Video: Old Republican Worrying About the Debt

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

Often things we think should be saving us money have unanticipated associated costs.

For example, many of those delighted at getting another twenty bucks in their paycheck may find themselves aghast at the increase in their health insurance premiums.

Unless, of course, the insurance companies decide that despite the financial instability these federal changes are bringing, they will use their tax breaks to underwrite everyone's insurance costs.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by le roi

as a %, both Reagan and Bush had larger increases. You've been told that but you don't want to hear it. You want to talk nominal dollars because to you the values look bigger.


The real issue at hand, though, is that Republicans spent the last 8 years talking about how liberal policies couldn't be enacted because of the debt. They campaigned on a platform of reducing the debt, which they believed would grow the economy. The GOP has clearly established themselves as the party who believes that the deficit is extremely important to the US economy.

Now, we see that this was all a bluff. The whole purpose of Republicans "worrying about the debt" was simply an excuse to oppose liberal policies. They never actually cared about the national debt.

"as a %" of what?


GDP before or after?


It makes a difference when we are talking about growing an economy because the static model is invalid.


No economy remains the same after a significant tax cut.


To ignore that fact is to ignore the most important information.







The 1982 Reagan tax cuts caused explosive growth throughout the remainder of his first term and very healthy growth during his second term.



Just ask Walter Mondale.


Without the tax cuts, we would have never seen this explosive growth.


In fact, from 1983 on, receipts as a percentage of GDP increased from 17.0% (1983) to 17.8% (1989).


At the same time, outlays decreased from 22.8% to 20.5%.


With the exception of the 1990-92 recession years, the annual deficit decreased in a near-linear fashion through 2000.


Focusing on growth was good policy then and it will be good policy today.


Renegotiating our ****ty, one-way trade deals should be next on the agenda.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Where were these deficit hawks when Obama did 9 trillion in eight years... Now they are choking on 1.5 trillion in eight to ten years... IF that even happens...

Good question. GOP authorized the spending, but the deficit hawks said nothing. What happened?

[le roi]

Originally Posted by momonkey

"as a %" of what?

As a % of its starting value. % growth beginning to end.

No economy remains the same after a significant tax cut.

The impacts of tax cuts are complex. Tax cuts in the United States have historically occured in conjunction with a number of other policy changes, like decreases in interest rates or financial deregulation. This makes it incorrect to isolate "Tax cuts" as the single (or even primary) cause of whatever growth occurred. Tax policy doesn't occur in a vacuum.

The 1982 Reagan tax cuts caused explosive growth throughout the remainder of his first term and very healthy growth during his second term.

Just ask Walter Mondale.

Without the tax cuts, we would have never seen this explosive growth.

Reagan's "exposive growth" was a result of financial deregulation leading to larger volumes of private-sector lending. Without that financial deregulation and policy encouragement for people to take on debt, we never would've seen this explosive growth.

This is the identical reason that the Bush administration saw "explosive growth", briefly -- the boom in non-conforming loans due to mortgage lending deregulation. Both of these ended in crashes -- the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 80's / Black Friday, and the 2008 financial crisis.

Corporate debt went from $2.5 trillion to $6 trillion during the Reagan administration, for instance. It went from $13 trillion to $24 trillion during the G.W. Bush administration. Household debt grew, too. So did the national debt. These things cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. They are what drove the economic growth -- tax cuts were just along for the ride.

[crone]

Any person who supported the invasion of Iraq is also responsible for the Obama debt.

That war was an emergency. It was not in the budget. IMO, that was a pretty big contingent liability to put on a credit card. Now add in the cost of medical care for the vets. Where were the roses being thrown at their feet, Rummy?

The do them before they do us is a dumb way to get to a balanced budget.

I'm still looking for a real 'conservative' Republican.