At 08:08 PM 1/22/2005 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: >BTW, you asked for the publicly held funds debt as a function of GDP: The >same pattern is there, but there are a couple of minor changes: > >'46 108.6 >Truman 61.6 Eisenhower I 51.9 >Eisenhower II 45.6 >Kennedy I 40.1 >Johnson 33.3 >Nixon I 27.3 1974 23.8 >Ford 27.5 >Carter 26.1 Reagan I 34.0 >Reagan II 40.9 >HW Bush 48.1 Clinton I 48.5 >Clinton II 35.1 2002 34.3 2004 38.6
>The most important one is that it blunts the Bush II deficit. But, the >pattern of Reagan and Bush I reversing a long trend is still there. The >only thing you can say is that, after Nixon, the trend stalled. Dan, You have argued the there is a strong correlation between advocating supply-side economics (i.e. tax cuts) and increasing the size of the nominal federal budget deficit. The two most prominent examples of Presidents enacting tax cuts are George W. Bush and Reagan's first term. In terms of debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, George W. Bush's first term doesn't look all *that* bad - especially in absolute levels, and especially looking at the immediate aftermath of his first tax cuts in the first two years. Meanwhile, you insist upon including George H.W. Bush's term in this analysis, even though GHW Bush famously called supply-side econoimcs "voodoo economics" and famously lost his job because he enacted a tax increase early in his term. Furthermore, Bill Clinton's first term does not show much in the way of immediate effects on publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP in the wake of his tax increases (especially when one considers how close he came to passing a plan attempting to nationalize the nation's health care system - but admittedly we're attempting to use national debt figures to look at revenue policy.) But going back to GHW Bush, this is what I call your "one-trick pony" Dan. No matter what in economics, you always, always, blame the Republicans. I've called you once before on the matter of using economic statistics from George HW Bush's term to criticize tax cuts, and you argued then that in that case we were looking at inequality, and that GHW Bush's non-tax policies were classic Repuiblican anti-worker. I can't imagine how you can defend it this time..... President GHW Bush was a lot of things - an enacter of supply-side economic policies was not one of them JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
