GOP Wrecked the Budget - Reagan's OMB Director

[Barb]

"The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine."

How was this the GOP fault again? Does Stockman read this before he published it?

David Stockman was President Reagan's OMB Head from 1981-1984, and the economist who planned Reagan’s economic policy. Stockman described his plan as a radical economic revolution that would cause short-term pain for some, but produce long-term benefits for all. The revolution failed because political reality got in the way, and because the men he worked with were not policy men or economists, but politicians with constituencies and project preferences of their own. Stockman is an economic and ideological purist. He seems to see numbers as being more tangible than people are, but he is intellectually consistent. He listed a host of corporate welfare giveaways, including the defense budget, with the same tone of outrage that he treated social welfare.
Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics; How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 10-14 and 392

Reagan failed the same way FDR succeeded, because Progressives say so!

Pick any 3 metrics, any 3 metrics at all, you pick it, even including the deficit from when Reagan came into office as opposed to when he left and let's talk about them

"Because I say so" carries no weight with me at all.

You Progressive have been proven liars on FDR Greatness and now let's deal with Reagan's "Failure"?

Oh, by the way, Obama Failed Stimulus DWARFS Reagan 1982 Budget. Bear that in mind when you talk about Reagan's "failures"

The Center for the Study of Policy Studies indicated that Lower social protections at a time of rising unemployment threatened to change the economic opportunity structure for an entire class of the labor force. The Center specified that this was not a temporary change, but a permanent consequence for generations of their families.
The Center further reported that the new and near poor in the early 1980s consisted of people who formerly held stable jobs and whose wages had been interrupted or that currently did not keep up with the higher cost of living. There were more people involuntarily unemployed in 1982 than any time since 1941, and the higher unemployment numbers were at least in part due to Reagan’s economic policies. Certain factors such as low industrial productivity and the high cost of energy and oil were problems that existed when Reagan came into office. The solutions Reagan favored to fix these problems, his tax policies, program changes, and regulation strategies concentrated economic suffering excessively upon the poor. In tandem with these actions, Reagan raised, through his tax policy, the fortunes of the wealthiest people in America.
The study found that those hardest it by the unemployment of the early 1980s were blue-collar workers, who experienced a 15.9% unemployment rate. High technological growth and cyclical recessions have and will continue to eliminate millions of jobs. Displacements by technology that created a need for higher education and training came together at a time when people were unable to access them because they were without the financial wherewithal. Chafe noted that when the Unemployment rate decreased, the jobs gained were mostly at lower wages than those they replaced were, and in the service sector rather than the skilled. This widened the gap between the rich and poor, and added more to their numbers.
The Urban Institute found that key changes in economic policy were the administration’s refusal to use “counter-cyclical” measures to lessen economic shocks, maintain high employment, and keep prices stable. This change was a departure from governmental monetary policy in practice since 1946, policy proven over time to benefit labor, society, and business. From 1981 to 1982, wages remained static, unemployment rose 2%, median family income went down 3.5%, and poverty rose from 13.2% in 1980 to 14.0% in 1981, the highest level since 1967. Conversely, tax relief offered higher benefits for high-income families, and effectively raised taxes for lower income families. Cuts to benefit programs disproportionately and negatively affect those with lower and reduced incomes. The Tax policy raised buying power only modestly for the middle class, not at all for the poor, and the wealthy experienced the greatest increase.
Palmer and Sawhill updated The Reagan Experiment for The Urban Institute with The Reagan Record. They concluded that no matter what Reagan did, a degree of recession was unavoidable in 1981-1982, but a different “set of macroeconomic policies” that focused more on employment rather than inflation would have made it milder.
Schorr maintained that in Reagan’s first budget, those who earned less than $10k per year lost $223 billion, and those who made over $80k per year gained $35 billion. He regarded this as the most blatant redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in recent times, and a “deliberate reintroduction of social insecurity.”

The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 3-5, and 9
Chafe, William H. The Unfinished Journey, 487-489. See Also The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 11-12.
The Urban Institute. The Reagan Experiment, 6, 19, and 21-22.
Ibid, 21-22.
The Reagan Record, Updated Edition of: The Reagan experiment, 1982. Edited by John L. Palmer and Isabel V. Sawhill. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1984.344.
Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 16-18.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

David Stockman was President Reagan's OMB Head from 1981-1984, and the economist who planned Reagan’s economic policy. Stockman described his plan as a radical economic revolution that would cause short-term pain for some, but produce long-term benefits for all. The revolution failed because political reality got in the way, and because the men he worked with were not policy men or economists, but politicians with constituencies and project preferences of their own. Stockman is an economic and ideological purist. He seems to see numbers as being more tangible than people are, but he is intellectually consistent. He listed a host of corporate welfare giveaways, including the defense budget, with the same tone of outrage that he treated social welfare.
Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics; How the Reagan Revolution Failed. 1st Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, 10-14 and 392

Reagan failed the same way FDR succeeded, because Progressives say so!

