Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean when the GOP blocked everything since they didn't have a super majority?
And how did you get ObozoCare again, without a super majority?
You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol
He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing
That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait...
[
We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages
But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
And how did you get ObozoCare again, without a super majority?
You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol
He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing
That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait...
WHAT I SAID DUMMY
"You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
Honesty, TRY IT!
- Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989
Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent.
Real revenues increased by 24% AND the people got to keep an additional 1.1% of GDP?
Win-Win!!!
You can do that if government grows less than GDP.
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
Oh yeah, STARVE THE BEAST
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
[
We have fewer government employees today than we had 50 years ago. Wages offered by the government to recent graduates tend to be significantly lower than in the private sector
Government doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants all make less than the private sector
The bloated Federal government is spending about $4 trillion a year and that is way too much.
The combined Federal, State and Local governments collects and spends over 40% of the GNP and then borrows a shitload on top of that.
If you don't understand what is wrong with that picture then you have truly earned a place in the Moon Bat Hall of Fame.
First define the problem. Next, seek solutions, and in doing so compare cost-benefits with cost-deficits, and imagine worst case scenarios such as the unintended consequences of each solution.
Oh, and before you do that, put your emotions, biases and opinions aside, verify what you believe you know and then consider the panoptic responsibilities and moral duty of government.
Than and only then exercise you right to vote. Unitl then do everyone a favor and STFU and never criticize policy makers - more is required of them than a dolt like you can even imagine.
We've already done all that, moron. That's how we know government needs to be cut, and drastically. Your job should one of the first ones to go.
'Big Government' Isn't the Problem, Big Money Is
Conservatives love to rail against “big government.” But the surge of cynicism engulfing the nation isn’t about government’s size. It flows from a growing perception that government doesn’t work for average people but for big business, Wall Street and the very rich—who, in effect, have bought it. In a recent Pew poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.
Big Government Isn t the Problem Big Money Is The Nation
You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol
He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing
That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait...
WHAT I SAID DUMMY
"You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
Honesty, TRY IT!
And I said He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
Now What of that statement, don't you understand, or just trying to PARSE words again...as usual!
[
We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages
But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.
We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.
I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.
What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?
Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers
You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol
He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing
That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait...
WHAT I SAID DUMMY
"You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
Honesty, TRY IT!
And I said He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
Now What of that statement, don't you understand, or just trying to PARSE words again...as usual!
[
Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.
Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.
That is the business of the Romney's, not mine. Stop being so greedy. If you are going to bother yourself with class envy then look at John Kerry. That is a rich bastard. I don't see you bitching about the filthy Kennedys or that asshole George Soros, who has more overseas accounts than Carter has Liver Pills.
Every cent paid to every government employee is either taken from a person who earned it or taken from our children if borrowed money.
The money would have been used in the productive economy or used by however the person that earned wanted it to be used.
You don't create jackshit by taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. That simple fact of economics seems to escape the mind of all Moon Bats.
"John Kerry,Kennedys, George Soros"
Those guys supporting going back to higher tax rates? How horrible of them.
They must want 'class warfare' right? They must be envious too? lol
Warren Buffett’s:
Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won.
There rsquo s been class warfare for the last 20 years and my class has won rsquo - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
HE MUST BE ENVIOUS TOO RIGHT? lol
Warren Buffet, all his acquisitions are tax free exchanges and all his wealth is in a tax free trust
He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing
That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait...
WHAT I SAID DUMMY
"You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
Honesty, TRY IT!
And I said He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!
Now What of that statement, don't you understand, or just trying to PARSE words again...as usual!
CHRONOLOGY:
DUMBASS: "And how did you get ObozoCare again, without a super majority?"
ME: "You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
DUMBASS: "He had NO REPUBLICAN'S vote for the bill, BUT did have asshole Republican vote to have it brought to the floor!"
ME: "So YES, those RINO's allowed the Dems to vote on a bill WITHOUT the super majority they usually require. Thanks for agreeing"
DUMBASS: " That's NOT what you said, there were NO REPUBLICAN'S that voted for that bill...OR NAME THE ONES THAT DID VOTE FOR Obamacare...I'll wait."
ME:
"WHAT I SAID DUMMY
"You THINK he had a super majority or did some RINO's help him? lol"
Honesty, TRY IT!"
TRY REALLY, REALLY HARD, MAYBE YOU CAN BE HONEST???
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
Oh yeah, STARVE THE BEAST
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
Oh yeah, STARVE THE BEAST
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Starve the beast - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sure, WHY did Reagan triple the debt and both Bushes double it then?
GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit. How did that double it?
Liberal math?
"GHW Bush added less than a trillion to the deficit"
President George H.W. Bush.
Jan. 20, 1989*: $2,697,957, 000,000
Jan. 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
Sorry, meant to say HWBush only added about 60% in his 4 years, where Reagan had tripled it and HW 's son, Dubya had doubled the debt. Mostly inheriting Ronnie's failed voodooo economics and failed S&L crisis where Ronnie ignored the regulator warnings!!!
