Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (614584)	6/2/2011 11:19:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578649

During Reagan and Bush years, spending grew at a faster rate than revenue. And revenue didn't grow consistently, there were several times when it was almost flat during the Reagan years, for example. It was only during the Clinton years that revenue grew consistently, and that was despite the tax hike. You keep ignoring the fact that the debt exploded under Reagan and Bush I. It was around $800 billion when Reagan took office. It was over $5 trillion when he left. I don't disagree with a lot of that, EXCEPT that Revenue under Clinton was stagnant early on, after he INCREASED taxes. In fact, we were coming out of a recession when he increased taxes in '93, a time when normally robust growth would be expected. Yet, revenue was relatively flat after the early tax increases until the tax CUTS which brought about the revenue surge so clearly represented in the graph I posted. Now, spending is a different subject, and we can talk about why spending increased during the 80s and decreased under Clinton. During the 80s, Reagan was busy ending the Cold War, which pretty much every educated person now agrees he did. And it was done pursuant to a policy clearly enunciated by Reagan, that was based on the idea that we could outspend them and end the threat. He made an intelligent, informed decision to kill the Soviet Union, even at substantial cost to the US. Realizing, all the while, that there would be a peace dividend to follow. And sure enough, there was, and Clinton's second term clearly reflected that fact, along with the Gingrich Welfare Cuts - TOTALLY shoved down Clinton's throat by Gingrich. The "Clinton Boom", thus, resulted from -- a) The tax cuts in 96/97, b) The peace dividend from Reagan's ending the Cold War, and c) Gingrich's forcing Clinton to cut welfare spending. A person has to be absolutely blinded by ideology not to be able to see that tax cuts have consistently resulted in economic growth with a couple of predictable exceptions.