cited sources.  Your cited sources attempt to challenge those numbers by introducing non-standard accounting practices for the reported government figures (I assume the C-Span link is in someway applicable, but a link to a 10+ hour C-Span video without a direct point citation is not a useful citation).  Under the standard usage of the terms "national debt" and "budget surplus" the figures presented in the Clinton section are correct, and to allow this additional section would unnecessarily challenge those facts using non-standard methods of government financial reporting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.newsome (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No one is claiming that the Clinton administration claimed they erased the National Debt. What they do claim is that the statement that there was a surplus is in error.  Their cannot be a surplus unless the debt decreases by at least $1 which the gross national debt never did.  Shuffling money between accounts in the trust funds does not count.  These sources make that clear, it's an accepted truth, and even the fact check source that was cited was later updated to say that the claim is half true at best.Rlantzy2112 (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A surplus in any given budget year means that, for that year, the government brought in more than it spent. This is demonstrably proven to have occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency.  In  FY1998 to FY2002, the amount the federal government brought in exceeded the amount that it spent.  This is a verifiable fact, and should not be called into question by your (again deleted) assertion.


 * Your reference to the "updated fact check" (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/) does not make this "half true at best" but points out, correctly, that IF the government kept books on an accrual accounting basis, which they do not and never have, then there would not have been a surplus in those years, but the government keeps its books on a cash basis, and always has. Throughout Wikipedia, including elsewhere in this very article, both government and corporate financial matters are reported in the accounting method they commonly employ.  You are saying that in this instance, because the use of cash method casts a positive light on the Clinton administration, we should in this instance only, point out that using an accounting method NOT generally employed by the government would NOT show the surplus, but you don't argue that we should also make the same distinctions in every place in the article, much less WP, that governmental accounting comes into play.  Including that caveat, even if technically correct, only in this one instance seems to inherently show a bias, no?  The fact is that the government employs cash accrual accounting, and under that method in the Clinton years there was a surplus.  To call that into question with extraneous facts only in this instance shows bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.newsome (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to the cash vs. accrual counting differences. Incorrectly referenced the factcheck.org article in my previous talk page entry.  I meant to reference the PolitFact article that I have added as a source.  (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/)Rlantzy2112 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is about paying down the debt. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. There was a surplus. That is a fact. You are trying to negate that with extraneous discussion that shows bias. Please stop wasting time on this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.newsome (talk • contribs) 07:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

What about Jimmy Carter?
Wouldn't Jimmy Carter be considered a fiscal conservative? I may be wrong on this but I heard he decreased the deficit, deregulated and/or privatized railroads, nuclear plants, home brewery, airlines, trucking, oil, and telecommunications, reduced the top tax rate on capital gains, actively sought to rid the federal government of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and continued opening up trade with China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.187.201 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The article on Jimmy Carter already covers his deregulation efforts:

"In 1977, Carter appointed Alfred E. Kahn, a professor of economics at Cornell University, to be chair of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). He was part of a push for deregulation of the industry, supported by leading economists, leading 'think tanks' in Washington, a civil society coalition advocating the reform (patterned on a coalition earlier developed for the truck-and-rail-reform efforts), the head of the regulatory agency, Senate leadership, the Carter administration, and even some in the airline industry. This coalition swiftly gained legislative results in 1978.

The Airline Deregulation Act (Pub.L. 95–504 ) was signed into law by President Carter on October 24, 1978. The main purpose of the act was to remove government control over fares, routes and market entry (of new airlines) from commercial aviation. The Civil Aeronautics Board's powers of regulation were to be phased out, eventually allowing market forces to determine routes and fares. The Act did not remove or diminish the FAA's regulatory powers over all aspects of airline safety.

In 1979, Carter deregulated the American beer industry by making it legal to sell malt, hops, and yeast to American home brewers for the first time since the effective 1920 beginning of Prohibition in the United States. This Carter deregulation led to an increase in home brewing over the 1980s and 1990s that by the 2000s had developed into a strong craft microbrew culture in the United States, with 3,418 micro breweries, brewpubs, and regional craft breweries in the United States by the end of 2014."

If by deficit you mean the National debt of the United States, the article mentions that Carter was continuing efforts by Richard Nixon. "Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1974 under Richard Nixon. Debt as a share of GDP has consistently increased since then, except under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Public debt rose during the 1980s, as Ronald Reagan cut tax rates and increased military spending."

The numbers of "Public debt as % of GDP" are indicative of the process:
 * 1910. Public debt as 08.1% of GDP.
 * 1920. Public debt as 29.2% of GDP.
 * 1930. Public debt as 16.6% of GDP.
 * 1940. Public debt as 43.6% of GDP.
 * 1950. Public debt as 78.4% of GDP.
 * 1960. Public debt as 44.3% of GDP.
 * 1970. Public debt as 27.0% of GDP.
 * 1980. Public debt as 25.5% of GDP.
 * 1990. Public debt as 40.8% of GDP.
 * 2000. Public debt as 33.9% of GDP.
 * 2010. Public debt as 61.0% of GDP. Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! So would you object if I copy-pasted that into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism article? (or if somebody else please did since I'm unfamiliar with wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.187.201 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fiscal conservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560259_2/Ronald_Reagan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122024120/http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf to http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fiscal conservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428184241/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209031507/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

HELP1 So many issues with this page
Its sad how many issues are with this page. You can multiple people with different bias have all made offhand edits. It's hard to even read because you can tell chunks have been cut out or added and don't flow with what's been previously written.

This page needs to be edited hard and erase the bias.