Reagan Cut Taxes....Revenue Boomed

[gipper]

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Damn right it did. It was an investment and we realized our greatest state. It's not Reagan's fault our debt has increased 18 trillion off his watch.

THE NATIONAL DEBT is the sum total of FEDERAL DEFICITS left by ALL presidents.

And your Messiah is the Debt King!!! You must be so proud.

as I said, debt transfers from one president to the next, its a running sub total of all presidents ..

so now the god damn debt belongs to Donald Fucking TRUMP.

handle it bitch ...

Yeah...no past president is responsible for the debt he incurred. LMFAO....yet you are condemning Reagan for the debt he incurred. Hypocrite.

You Messiah lovers really are amazing dupes. You love Big Ears unconditionally and can't bring yourselves to ever criticize him.

Partisanship makes one STUPID!

 

[imawhosure]

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Hey, Bosephus, lol. Did the income to the treasury rise or not.........that is the only question. What they spent is NOT important. You are the quintessential phony-baloney. Saying that they spent MORE has nothing to do with how much they took in. You are a MARXIST, no doubt, and a Stalinist to boot!

here ya go dipshit ..

Cost of Tax Cuts as a Percentage of GDP

According to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO, the Bush tax cut is projected to amount to 1.5 percent of GDP in 2010.(11) These figures should be compared to an adjusted Reagan tax cut of 2.1 percent of GDP.

The Bush tax cut thus is not that much smaller than the adjusted Reagan tax cut. The Bush tax cut would cost 1.5 percent of GDP in 2010; the adjusted Reagan tax cuts cost about 2.1 percent of GDP. The Bush tax cut appears to be only modestly smaller than the Reagan tax cuts, amounting to more than 70 percent of the cost of the adjusted Reagan tax cut, rather than being a small fraction of the Reagan tax cut.

Table 2


Percentage of GDP
ERTA 1981 5.6%
Minus: 40 percent adjustment for impact of inflation on baseline 2.2%
Equals: ERTA cost against indexed baseline 3.4%
Minus: TEFRA 1982 increase 1.2%
Equals: Net cost of Reagan tax cuts (as % of GDP) 2.1%

```````````````
The Legacy of the Reagan Tax Cut

Even if the Bush tax cut represented only a modest proportion of the properly measured Reagan tax cut, the basic logic of the comparison would be problematic. The Reagan tax cut does not represent a valid basis for evaluating what size tax cut is fiscally responsible.

Even with the subsequent tax increase in 1982, the 1981 tax cut imposed a damaging fiscal legacy on the nation. The unified budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980 to $221 billion in 1986 and a peak of $290 billion in 1992. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit (adjusted for the economy's business cycle) rose from 0.7 percent in 1980 to a peak of 4.8 percent in 1986.

Some advocates for the Bush tax proposal have argued that the Reagan tax cuts were not a cause of the large budget deficits during the 1980s. Rather, they argue, the problem arose because of large spending increases. This argument is not supported by the evidence. CBO produces estimates of revenues and outlays that adjust for the state of the business cycle. These figures indicate that, adjusted for the state of the business cycle, revenue fell from 19.4 percent of GDP in 1981 to 16.9 percent of GDP in 1986 and 17.3 percent in 1987. Outlays rose from 19.9 percent of GDP in 1981 to 21.7 percent in 1986 and 20.6 percent in 1987. Between 1981 and 1987, revenues fell three times as much as a percentage of GDP as spending increased. (Revenues declined by 2.1 percent of GDP while outlays increased by 0.7 percent of GDP.) Furthermore, all of the increase in outlays relative to GDP was due to interest outlays, which themselves mostly reflected the tax cuts. Excluding interest, outlays actually fell: Non-interest outlays fell from 19.7 percent of GDP in 1981 to 19.4 percent in 1986 and 18.8 percent in 1987. These data clearly demonstrate that the Reagan tax cuts played a substantial role in the budget deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s

The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01


bite my butt.

That has NOTHING to do with thread, but nice try, lol. Why don't you show us how much money the treasury brought in BEFORE, and after the tax cuts.dipshit!

I will tell you why, because what we say is TRUE! Just because revenues ROSE AFTER the tax cuts........all tax cuts.........doesn't mean Washington decided to handle OUR money better than it did before.

I would expect you to be better than that! If the debate in Washington is how to get the MOST money to fund itself, than it is obvious by history, that TAX CUTS increase the amount of money flowing into the treasury. It is undeniable by what followed after Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and GW. Look back at the governments OWN tables if you doubt it is true! You don't have to argue with me if you disagree, you have to argue with the government, and history.

If your whole shtick is to bring more money to Washington DC, then historical proof tells us that you are pushing to do it bassackwards. That is of course, your REAL objective is NOT to increase flow to the treasury, but instead use the tax code to punish certain people and entities. If that is the case, just say so! Don't sit there and tell a fable to get others to follow your way of thinking.

The ONLY question of this thread is------>is the premise correct, and does treasury receipts INCREASE with tax cuts after being adjusted for inflation.

This thread is NOT about if the increase was spent wisely by our politicians in Washington, and if they INCREASED the deficit by spending more than the money they took in! That is a whole different question!