Talk:Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

Interesting theory
That's the first theory I heard of that connects the federal budget deficit to higher interest rates and inflation. It seems perfectly logical in a common sense manner, but I am not an economics major and therefore cannot confirm nor deny the factual accuracy of this theory. However, if you look at the present economic situation (2006) we have a huge federal budget deficit, high interest rates, and consumer goods have seemingly doubled in price (based on what I've seen at grocery stores; for example, the price of milk has almost doubled in the past three years: $1.50 to $2.70 at Bashas and Albertsons). This is despite the government claiming that inflation has been around 3% a year since 2000. Nevertheless, a lot of economists on TV and print attribute the rise to higher oil prices resulting from the middle east conflicts. Anyhow, I can only describe my situation, and currently, I have to spend around $400.00 a month for food and drink (higher if I eat out), and that's buying bulk at Costco Wholesale! I remember the time, not more than 3 years ago, when I could buy a month's worth of food for $250.00. 3% inflation a year? Bullshit! I hate debt, because it drives up my monthly cost of living (due to interest payments). From a common-sense perspective, I can't see how the government debt can't do the same for our economy. The economic path our government(s) is taking is unsustainable, and I wonder what pains will befall all of us when this path ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.88.195 (talk • contribs) on 23 July 2006.

Curious comment about interest rates since they (both long and short-term)are at or near a thirty year low.

"CBO" citation removed for 2 reasons.
The below sentence, which I've put in italicized text, was moved from the article to this page for the following reasons: 1. It is a misleading claim; the ref tag leads to an article which says (at the end) that it was authored by a partisan source, David Obey (D-WI congressional representative), not to the NON-partisan CBO: The bill "has been credited" as being so wonderful NOT by the CBO as claimed by a Wikipedia contributor, it was credited as being so wonderful by one of the congressmen who passed it, David Obey (and Obey has failed to cite the CBO properly, I might add, thus we have a "broken link in the chain" and this cannot be verifiably or credibly traced to any CBO publications). 2. My trained scientific eye ;-) notices that Mr. Obey manipulates (what he purports to be) the CBO's numbers by removing "entitlement costs lower" and treats it as a separate entity from "Republican Congresses (budgetary effect of legislation passed 1995-present)" despite that, for example, welfare reform after 1994 was a major cause of those "entitlement costs lower": Of course, by treating it as a separate entity, Mr. Obey removes credit from where credit is due, i.e. credit is due to the "budgetary effect of legislation passed 1995-present". "The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office."Please show an actual ref to CBO instead of a partisan congressman patting himself on the back (he was in the 1992-1994 congress that he is giving 100% of the credit to).

This section of the article needs to be removed or reworded as it draws a conclusion with no actual evidence. It's merely an opinion. It does not address how the internet boom of the 1990's (along with Day trading) caused US tax revenues to swell, which is more of an explanation for the budget surplus, than Clinton's tax increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboy1974 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Who paid more taxes due to this bill?
How in the world can anyone say - with a straight face - that Clinton only 'raised taxes' on the 'top 2%' of wage earners - when the same article says he raised the gas tax 4.3%? Am I to assume the middle class doesn't buy gas?

Let's not forget: Paul Tsongas first broached the gas tax in the 1992 Democratic primaries. Clinton tore into him on it - and then changed his tune once elected. The irony of the whole thing is that Bush 41 got beat over the head for 'read my lips' even though he held out for a budget cycle; Clinton said, "Not only will I not raise your taxes, I'll cut them" - and broke it before he'd even been President-elect for a month.

71.170.223.180 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Maestroh

"Only" is not accurate with regards to this specific act. "Mainly" would be more appropriate since most provisions hit the top income earners only. Other modest middle class tax cuts were enacted during this timeframe. The result is that effective tax rates for most individuals declined beginning in 1993.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5324&type=0&sequence=0 Gmb92 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You can cite all the so-called 'statistics' you wish. Let's see, he raised taxes on both Medicare and Social Security. Unless you want to argue that those 'entitlement programs' are primarily received by the upper 2% of taxpayers, this is atrocious logic. Clinton raised taxes on every single American, plain and simple. And he got MORE of the money from the middle class (at least those that buy gas and get entitlements) than he did from the so-called rich.

199.91.34.33 02:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Maestroh

I followed the link provided by Gmb92 and looked at the section labeled "Total Effective Federal Tax Rate". You appear to have not done the same. The lowest-earning 60% of taxpayers paid less taxes after this bill, the next 20% stayed the same, and the top 20% went up a little. The top 10% went up about 1.6% except for the top 1%, which went up a whole 3.9%. THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT TAX HIKE, ON AVERAGE, WAS ON THE TOP ONE PERCENT OF TAXPAYERS. This is an average, and I'm sure some individuals paid significantly more taxes due to this bill, but these data clearly state that the "so-called" rich were, by and large, the only ones with a reason to complain about this tax hike.

Payroll taxes and excise taxes are accounted for in the CBO numbers, which includes gas, Medicare, and Social Security. Again, there is no dispute that their statistics represent only averages and not any specific individual, but what is true of the average is going to be close to true for most people.

The only "atrocious logic" here is you deciding that "so-called 'statistics'" (i.e. factual information as described by a universally respected and nonpartisan authority) don't matter and shouldn't get in the way of your convictions.

P.S. I apologize if this is seen as an unwarranted or needlessly heated resurrection of this exchange, but I couldn't let such blatantly false allegations go unchallenged in good conscience. Strunkenwhite 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thing I changed the line about fuel prices from "hiked" to "raised" as "hiked" is an overly pejorative and loaded word, whereas raised is much more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.37.30 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Medicaid Recovery
I'm surprised the article made no mention of the Medicaid recovery provision. Yes, the government can, in some cases, seize your home if you received Medicaid after age 55. Look it up. Oknevermind (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)