Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
These 5 years of tax increases by Reagan would not have been necessary if his voodoo economics had done what its advocates said it would do - increase revenue.
|
Again, your fact and recall of history is in error.
Revenues went up every year during the 1980's. Revenue between 1981 and 1989 went up almost 62%. GDP grew at an impressive rate during that time every year except 1982.
FISCAL YEAR REVENUE
FY 1990 $1.03 trillion
FY 1989 $991****billion
FY1988 $909****billion
FY 1987 $854****billion
FY 1986 $769****billion
FY 1985 $734****billion
FY 1984 $666****billion
FY 1983 $601****billion
FY 1982 $618****billion
FY 1981 $599****billion
That's where supply-side considerations end. Supply-side is a tool that can be used for economic stimulus. Spending is the result of a political process and varies with each administration.
But, it does beg the question: what has the political process yielded over the years relative to US Federal Gov't outlays. Well, if revenue went up during the 1980's around 62%, spending went up every year and increased 65% during that period. Not really a huge difference there.
Fiscal Year Outlays (in Billions)
1982 745.7
1983 808.4
1984 851.8
1985 946.3
1986 990.4
1987 1,004.00
1988 1,064.40
1989 1,143.70
During that period, there was a massive increase in deficit spending. Deficit spending was nothing new by the time the 1980's rolled around. The differentiator starting in the 1980's was the MASSIVE increase in deficit spending.
Now, what body of the US gov't is responsible for spending? That would be the US House of Representatives. What party controlled the House each and every year during the 1980's, and which party called the proposed Reagan administration budgets "dead on arrival" during that period. That would be your friends
the Dems.