SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: rich4eagle who wrote (163419)7/23/2001 10:50:28 AM
From: Little Joe  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
Rich:

Thanks for the reply.

"Reagonomics" which was trickle down economics based on dangerously high levels of deficit spending on military projects and exacerbated by huge tax cuts."

Whatever trickle down economics is I don't think a component is deficit spending. I do think a component is huge tax cuts. In either event we had both under Reagan. No disputing this. However, there is merit to the argument that revenues increased dramatically during the Reagan era as result of the tax cut, but that Reagan and Congress were simply unable to live within the larger budget available to them. As an aside I have observed this to be true at all levels of government. Our governor here in Maryland is calling for tax increases even though the budget has gone up 2 1/2 times during his time in office. There is truth to the idea that Government will spend all available funds and then some more.

<"Reagonomics" also killed as much as possible collective bargaining and minimum wages.>

Yes.

<The Clinton Administration was based on balanced budgets and economic growth spurred by low interest because of balanced budgets, low inflation, low unemployment, higher minimum wages, technology growth, high consumer confidence due to higher wages and low unemployment.>

I agree that this is true. However, Bush and particularly also enjoyed the "peace dividend" which largely made decrease in the budget possible. The Budget has never been balanced under Bush or Clinton, but certainly Clinton can claim substantial reductions in the deficit.

Let me ask you this question. If we had the high marginal tax rates that we had pre-Reagan. I believe the top bracket was 78%, do you think we would be as prosperous as we now are and were during the Clinton years?

If you think the lower marginal rates have worked and contributed to our prosperity, doesn't that argue that trickle down did work?

Little joe
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News