Pick any 3 metrics, any 3 metrics at all, you pick it, even including the deficit from when Reagan came into office as opposed to when he left and let's talk about them

"Because I say so" carries no weight with me at all.

You Progressive have been proven liars on FDR Greatness and now let's deal with Reagan's "Failure"?

Oh, by the way, Obama Failed Stimulus DWARFS Reagan 1982 Budget. Bear that in mind when you talk about Reagan's "failures"

The Center for the Study of Policy Studies indicated that Lower social protections at a time of rising unemployment threatened to change the economic opportunity structure for an entire class of the labor force. The Center specified that this was not a temporary change, but a permanent consequence for generations of their families.
The Center further reported that the new and near poor in the early 1980s consisted of people who formerly held stable jobs and whose wages had been interrupted or that currently did not keep up with the higher cost of living. There were more people involuntarily unemployed in 1982 than any time since 1941, and the higher unemployment numbers were at least in part due to Reagan’s economic policies. Certain factors such as low industrial productivity and the high cost of energy and oil were problems that existed when Reagan came into office. The solutions Reagan favored to fix these problems, his tax policies, program changes, and regulation strategies concentrated economic suffering excessively upon the poor. In tandem with these actions, Reagan raised, through his tax policy, the fortunes of the wealthiest people in America.
The study found that those hardest it by the unemployment of the early 1980s were blue-collar workers, who experienced a 15.9% unemployment rate. High technological growth and cyclical recessions have and will continue to eliminate millions of jobs. Displacements by technology that created a need for higher education and training came together at a time when people were unable to access them because they were without the financial wherewithal. Chafe noted that when the Unemployment rate decreased, the jobs gained were mostly at lower wages than those they replaced were, and in the service sector rather than the skilled. This widened the gap between the rich and poor, and added more to their numbers.
The Urban Institute found that key changes in economic policy were the administration’s refusal to use “counter-cyclical” measures to lessen economic shocks, maintain high employment, and keep prices stable. This change was a departure from governmental monetary policy in practice since 1946, policy proven over time to benefit labor, society, and business. From 1981 to 1982, wages remained static, unemployment rose 2%, median family income went down 3.5%, and poverty rose from 13.2% in 1980 to 14.0% in 1981, the highest level since 1967. Conversely, tax relief offered higher benefits for high-income families, and effectively raised taxes for lower income families. Cuts to benefit programs disproportionately and negatively affect those with lower and reduced incomes. The Tax policy raised buying power only modestly for the middle class, not at all for the poor, and the wealthy experienced the greatest increase.
Palmer and Sawhill updated The Reagan Experiment for The Urban Institute with The Reagan Record. They concluded that no matter what Reagan did, a degree of recession was unavoidable in 1981-1982, but a different “set of macroeconomic policies” that focused more on employment rather than inflation would have made it milder.
Schorr maintained that in Reagan’s first budget, those who earned less than $10k per year lost $223 billion, and those who made over $80k per year gained $35 billion. He regarded this as the most blatant redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in recent times, and a “deliberate reintroduction of social insecurity.”

The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 3-5, and 9
Chafe, William H. The Unfinished Journey, 487-489. See Also The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 11-12.
The Urban Institute. The Reagan Experiment, 6, 19, and 21-22.
Ibid, 21-22.
The Reagan Record, Updated Edition of: The Reagan experiment, 1982. Edited by John L. Palmer and Isabel V. Sawhill. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1984.344.
Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 16-18.

Before I answer, I have to ask: are you retarded?

I'm serious, your answer will affect my response.

 

[Barb]

That was from a literature review I did for my masters program. Even my conservative professors had no issue with my sources or the accuracy of what I've written. Tread carefully. Are you smarter than an entire group of PhD's?

 

[midcan5]

"It's the economy, Stupid!" How quickly Reagan's crazy Keynesian spending and then equally crazy retreat is forgotten. Usually it is the administration that proceeds the next that is the cause of much of the economic movement. Reagan only began a slide to third world status that continues to this day.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/126617-reagan-and-taxes.html


Second scientific proof of conservative insanity. The economy did well from FDR till Reagan, after Reagan started the destruction of the middle class the downward slide began. But who is the hero to conservatives? You guessed it, our worst president in the modern era. Ronald Reagan. OpEdNews - Article: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

 

[Samson]

Samson:

Correct, there was no tooth fairy: But there was no Dem Boogy Men either.
Antiquated Government Programs were not conceived, and perpetuated by Democrats Alone, anymore than Republicans conceived and perpetuated a bloated military-industrial complex. The Government is a bipartisan machine.

