Supply-Side Economics

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Since the 1980's, deficits have climbed sharply under Republicans and fell under Democrats. The sharp increases in deficits were almost universally associated with supply-side inspired tax cuts by Reagan, Dubya and Trump.

Except that's not quite true.

Deficit spending was actually trending down in the last few years of the Reagan presidency. It went up again under Bush 1, but that accompanied the Gulf War and the resulting shock to the oil industry/prices. There was also a brief recession during that period. Mr "Ready My Lips" then worked with Dems to roll out a tax increase in 1990, which was followed by two more years of deficit spending during his administration.

Clinton benefitted from an economic recovery which was already under way when he took office in 1993, as well as the "dot.com" boom. He still raised taxes in anticipation of a government takeover of health care, but that never happened. By the time budget surplusses resulted in the 2nd half of his presidency, liberal Dems were calling for more spending, and calling the suprluss dollars they wanted to spend the "peace dividend".

The Bush 2 was hit by the dot.com bust as well as 9/11, and then the 2nd Gulf War. Deficit spending was aleady trending down by the end of his presidency. During that same period of time, while the Bush administration was warning against the increasing risks of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations, the Dems - including Barney Frank and Thomas Carper - were claiming that such concerns were "an attempt to create an issue that's not there", and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Which leads us to:

Obama, whose deficit spending rose every year. Granted, Obama deficits don't come close to Trump's 2020 overspending on COVID-related items. Biden is intent on continuing that spending, and was thwarted early on in attempts to increase current deficit spending.

Originally Posted by finnbow

You need to come to terms with fact that supply-side economics is a sham ....

I think it's you who needs to come to terms with your interesting take on history.