Quote:
Originally posted by Dagnabit
Well it's not like they are equalizing at all. The bottom folks, middle folks, and top folks all see a reduction in percentage.
And the biggest difference is that Reagan started out with a country in a modest deficit, and grew that to humongous. Now Bush is starting with a small surplus, and might grow that to a modest deficit. We'll see.
I think he'll get the benefit of an age when a combination of economic growth and the end of the old welfare system put a big dent in the era of entitlement. The social budget will shift from the feds to the states and local communities, as people care less and less about national issues and more and more about children and schools.
|
You'll have to pardon me as my mind boggles.
This tax cut is straight out of the old, entirely debunked, supply-side economics playbook. In other words, cut taxes wholesale, increase spending, and watch the dollars pour in due to the stimulation you've applied to the economy. Guess what: it didn't work. Reagan and Bush I had 12 years to prove that. It took 8 years of a tax-and-spend liberal, who turned out to be more fiscally responsible than any of his fiscally-responsible conservative predecessors, to get us even partway out of the whole which 12 years of voodoo economics (Bush I's term for them, while he was running against Reagan in the '80 GOP primaries) had dug for us.
And we <b>don't</b> have a "small surplus" right now. In terms of an annual budget, yes, we have a small surplus. But that means that the US national debt is still hovering at around $5 trillion. That's a lot of zeros, and a *long* way from a small surplus.
It's a pretty huge debt, actually,
Z