US coming into a Recession

Call him a failed politician if you want, but it was the Dems that wouldn’t reduce expenditures to balance the budget.

Tip O’Neal (sp?) held firm.

 

Spare me your BS - Reagan's tax cuts reduced revenue which increased the the deficit. His administrations plan "Reaganomics" along with Red Congress having the Senate - just like we have now.

The claim that this admin made serious efforts to balance the budget is laughable nonsense. Revisionist history on steroids.

A blue house can not force a Red President and Senate to spend money. They can bargain - horse trade - and this is what always happens. You want this - we want this.

The claim that Reagan and Red Congress had nothing to do with the massive deficits is a complete falsehood.

 

It's a negotiation, they didn't get the higher spending levels they wanted he didn't get the lower spending levels he wanted but the government has to function. Government shutdowns don't work for anyone.

 

That's not true nor how budget negotiations works and the left loves to blame the Republicans from stopping them from passing THEIR budgets and then blaming them for the resulting deficits. Had it not been for Reagan the deficits would have been even higher.

 

That is how Gingrich and Kasich produced the surpluses and Bush43 and Republican Congress brought down the 2001 recession deficit to a paltry $161B. You grow the economy faster than the government so revenue growth exceeds government spending growth. Of course out right cuts are also important. The main thing is economic growth and policies that support that economic growth. Not HUGE taxes on business and capital and capital formation. Clinton raised tax rates during a strong growth he inherited and slowed growth and slowed revenue growth and it cost him the Congress.

 

Ahhhh nope

Year - Revenue increase
1983 -3%
1984 11%
1985 10%
1986 5%
1987 11%
1988 6%
1989 9%
1990 4%

 

So that forced him a trillion dollars over revenues?

 

Tax cuts are always good, but Reagan also had to correct the Carter economy.

 

How about some actual facts

Comparing the Reagan budget requests with the amount of spending Congres sactually approved, we conclude

:•Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit.The deficits of the1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, risingfrom $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.

•Congress outspent Reagan in every year.Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative$209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.

•Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested.Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements.

•Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated.Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs.

•Reagan recission requests were ignored.Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion,leaving $26.8 billion spent.

https://www.ipi.org/docLib/reagandf.pdf-OpenElement.pdf

 

No it doesn't but it meant the Democrats didn't get as high an increase as they wanted. Tell me how many Republican government shutdowns, they are always blamed on Republicans, you have supported?

 

There was no trillion dollar over revenues and it wasn't a revenue problem. CONGRESS controls the budget and spending how many times does that have to be repeated.

 

Yes, this is common knowledge.
It's his duty, as the final step of the legislative process, to stop it

 

Yes but they spend more than the revenue increase - had it not been for the tax cuts - revenue would have been higher. When you cut taxes - revenue decreases over what it would have been.

Reagan had the wind at his back - economy was good - there was no need to spend like a Princess with Credit card.

The idea that the tax cuts - coupled with increases spending - would stimulate economic activity enough to increase revenue - which would then catch up with spending. This is not what happened.

Trumps plan was the same - with the same results - This time however the wind was not at our back - Total Revenue had decreased - despite massive stimulus spending - we got a brief bump in economic activity for a year or so - GDP to 3.5% - now we are right back under 2%.

 

You said

Year - Revenue increase
1983 -3%
1984 11%
1985 10%
1986 5%
1987 11%
1988 6%
1989 9%
1990 4%

Wrong after the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts revenues hit double digit increases. After the Bush43 tax rate cuts revenues increased 15%

Reagan came in on a horrible inflation based economy. The left was trying to have criminal charges brought against Trump because he was not spending all the money they allocated, oh the irony.

It is with spending restraint and you have been given the several examples of how it works. It produced budget surpluses and paltry deficits.

We are in a plateau with full employment and we can't fill all the jobs out there which limits growth, that's not a bad thing. That's why we need more measures to get people who remain out of the workforce into those jobs. But the minute we try the Democrats will rant a rave and oppose.