Karaagac discussed the conditions that nourished these assumptions and that ended the post WWII compromise between Democrats and Republicans known as the “liberal consensus.” Republicans, until the Reagan Revolution, were silent partners in the Welfare State. Since that time, the programs worked within an expanding economy to increase wealth and economic security, lessen economic shocks caused by unemployment, and expand the middle class. That middle class became more conservative, and economic equality was no longer a pressing concern. Additionally, frustration in the struggles for civil rights and peace led to the rejection of accepted cultrural mores, and when the New Left became more radical, an equally reactionary New Right rose to confront it.
Karaagac, John. Between Promise and Policy: Ronald Reagan and Conservative Reformism. 1st. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2000, 5-6.

You and I both realise that although Karaagac might be a source, we need to seperate his opinion from reality: I.E., "don't believe everything you read."

Let's just take his rather optimistic (some might say "rose-colored"), myoptic comment:

"Since [Post Reagan Revolution], the [Welfare State?] programs worked within an expanding economy to increase wealth and economic security, lessen economic shocks caused by unemployment, and expand the middle class."

Made in 2000, this statement effectively covers a scant 10 years, during an "expanding economy."

I wonder, could the expanding economy, rather than "the programs" have had anything to do with "increased wealth and economic security?" Might "the programs" have been irrelevant?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, by the way, Obama Failed Stimulus DWARFS Reagan 1982 Budget. Bear that in mind when you talk about Reagan's "failures"

Reagan's proposed budget for 1982 was $695.3 billion. In 2009 dollars, that's $1.3 trillion.

The stimulus package was a two-year spending proposal totaling $787 billion or, on average, $393.5 billion per year.

Distinction without a difference.

Obama appropriated the money up front, that's he's hording it for his reelection campaign is irrelevant.

The money was appropriated in advance to keep unemployment under 8%, remember?

 

[hortysir]

"The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine."

How was this the GOP fault again? Does Stockman read this before he published it?

Read Stockman's book. He will tell you that it was the Republicans who believed this fairy tale that you can cut taxes and the growth will create enough revenue to pay for government spending, and it was the Supply-Siders who argued for it in budget negotiations, not just Democrats.

The Republican Party used to believe in fiscal discipline. Its long past that. Now it believes in All Tax Cuts All the Time, no matter what the fiscal consequences.

When I see the Tea Party people with signs that say "Cut MY Social Security" then I'll know the party is serious. Otherwise, it is merely continuing to perpetuate an intellectual fraud that it has for the past 30 years.

I'll be the first to admit that I suck at economics, on such a scale as our Fed.
So, here's my question:
If tax-cats aren't the answer and we don't make enough sustainable revenue from raising taxes, what is the best method for generating black ink?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That was from a literature review I did for my masters program. Even my conservative professors had no issue with my sources or the accuracy of what I've written. Tread carefully. Are you smarter than an entire group of PhD's?

If they think 1983 was the end of the Reagan Presidency, then clearly yes.

I said at the end of his Presidency and they're talking about unemployment in 1981.

 

[Samson]

That was from a literature review I did for my masters program. Even my conservative professors had no issue with my sources or the accuracy of what I've written. Tread carefully. Are you smarter than an entire group of PhD's?

If they think 1983 was the end of the Reagan Presidency, then clearly yes.

I said at the end of his Presidency and they're talking about unemployment in 1981.

***heavey sarcasm warning***

By the way, you might mention the Economic Turmoil, and Social Upheaval among classes resulting from Post-Reaganomic Policy Reform?

Remember the 90's!!!! OMG

 

[Barb]

Samson:

Correct, there was no tooth fairy: But there was no Dem Boogy Men either.
Antiquated Government Programs were not conceived, and perpetuated by Democrats Alone, anymore than Republicans conceived and perpetuated a bloated military-industrial complex. The Government is a bipartisan machine.

Karaagac discussed the conditions that nourished these assumptions and that ended the post WWII compromise between Democrats and Republicans known as the “liberal consensus.” Republicans, until the Reagan Revolution, were silent partners in the Welfare State. Since that time, the programs worked within an expanding economy to increase wealth and economic security, lessen economic shocks caused by unemployment, and expand the middle class. That middle class became more conservative, and economic equality was no longer a pressing concern. Additionally, frustration in the struggles for civil rights and peace led to the rejection of accepted cultrural mores, and when the New Left became more radical, an equally reactionary New Right rose to confront it.
Karaagac, John. Between Promise and Policy: Ronald Reagan and Conservative Reformism. 1st. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2000, 5-6.

You and I both realise that although Karaagac might be a source, we need to seperate his opinion from reality: I.E., "don't believe everything you read."

