So it all comes down to this:

Clinton inherited a very strong, robust economy. After the massive Clinton tax increases began to have their effect, he left office during a recession.

Bush 2 inherited a recession. He lowered taxes - and not, as is STUPIDLY claimed by the liberals - just on the rich. Those tax cuts stimulated the economy. Despite 9-11, and it's devastating effects on everything from the airline industry to the stock market... here we are, 6 years later, and the economy is in a HUGE upswing.

Those two facts speak for themselves.


Was there a huge federal deficit amassed, as the economy began to pick up again? YES.
Is the federal deficit being paid down faster then even the EXPERTS predicted? YES.
That is the same as paying off a mortgage faster then was expected or anticipated.

THIS is why, more than any one other thing, it will be necessary to elect a Republican as President in 2008. It is inevitable that a Democrat will do exactly what Clinton did: Tax the hell out of the economy and run it into the ground.

Erm, remember that this article isn't talking about the national debt; it is talking about the budget deficit for a three-month period. The article further predicts that the deficit for the entire year will be worse than last year.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove...do I care that Bush can almost balance the budget for three months, if the overall deficit for the year is going to be worse than last year?

Bush has worsened our debt since he came into office, and this article says he's still doing it.

That's exactly what I SAID it was talking about.

Are you seeing no connection between the federal deficit and national debt?

You said the deficit is decreasing, right? The article says it is increasing.

There is certainly a connection. If we can get the deficit small enough, the national debt will begin to shrink. But that article said the deficit is not going down.

Also, even if the deficit were going down, a small improvement in our deficit doesn't mean our debt is going down at all.

This is EXACTLY what the anti-Reagan liberals were screaming 20 years ago. And guess what? The strength of the economy caught up, and actually did what the liberals in the 80s said COULD NOT BE DONE!

You CANNOT tax an economy into prosperity.

Understand that creating a deficit does not negatively affect the economy immediately. It takes a large amount of time for the deficit to begin its negative effects.

Reagan and Bush Sr spent a lot of money. When they did this, the economy was improved in the short-term, because all of the money they spent was going into the economy. But the economy suffered in the long term because future governments have to actually pay off that debt.

Going into debt is a good method of mitigating a recession. However, we shouldn't be increasing our debt when we're not in a recession. That causes problems for the economy later on. Bush might be looking at an economy on the upswing, but he needs to consider the consequences of spending too much.

You're wrong on many counts...

First of all, Reagan took office after the HUGE mess Carter left: 20% inflation and most operating loans were at least 18%.

Reaganomics worked because they removed the overwhelming tax burden on American businesses. Less income, in the short-term, was happening while the American economy was rebounding. As the economy began to boom, tax income began coming in at record rates. It took time.

Can you begin to understand basic economics?

Let me make it very, very simple: If I spend $3,000 to buy a good mower, to go into the mowing business, my immediate bottom line looks VERY bad. I'm $3,000 in debt! However, if using that $3,000 mower enables me to make $10,000 per year, the initial $3,000 debt is not a bad deal, is it? Of course, the "bottom line" does not turn around IMMEDIATELY.

Can you begin to understand this?

Yes, I understand the economic theory that investing more into the economy earlier pays off later, and I agree that we should operate under some amount of deficit. But that deficit can't be as large as the ones Reagan and Bush Sr created, or we'll be paying for it in the end. The deficit can only be large enough that your Debt to GDP ratio stays the same.

Look again at the first graph in this link:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP-L.gif

The line in that graph should remain relatively flat. If the line goes up, that means your debt is increasing faster than your GDP, and each year that happens, a larger percent of our budget intake goes toward paying off debt. If we keep that up, eventually we'll have to dedicate our entire budget toward paying off debt.

What I mean is, the sort of mass-spending that Reagan and Bush Sr did is unsustainable. While Reagan and Bush Sr might have seen a short-term economic boost from spending like crazy, today we have to allocate a larger percent of our budget toward paying off debt.

So like I said, the line in that graph should generally be flat. Now, in a time of recession, we can give the economy a boost by cutting taxes and increasing debt. This causes the line to go up. But sooner or later, someone's going to have to bring the line back down again. We can't keep making it go up, or our budget will eventually be overwhelmed by debt.

Do you follow what I'm saying?

I know exactly what you're saying.

Now, here's what I'm saying: YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT A FRACTION OF THE PICTURE.

Who pays more taxes? The person who is paying 15% of $50,000 per year, or the person who is paying 10% of $100,000 per year? The answer? The person paying 10% in taxes.

Now, take that exact same principle times 1 billion - and you're starting to see the relevance to our national economy.

The FACT is that lower taxes stimulate economic growth. In other words, more income. Higher taxes stifle the economy. In other words, less income.

When companies lose money, they can't pay taxes - no matter how high the rate. When companies make money, they pay taxes.

And here's what you Democrats are never able to figure out: 100% taxation on zero dollars is still zero dollars. An economy CANNOT survive over-taxation.

I agree with all that you wrote here. However, I think that taxes have less of an effect than many seem to think, and I don't think they caused the recession in 2001.