Republicans: we are now against spending cuts, they're unpopular and won't work

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's also important to note that when Reagan entered the presidency, the top tax rate was 70%, which is a lot easier to sell as "utterly ridiculous" than the modern top tax rate of 40%.

[Santander]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

It helps when the buffoon saying it is himself dumb enough to believe it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

I guess that's the positive of having a TV Star elected president.    Unfortunately in the case of Trump he's running the White House staff a little to similarly to The Apprentice.

Reagan was not Actor Reagan when he was elected, he was Governor Reagan.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

[Santander]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

[Nyvin]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

Of course it goes up in gross amount, if it didn't that wouldve been a disaster with inflation and the general growth of the economy over 10 years.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

Of course it goes up in gross amount, if it didn't that wouldve been a disaster with inflation and the general growth of the economy over 10 years.

1980's revenue inflation adjusted  would be 801.56 billion , which means that an additional 200 billion in tax revenue came from economic growth . Also this is discounting the fact that the overall inflation rate dropped in the 1980s dramatically, so the fact is the economy did grow rapidly in the 1980s due to the tax cuts .

[Nyvin]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

Of course it goes up in gross amount, if it didn't that wouldve been a disaster with inflation and the general growth of the economy over 10 years.

1980's revenue inflation adjusted  would be 801.56 billion , which means that an additional 200 billion in tax revenue came from economic growth . Also this is discounting the fact that the overall inflation rate dropped in the 1980s dramatically, so the fact is the economy did grow rapidly in the 1980s due to the tax cuts .

That's a very bold statement.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

Of course it goes up in gross amount, if it didn't that wouldve been a disaster with inflation and the general growth of the economy over 10 years.

1980's revenue inflation adjusted  would be 801.56 billion , which means that an additional 200 billion in tax revenue came from economic growth . Also this is discounting the fact that the overall inflation rate dropped in the 1980s dramatically, so the fact is the economy did grow rapidly in the 1980s due to the tax cuts .

That's a very bold statement.

No it's not


The reason you had stagflation in the late 1970s was due to a supply shock , and Reagan's  economic plans were meant to increase supply which grew the economy in the 1980s.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

But the fiscally responsible party didn't control the House. Reagan once joked that Tip O'Neal was like Pac man, because he was a round thing that swallows up money.

The balance of power in the House was held by a bunch of pork barreling good ole' boy Southern Democrats. So the only way to get anything done in Congress was to basically pay for it with increased spending.

[mvd10]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

But the fiscally responsible party didn't control the House. Reagan once joked that Tip O'Neal was like Pac man, because he was a round thing that swallows up money.

The balance of power in the House was held by a bunch of pork barreling good ole' boy Southern Democrats. So the only way to get anything done in Congress was to basically pay for it with increased spending.

We need only look at 2001-2007 to see that it would've made zero difference

Bush was elected on a platform of Compassionate Conservatism though, he didn't even promise spending cuts. At the time Bush's proposals didn't even look that fiscally irresponsible, but when the economy soured and the US got themselves in a war the Republicans decided fulfilling their campaign promises was more important than the deficit. Bush never promised what Reagan promised in 1980 or what the House Republicans promised in their Contract with America in 1994.

But I agree that it wouldn't have made a huge difference. They would have made some more cuts but eventually political reality would have caught up with them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

But the fiscally responsible party didn't control the House. Reagan once joked that Tip O'Neal was like Pac man, because he was a round thing that swallows up money.

The balance of power in the House was held by a bunch of pork barreling good ole' boy Southern Democrats. So the only way to get anything done in Congress was to basically pay for it with increased spending.

We need only look at 2001-2007 to see that it would've made zero difference

Or you could look at 1995-2001

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

The fiscally responsible party probably shouldn't have blown up the budget then.

But the fiscally responsible party didn't control the House. Reagan once joked that Tip O'Neal was like Pac man, because he was a round thing that swallows up money.

The balance of power in the House was held by a bunch of pork barreling good ole' boy Southern Democrats. So the only way to get anything done in Congress was to basically pay for it with increased spending.

We need only look at 2001-2007 to see that it would've made zero difference

You really going to make me defend the Bush-Delay years. Screw that.

My point was and still stands, "The fiscally conservative party" didn't control congress and frankly that is true regardless of who is actually in charge. There is an old saying in DC, that there are three parties "The Republicans, the Democrats and the Appropriators".  Mike Pence is a Republican, Paul Ryan is a Republican. Hal Rodgers is an Appropriator, Thad Cochran is an Appropriator. Robert Byrd was an appropriator. Ted Stevens was an appropriator. Dan Inouye was an appropriator. The appropriators are always high in seniority and always dominate the Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate that actually spend the money. I found it funny how people like Ryan, Pence and the RSC members who often went after this were on the Budget Committee and that that says about the values. "Yes we value your ideals and principles so we are going to let you write budget, but the old spend thrifts will actually spend the money and do so how we want". And you wonder why we had a Tea Party!

After the 2006 elections there was a scene where Dan Inouye and Ted Stevens, locked arms and in a measure of the worst sort of bipartisanship (which disturbingly people look back to fondly) and said "we will continue to pass out the pork business as usual". There was a scene in the house of Representatives where one of the fiscal conservatives from NJ, who always gets fleeced in terms of return on tax receipts (something like 50 cents on the dollar) was challenging an appropriation in Alaska (which gets like 2 dollars in spending for $1 in taxes and it gets worse when you account for the military etc), and Don Young came to the floor and said, "How dare you go after that, its 'MY MONEY', I don't go after your money". And you wonder why we had a Tea Party!

The problem with the Tea party was that it replaced bipartisan corruption and irresponsibility, with ideological zeal and resulting irresponsibility, instead of common sense and responsibility. That is why the tea party got hijacked by fringe nuts and establishment crooks. And that is why we ended up with the Trump movement and President Trump.

[Shadows]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

That argument is pretty ridiculous. Tax Revenues always go up, like always. You assume a Real GDP Growth of say 4% & add 4-5% inflation (80s/90s inflation) & you get 8-9% odd Nominal growth. Put that number for 10 years & it is almost double.

Anyways, spending also naturally increases. Medicare/Medicaid costs are rising with inflation plus you have a demographic issue with an ageing population further increasing costs. And there is a population increase & immigration. Yes, Spending increased, Reagan didn't cut major programs & massively increased military but spending always increases.

For all the good things said about Reagan, he was terrible about the deficit. He accumulated more debt than all previous Presidents combined & he didn't inherit a great recession or depression & didn't inherit a 1T $ Deficit.

[Kingpoleon]

Therefore we need huge tax breaks for the wealthy, because that will generate so much growth that we have more revenue in the end and the wealth will somehow trickle down.

Honestly, the fact that Reagan was somehow able to sell this nonsense with a straight face and have half the country at the time believe him goes to show you how stupid people can be.

Tax Revenue went up from 517 billion in 1980 to 1.03 trillion in 1990. So Tax Revenues almost doubled in the 1980s, so no it was not the tax cuts that caused the deficits it was the increases in spending.

1981 is the beginning of the great spike in federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. Ford’s tax cuts and economic spending increases kept unemployment down for a bit, while also slowing the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. The bad economic times from 1979-1983 caused the debt to grow as Carter tried to freeze and cut spending, while Reagan simplified and cut taxes. George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton managed to head off the problems with the debt, but Bush was a tax cutter and spending keeper, while Obama was rather ineffective. We won’t see a solid economy until taxes increase and spending is cut during good economic times, as well as higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve, and taxes are cut and spending is increased during minor and larger recessions, while interest rates are cut by the Fed.