Going through this usual pile o' steaming, um, perfume, a few points: 1. Keynes never advocated spending in the good times. He advocated saving during the good times so you could spend in the bad times. Think "ant and grasshopper": Keynes was advocating that we be ants. The point is, when winter comes, you are supposed to eat that stored food, not sit around advocating that everyone starve for the good of the colony. 2. Clinton ended with a surplus. Reagan and the two Bushes didn't. If that doesn't tell you where the problem lies, you've got issues that can't be dealt with. 3. Further to 2: check where gold stocks bottomed just before this now more than decade-long bull market. The date was November 14, 2000, going by the HUI. What happened in November 2000?
The rebuttal is going to be that Clinton used "smoke and mirror" accounting. The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that Reagan, Bush and Shrub used accounting at least as agregious and still couldn't come up with surpluses.
clinton took the advice of dick morris and triangulated gringrich and the house republicans. Republican or Democrat we don't care... they have all been spending like assholes intent on destroying our children's futures. Now its about time every american tells them to stop it.
Bullshit. The Republicans spent like drunk sailors, AND bankrupted the economy. For six out of the eight years of the Bush Presidency they had control of EVERY DAMN BRANCH. Every single one. You promote this line to prevent blame being placed where it belongs.
Of course it will kill jobs, but the question is whether or not we should bite the bullet while the problem is within our grasp, or if we should continue pushing it off, and pushing it off till the situation explodes.
The reason revenue increased is because the government borrowed in excess of the revenue reductions and spent the money on military hardware which stimulated the economy. It took two years for the borrowed money to percolate into the economy. Borrowing as a percent of GDP was especially heavy during the Reagan Presidency. The money borrowed was largely passed through private defense contractors and filtered down into the economy where it eventually appeared as higher income both corporate and individual, hence tax revenues increased. It has never been shown in practice that reducing tax rates leads to higher government revenue in the absence of heavy borrowing and government spending. Eventually the inflation caused by borrowing and monetizing some of the debt can also leads to higher nominal revenues. The supply side, trickle down economics of the Reagan era has been thoroughly discredited. It is excessive government spending, during periods of high employment that leads to increased tax revenues, not tax cuts!
We always have heavy govt spending. Thats what the traitors in congress keep doing. Revenues went up after Reagans tax cut. We agree. Now your spin is that it had nothing to do with the tax cuts and supply side economics has been discredited by pinko socialists. And I will tell you cutting tax rates contributed in large part to the unprecedented boom which followed for 20 years. You want to have people invest in business... you make it worth their time and money to keep their profits.
I have blamed the those big spending republican socialists plenty. They are just as culpable for criminal spending as democrats.