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
National Debt by President LBJ to Obama - TheStreet
YES, IN CON WORLD $1.5 TRILLION IS 'LESS THAN $1 TRILLION!!!
Historical Tables The White House
According to the White House, table 1.1, it was less than a trillion.
Maybe Obama altered the numbers? LOL!
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba? Deficits are ONLY the amounts the yearly budget needs to balance revenues in and payments out. Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
lol
Perhaps understand the difference of deficits versus debt Bubba?
If you add the 4 years of deficits, you'll have the added debt after 4 years, Doofus.
Debt can increase WHEN EXCESS PAYMENTS FROM PAYROLL TAXES COME IN, BUT LEAVE SMALLER DEFICITS!
Of course, we're talking about gross debt. Just like your earlier chart.
Excess payroll taxes ARE income to the budget, BUT ADDS INTRA GOV'T debt to the books!
Of course. Do you imagine you've discovered something new? Maybe new to you. LOL!
[
We have fewer government employees today than we had 50 years ago. Wages offered by the government to recent graduates tend to be significantly lower than in the private sector
Government doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants all make less than the private sector
The bloated Federal government is spending about $4 trillion a year and that is way too much.
The combined Federal, State and Local governments collects and spends over 40% of the GNP and then borrows a shitload on top of that.
If you don't understand what is wrong with that picture then you have truly earned a place in the Moon Bat Hall of Fame.
First define the problem. Next, seek solutions, and in doing so compare cost-benefits with cost-deficits, and imagine worst case scenarios such as the unintended consequences of each solution.
Oh, and before you do that, put your emotions, biases and opinions aside, verify what you believe you know and then consider the panoptic responsibilities and moral duty of government.
Than and only then exercise you right to vote. Unitl then do everyone a favor and STFU and never criticize policy makers - more is required of them than a dolt like you can even imagine.
We've already done all that, moron. That's how we know government needs to be cut, and drastically. Your job should one of the first ones to go.
'Big Government' Isn't the Problem, Big Money Is
Conservatives love to rail against “big government.” But the surge of cynicism engulfing the nation isn’t about government’s size. It flows from a growing perception that government doesn’t work for average people but for big business, Wall Street and the very rich—who, in effect, have bought it. In a recent Pew poll, 77 percent of respondents said too much power is in the hands of a few rich people and corporations.
Big Government Isn t the Problem Big Money Is The Nation
Big government is the problem. Extorting vast sums from corporate America is what big government does. Of course, the criminals always blame the victim.
[
We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages
But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve
How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?
How does that sound?
How about more realistic pension and benefits for them too
[
First define the problem. Next, seek solutions, and in doing so compare cost-benefits with cost-deficits, and imagine worst case scenarios such as the unintended consequences of each solution.
Oh, and before you do that, put your emotions, biases and opinions aside, verify what you believe you know and then consider the panoptic responsibilities and moral duty of government.
Than and only then exercise you right to vote. Unitl then do everyone a favor and STFU and never criticize policy makers - more is required of them than a dolt like you can even imagine.
Percentages can be deceiving.The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.
- Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989
Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
Talk total dollars instead.
You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?
BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.
NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!
[
We have fewer government employees today than we had 50 years ago. Wages offered by the government to recent graduates tend to be significantly lower than in the private sector
Government doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants all make less than the private sector
The bloated Federal government is spending about $4 trillion a year and that is way too much.
The combined Federal, State and Local governments collects and spends over 40% of the GNP and then borrows a shitload on top of that.
If you don't understand what is wrong with that picture then you have truly earned a place in the Moon Bat Hall of Fame.
Elizabeth Warren’s Faux Populism vs. Jeb Hensarling’s Genuine Fight against K Street Cronyism
International Liberty ^
Let’s compare two politicians, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, to see which one actually has the courage to fight against powerful interest groups. We’ll start with Senator Warren. She portrays herself as the scourge of Wall Street, but it appears that the Massachusetts lawmaker isn’t merely a fake Indian, she’s also a fake opponent of corporate welfare.
Percentages can be deceiving.The fact that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP fell following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 shows a decrease in tax burden as share of GDP.
- Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989
Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games
Talk total dollars instead.
You do realize that a smaller percentage of a larger number can indeed be more than a higher percentage of a lower number don't you?
BZZZZ Wrong. Why do you think ECONOMISTS don't look at nominal dollars, dollars not adjusted for inflation? Add that to the growing labor force, THAT'S why they measure it via GDP, like ALL Gov't do.
NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS YOU CUT TAXES AT THE RATES WE'VE HAD FOR 34+ YEARS AND GET MORE REVENUES. None. Yes you can point to right wingers who lie for a living. But no serious economist thinks either Regan's tax cuts for the rich (50% first six years, that drove the deficit so badly he had to increase revenues 11 after that) NOR Dubya's 2 tax cuts (1 during war), came close to paying for themselves, much less brought in more revenues!!!!
By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989.
Was 19.6% carved in stone? Mandated by the Constitution? Why can't the Feds survive on 18.4% of GDP?
Or 17%? Or less?
