Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Missouri Young Republicans?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jonathan King wrote:

> But also note quite clearly that Bush did NOT cut taxes.  He only 
> shifted them into the future.  (This is easy to see: we now have a large 
> structural deficit that is being financed, and the money that will pay 
> the interest and principal on that in the future will come from taxes. 
> Taxes were not cut, that we were only shifted into the future. 
> Moreover, if interest rates are higher than the growth in GDP in the 
> interim, then the eventual tax rate will actually increase. This 
> nauseatingly fiscally irresponsible action was brought to you by an 
> alleged Republican.)


Right, but Bush is just like Reagan in this regard:  Massive, reckless 
deficit spending.  Why would they do such a thing?  Want to know how you 
are being scammed by the rich?  *READ* *THIS* *ARTICLE*:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/20030914_NYT_Krugman_economy.html


Want some numbers?  Check this out (from Business Week):

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/art04_25/0425_34news_a.gif

In case that URL dies, I put a copy here:
http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/reagan_record.gif

My analysis of the numbers:

Let's compare Carter, Reagan and Clinton on each category and see which of 
the three had the best results:


Category                Winner
-------------------    ---------
GDP                     Clinton
Consumer Prices         Clinton
Productivity            Clinton
Wages                   Clinton
Unemployment rate       Clinton
Poverty rate            Clinton
Stock prices            Clinton
Business investment     Carter
Federal employment      Clinton (least growth)
Federal receipts        Reagan
Federal outlays         Clinton
Budget deficit          Clinton


If we agree with Reagan that the goal of government should be to make 
itself smaller, then we must give Clinton the prizes for both "federal 
employment" and "federal outlays," because Clinton reduced federal 
employment by 1.4% while Reagan increased it by 0.9% (losing also to 
Carter's 0.8%).  As a share of GDP, Clinton's outlays were 19.6% while 
Reagan's were 22.3%, but Reagan took in less tax revenue (18.0% of GDP 
compared to Clinton's 19.6%) and therefore showed the worst deficit 
spending ever (4.3% of GDP compared to 0.1% for Clinton or 2.4% for 
Carter).

More from Business Week here:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2004/nf20040610_9541_db038.htm

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion