A Perspective On Economics
Yes I know, all this numbers stuff is boring but its good stuff to know when you come up against "supply side" (read tax cuts for the rich) economics.
Increasing National Debt Caused by Supply-Side Economics As a result of fiscal irresponsibility, the Republicans have amassed a record of ever increasing debt. According to the Treasury department:
Ronald Reagan started his term with total debt outstanding of 930 million and increased total debt outstanding to 2.7 trillion. This is a 13.71% compound annual increase. He never balanced a budget.
Bush I started his term with outstanding debt of 2.7 trillion and increased total debt to 4 trillion. This is a 10.32% compounded annual increase. He never balanced a budget.
Clinton started with total debt outstanding debt of 4 trillion and increased total debt outstanding to 5.6 trillion. This is a 4.2% compounded annual increase. He balanced his last three budgets.
Bush II started with 5.6 total outstanding debt and increased total outstanding debt to 7.7 trillion. This is a 6.5% annual increase. He has never balanced a budget.
For 25 years the Republicans have held the presidency for 17 of the last 25 years. They have never balanced a budget and have increased total debt outstanding 11.69% in each year they have held the White House.
The Democrats have held the White House for 8 of the last 25 years. They have balanced the budget 3 times and increased total debt outstanding 4.2%............
ReaganÃ’s economy really took off in the first quarter of 1983, when first quarter GDP increased 5%. Supply-siders will argue their tax cuts were responsible for this growth. What they fail to mention is that starting in June 1981, the Federal Reserve started lowering the discount rate from 12% to 8.3% by year-end. In other, once again the economy started growing about 6-9 months after the Federal Reserve started cutting interest rates.
The relationship between interest rates and economic growth is a solid direct relationship that existed before supply-side economics.
As we all know from our own personal lives, no matter how much you have it seems you could always use a little more. With all the economic advantages that wealth has(compounding of interest, tax shelters etc.) the rich will take it all if they can. No matter how well they are doing they are always "disadvantaged" by their large tax bill. Sorry, I ain't playing. A rising tide should lift all boats. We all work hard and pay taxes too. We are entitled to share in the bounty of this country that we helped create. That's not socialism, that's an equitable society that will continue to flourish. Sorry rich, you can't have it all.
posted by Ron at 12:05 AM
3 Comments:
You seem to correlate the size of the national debt solely with the party of the incumbent president. Wouldn't it also be necessary to examine what party controlled the House of Representatives, from which all revenue bills must originate?
Mad Ed.The budget is sent to congress by the president. They each work on it and then it goes to a conference committee to comprimise final details before it goes back to the president for his signature or veto. As the full article explains, among many other things, interest rates and gdp are primary movers of the economy. The treasury secretary and the fed also hold much sway over it.Yes congress is a part but only a part. The point I was trying to make is supply side economics is...well the the words of Pappy Bush...voodoo economic.
Axle! Good to see you! Not sure what you mean in the something or nothing statement. If you read the full article you will see how family and business budget are different than the federal budget. Actually I was pissed and stated it on the air the first year Richardson was in office and gave tax cuts to the rich. I'm not that partisan!:-) He has also dropped some taxes and raised others at the same time.His own little revenue offset game I guess. What ever the case the state seems to be fiscally sound now.
Post a Comment
<< Home