View Single Post
jyl jyl is online now
Registered
 
jyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nor California & Pac NW
Posts: 24,867
Garage
Quote:
Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
So this bullshyt canard about how Reagan "increased" spending and deficits in his early years is absolute fiction. If you're going to lie, jyl, don't insult us while doing so, flagrantly believing that nobody out here is going to see through it. OK, maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you were just suckered.
Sorry to offend, but the numbers are the numbers. During Reagan's 8 years, Federal government spending rose faster than Federal government revenue, the annual Federal budget deficit rose to record levels, and the Federal debt grew by leaps and bounds (increased +188% from 1981 to 1989, or nearly tripled). This is not fiction: it is fact. If you think I am lying, please refer to the US Treasury Department. http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/fed-debt.shtml If you think the Treasury Department is lying, well, maybe I'm not the one who's been suckered.

Here's an excerpt, cut and pasted from that site. It gives the Federal debt by year.

1989
$2,868,039 million

1988
$2,601,307 million

1987
$2,346,125 million

1986
$2,120,629 million

1985
$1,817,521 million

1984
$1,564,657 million

1983
$1,371,710 million

1982
$1,137,345 million

1981
$ 994,845 million

1980
$ 909,050 million


If you want to argue that breaking the Soviet Union was "worth" spending trillions, I won't disagree - I would probably agree, in fact - but that doesn't change the debt incurred.

If you want to argue that all the spending revived a stagnant economy, I would disagree - I think the economy goes through cycles and recessions end naturally with or without government help - but anyway that doesn't change the debt incurred.

If you want to argue that the national debt doesn't matter, then we can have an interesting discussion. Actually, a minority of economists do think that. I (and most economists) disagree, but it is a reasonable issue on which to differ.

Quote:
But, even if the Reagan example was an innocent mistake, why did you so conveniently ignore Kennedy's fiscal and monetary successes in cutting taxes?
I admit that I don't know much about the Kennedy Presidency's economics. Maybe I'll do some research. Can you post some facts, or links to credible websites?

P.S. I've never read the New Republic or Village Voice. I assume those are liberal magazines. I'm liberal on some things, but for economics I stick to The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, government data, and other pretty mainstream stuff. And I voted for Reagan.
__________________
1989 3.2 Carrera coupe; 1988 Westy Vanagon, Zetec; 1986 E28 M30; 1994 W124; 2004 S211
What? Uh . . . “he” and “him”?

Last edited by jyl; 10-09-2004 at 11:36 PM..
Old 10-09-2004, 11:23 PM
  Pelican Parts Catalog | Tech Articles | Promos & Specials    Reply With Quote #18 (permalink)