 

Tax cuts are not always good - not when you are having to incur massive deficits to maintain spending. Carter - not having a good economy - managed not to sell the farm. Reagan - with a good economy - much of which had zero to do with Reagan - spent like a princess with a credit card.

Reagan stepped into office right when the baby boomers were moving into their high spending years. We still had an industrial base back then. Not only did Reagan spend his way into oblivion - he ushered in the era of the offshoring of our industrial base.

"Reaganomics" - was a disaster - by the time Clinton got into office the interest payments on all the debt racked up over 3 Red Administrations was at critical levels - above 25% of revenue. We have spent the last 30 years dealing with this problem.

After 8 years of fiscal Sanity under Clinton - we managed to get the deficit down to near zero - by raising taxes and reigning in spending. This was not by some great desire not to spend (all Gov'ts love to spend) it was because we had to - the situation was dire.

Clinton was also helped out by a white swan event which kicked into high gear in 1995 - The computer/internet/tech revolution - which as we know has been huge - and a huge boon to our economy - yet we still spent more and more.

Bush had to deal with the dot com crash in his first couple of years but this was no excuse to increase spending to the reckless levels that he did. This increase was mostly due to increased war/military and military related spending. In 2000 - Total Military spend was 300 Billion - by the time Bush was done it was 900 Billion - and exceeded 1 Trillion under Obama.

Bush was helped by the a second wave of the internet revolution - but then majorly by the housing bubble - revenue increased and the budget was nearly balanced around 2006. Then came the Bush crash - due to economic recklessness - and no .. it is not Freddy and Fanny's fault so give that one up before you start. This was a massive ponzi scheme - an "Inside Job" - which is a good documentary if you are interested in watching our bureaucratic elite getting caught in their lies - in face to face interviews !

Just like Clinton - Obama took over a train wreck - his first year he was handed a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit - a crashed stock market and housing market - a financial system on the verge of collapse.

Obama did not take the deficit down to zero but did get it down to 500 Billion.

Now we have Trump - same Red program - cut taxes and spend like there is no tomorrow.

 

Where do you come up with this mindless twaddle. Wrong about what ? I did not say that revenue did not increase under Gingrich - nor did I state that revenue did not increase under Bush.

What is your problem ?

 

The business cycle driven recession?

With some possible disruption from oil wars and disruption in supply chains our elites stupidly offshored to fill their own pockets?

I cant make that prediction but it would not surprise me . The foundation under our economy is of sand as we got away from the common sense of our founders.

 

The lack of understanding regarding the cycles of an economic system reliant upon fiat based currency is astounding.

I've seen this same series of excuses employed by both the authoritarian Republicans and the authoritarian Democrats. You play the blame game and seldom, if ever, take responsibility for the results of your belief systems.

 

You are free to go to the OMB .gov website and download the current historical budget numbers in an excel spreadsheet. The fact is we had surpluses and paltry deficits in part due to the increase in revenues after the tax rate cuts while we can see that after the Clinton tax rates cuts revenue growth slowed. Your statement that when you cut tax rates revenues will naturally be lower than they would have been is specious conjecture.

 

What are you calling "Reaganomics" and what was the disaster. All your claims of be demonstrably false. Revenues grew and grew strongly, the economy was strong with full employment and rising wages and salaries.

 

Oh, yeah, the GOP congress was responsible for the recessions of 2001 and 2007. They held the majority from 1994 to 2006, and set all the policies into place. Care to argue against that?

 

Strawman I don't blame parties FOR recessions. I judge them on their reactions to them and policies to help mitigate the depth and length and get us into a full recovery. Which one does better?

 

I blame the GOP Congresses for the recessions of 20021 and 2007.

No matter how much the right wiggles, they are pinned on the economic board of history

 

Oh good. Another economic prediction.

 

You have not shown that any of my claims were false.

You do seem to be good at accusing me of things I did not say/infer however - (aka Strawman)