|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
02-12-2018, 12:18 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,917
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
They type of factually challenged article that you'd expect from WaPo. Bravo.
The article conveniently forgets that the primary reason the deficit "exploded" was spending...
|
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. The whole point of the article is that Republicans cut taxes while raising spending somehow believing that the tax cuts will somehow pay for the increased spending (which, of course, it never has), just as they're doing now. From the article:
As president, he signed it into law with the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, which pushed through a 25 percent reduction in the marginal tax rate for individuals over three years. At the same time, Reagan spearheaded a massive military buildup that skyrocketed defense spending...
President George W. Bush showed that his father’s breed of Republicanism was out: Aided by a Republican Congress, he undid this balanced budget, passing two huge tax cuts despite starting two expensive wars. On top of it all, he also added a costly new prescription drug benefit to Medicare. He did so with fairly little conservative opposition: With a Republican back in the White House, deficits took a back seat to tax cutting and defense spending.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 02-12-2018 at 12:42 PM.
|
02-12-2018, 01:13 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. The whole point of the article is that Republicans cut taxes while raising spending somehow believing that the tax cuts will somehow pay for the increased spending (which, of course, it never has), just as they're doing now. From the article:
As president, he signed it into law with the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, which pushed through a 25 percent reduction in the marginal tax rate for individuals over three years. At the same time, Reagan spearheaded a massive military buildup that skyrocketed defense spending...
President George W. Bush showed that his father’s breed of Republicanism was out: Aided by a Republican Congress, he undid this balanced budget, passing two huge tax cuts despite starting two expensive wars. On top of it all, he also added a costly new prescription drug benefit to Medicare. He did so with fairly little conservative opposition: With a Republican back in the White House, deficits took a back seat to tax cutting and defense spending.
|
As usual, being a smarmy little runt IS your strong suit, while continuing to quote an article that omits essential facts. Let me help you.
1) When it suits you, you like to forget that a budget is balanced when revenue and income are (since we're talking government here, we'll just use the term) roughly equal. What that means is that spending, the increase or reduction of which, can be just as much a variable as revenue. Revenue was rising during Reagan's tenure, so you can't suggest that a tax cut produced a revenue reduction in the face of spending growth. In fact, while the Budgets submitted by the White House at that time DID call for increased spending in some areas but also called for reductions in others. Its the latter part that typically failed to materialize, as pointed out above, but as you likely failed to understand.
2) Bush started two wars? LOL This rather conveniently omits the fact that the United States was attacked on 9/11/2001. In also omits the fact that there was a significant reduction in military spending that started at the end of Bush 1 and continued by Clinton. So, yeah, there was a need to jump military spending. That same 9/11 attack also set off a number of unforseen events that softened the US economy that was still reeling a bit from the burst of the "dot.com bubble" at the end of 2000. There was also bi-partisan support for the Bush tax cuts, from EGTRA to the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which Nancy Pelosi authored and Bush 2 signed.
|
02-12-2018, 01:21 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,917
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
As usual, being a smarmy little runt IS your strong suit, while continuing to quote an article that omits essential facts. Let me help you.
1) When it suits you, you like to forget that a budget is balanced when revenue and income are (since we're talking government here, we'll just use the term) roughly equal.
|
A budget balances when revenue and income are equal? Who knew? (Revenue is income, dimwit.) Though this may be news to you supply-siders, a budget balances when revenue and spending are equal. Acccordingly, when you depend on tax cuts to generate revenue (the fundamental and flawed premise of supply-side economics) while increasing spending, the budget goes out of whack. WTF do you think happened in Oklahoma and Kansas when their Governors went all-in on supply-side economics?
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 02-12-2018 at 01:26 PM.
|
02-12-2018, 01:24 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
A budget balances when revenue and income are equal??? Revenue is income, dimwit. Though this may be news to you, a budget balances when revenue and spending are equal.
|
Sorry, my bad. Mean this to read revenue and "spending". What follows in that paragraph supports this.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:32 PM.
|