About that "insignificant" deficit

[Aragorn]

Just be willing to pay more for the right to contribute to our current account deficit.

[Aragorn]

>>Tom they used to be the fiscally responsible party but it only takes a few bad years and look now, I bet they aren't seen that way but too many people. Fiscally sane? They are gaining a reputation for being tax cutters for the rich.

The problem with the Republicans is when they started to buy into the "supply side" nonesense. It sounds great to be able to tell people the government can cut taxes and afford to pay for more services. The problem is it doesn't work.

>>people vote for candidates more so than parties and with so many liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats these titles don't do much good.

Anothr problem is that the folks in the middle who you describe don't have as much voice in the parties as the conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats. This is particularly true in the nominating process.

>>Bush definitely tries to do too much to get elected, he has the special interest constituency of the month club, the seniors turn has come up. This medicare "mess" just drives me crazy. What mess is there? I say it again people want the best coverage and care and the lowest price (none) and act like the only thing keeping them from getting it is an unhelpful Congress. If only life were so easy.

The mess exists and is mostly two problems. 1) Medical costs are skyrocketing, the number of people on Medicare is rising, and they are living longer using more services. Already the cost is taking up a huge portion of the federal budget and it is going to keep squeezing the budget until we can't afford to pay for it. 2) Drugs costs are very high (probably artificially boosted by drug companies who sell much cheaper overseas and play games ot keep generics off the market), and far too many seniors are forced to choose between medicine or food.

I must confess I know about the 2nd problem from annecdotes, and I don't know how wide-spread the problem is. But I do have older relatives, and I know how much they spend on medicine. I would have a hard time with their monthly bills of $500 to $2,000 for medications.

The Medicare "mess" is not a fiction.

[adios]

A trite but true thought is that there really isn't that much difference between the 2 parties. Yeah I agree with your points.

[adios]

Curious though that in the era of disinflation starting in 1980 the highest GDP growth rate on an annualized compounded basis occurred during the Reagan administration and it was quite a bit higher than during Bush Sr's or Clintons administration. Also interest rates started their long steady decline during the Reagan era although I've heard arguments from some that low interest rates are bad. Even though Reagan lowered taxes shortly after he took office (well he got the legislative ball going so to speak), his 1986 tax "reform" bill actually tightened up loopholes and eliminated deductions while drastically reducing the number of brackets (the number of brackets has increased since). Now as a percentage of GDP the Reagan administration ran much bigger deficits than today. Most of it can be attributed to the massive rise in defense spending as percentage of GDP. I think it arguably led to the Clinton "peace dividend" where defense spending was cut by a huge amount as a percentage of GDP. Whether or not this all adds up to a dismal failure of supply side economics I don't know but I don't think so.

[AceHigh]

"his 1986 tax "reform" bill actually tightened up loopholes and eliminated deductions "

Wasn't his tax "reform" bill actually a tax raise? That's the way I remember it.

"I think it arguably led to the Clinton "peace dividend" "

The peace dividend was largely available do to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Did Reagan's arms build up force the Russians to match us and lead to there collaspe or was it inevitable?

[Aragorn]

>>Now as a percentage of GDP the Reagan administration ran much bigger deficits than today.

This is only true for one year of the Reagan administration. See the first post in this thread.

[adios]

"This is only true for one year of the Reagan administration. See the first post in this thread."

Nope wrongo. Here's a list of budget deficits as a percentage of GDP since 1980. Negative numbers represent surpluses.


<ul type="square">[*]1980 2.69[*]1981 2.58[*]1982 3.96[*]1983 6.04[*]1984 4.83[*]1985 5.13[*]1986 5.03[*]1987 3.22[*]1988 3.09[*]1989 2.82[*]1990 3.86[*]1991 4.54[*]1992 4.67[*]1993 3.89[*]1994 2.93[*]1995 2.24[*]1996 1.40[*]1997 0.27[*]1998 -0.80[*]1999 -1.37[*]2000 -2.43[*]2001 -1.27[*]2002 1.53[/list]
We can debate "off budget", "on budget" and "total budget" relevancy but basically my view is inline with the CBO view regarding this. I believe I posted a link about it in my "Cross Post" post. Is the amount that is deducted from paychecks for Social Security a tax (a regressive one at that) or an investment in your retirement? You tell me.

[adios]

"Wasn't his tax "reform" bill actually a tax raise? That's the way I remember it."

Probably but I'm certain it depends on your marginal tax bracket(s). We're talking a lot of tax brackets with a higher and higher rate. Looking at the data there was a significant increase in revenues between 86 and 87.

"The peace dividend was largely available do to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Did Reagan's arms build up force the Russians to match us and lead to there collaspe or was it inevitable?"

My view and we could debate this one endlessly is that the collapse was inevitable but Reagan policies hastned the process.

[Ashe]

But PA? Are you serious? They have amish people out there for god's sake. Of course the amish don’t pay taxes… lucky amish… Anyway, my local taxes are huge and were just increased by 18% a couple of months ago. Maybe cause I don’t live in Newark…

Thinking of moving to Nevada... [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img]

[Ashe]

What I heard when the war was just starting, was that the US government was going to reimburse itself for the costs of “liberating Iraq”, not just rebuilding Iraq, by using Iraqi oil. I just assumed that meant taking a lot of oil. I’m not sure about all the ethics behind this, or even if this still holds true, but it sounds like a plan to me.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img]