Let's just take his rather optimistic (some might say "rose-colored"), myoptic comment:

"Since [Post Reagan Revolution], the [Welfare State?] programs worked within an expanding economy to increase wealth and economic security, lessen economic shocks caused by unemployment, and expand the middle class."

Made in 2000, this statement effectively covers a scant 10 years, during an "expanding economy."

I wonder, could the expanding economy, rather than "the programs" have had anything to do with "increased wealth and economic security?" Might "the programs" have been irrelevant?

I don't think so. In my opinion, they added to and augmented the expansion. Meanwhile, they were complementary, and I don't deny that. Investment, research and development, and the growth of industry is important to expand economies, but what fuels the growth (or if it makes more sense, is JUST as important) is people able to purchase goods and services, pay their bills, etc...

Ford was hardly a friend to labor, but he (and many others of the time) saw the very simple fact that sustainability of a market base required keeping that market able to buy. That sustainability kept businesses in business. Today's corporations look at weekly, monthly, quarterly, and at time year end bottom lines instead of what those short term profits cost overall.

Government, in order to balance interests and maintain a sustainable economy must also balance overall costs against the clamor for short term profitability in favor of one sector of the economy.

 

[Synthaholic]

Democrats controlled Congress all those years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How were Republicans supposed to control spending, by mental telepathy?

Reagan mentioned Entitlement reform and the LMSM went Batshit crazy on him

Oh, bullshit.

Republicans were arguing that that Reagan didn't have to cut spending. They were called "Supply-Siders." But it's convenient for Republicans who have deified Reagan to conveniently forget this and re-write history because they have contributed enormously to the budget deficits that they now claim to be so concerned about. The fiscally responsible Republicans were were pushed aside by the All Tax Cuts All the Time wing that has come to dominate the party.

THAT is why Stockman left, not because of Democrats.

So what happened when Regan proposed to cut spending by closing the Department of Education? Did he get that? Did he get ANY Spending cuts by the Dem controlled Congress?

(Hint: NO!)

Please produce a Republican Majority Senate bill from 1981-1987 which sought to abolish the Dept. Of Education.

Thanks.

 

[Synthaholic]

How is veto power the same as controlling Congress, I must have missed something?

Was there supposed to be more to your post?

So, Reagan couldn't have possibly done anything to stop the budget. Nothing like vetoing it or anything? It's not like the office of President has that power. It's not a check on the legislative branch or anything.

Again, am I missing something here? You want Reagan, the Executive, to take over the role of Congress?

You realize that's a Monarchy and not a Republic, right?

Again, did you leave anything out of your post or are you intending to turn the President into a Monarch?

Back in the hannity.com days, you were a fairly decent poster.

You've turned into a joke.

No doubt because you insist on defending the indefensible.

 

[editec]

Democrats controlled Congress all those years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How were Republicans supposed to control spending, by mental telepathy?

Reagan mentioned Entitlement reform and the LMSM went Batshit crazy on him

Ah yes, they held a gun to Reagan's head the entire time. He didn't have the power to veto it or anything.

How is veto power the same as controlling Congress, I must have missed something?

The dems could not have overrided his vetos.

More to the point the Dems gave Reagan the budget he ASKED for.

EVen more to the point is the fact that some of you apparently fail to realize that these parties have been working on CONCERT in the bankrupting of this nation.

Clinton's (mostly) balnced budget was an anomaly.

But thanks to the fall of the soviet and a bubble, revenues were up and spending down.

The next step was to start paying down the national debt.

Greenspan says in his book that he realized that if America did that the whole system of debt creating money might collapse. (no I don't really understand that either, but that's what he said)

The powers that run this nation do NOT want it out of debt, folks.

Banks make money because of this debt.

A LOT of money.

And money is political power

 

[Samson]

Samson:

Karaagac discussed the conditions that nourished these assumptions and that ended the post WWII compromise between Democrats and Republicans known as the “liberal consensus.” Republicans, until the Reagan Revolution, were silent partners in the Welfare State. Since that time, the programs worked within an expanding economy to increase wealth and economic security, lessen economic shocks caused by unemployment, and expand the middle class. That middle class became more conservative, and economic equality was no longer a pressing concern. Additionally, frustration in the struggles for civil rights and peace led to the rejection of accepted cultrural mores, and when the New Left became more radical, an equally reactionary New Right rose to confront it.
Karaagac, John. Between Promise and Policy: Ronald Reagan and Conservative Reformism. 1st. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2000, 5-6.

You and I both realise that although Karaagac might be a source, we need to seperate his opinion from reality: I.E., "don't believe everything you read."

Let's just take his rather optimistic (some might say "rose-colored"), myoptic comment:

"Since [Post Reagan Revolution], the [Welfare State?] programs worked within an expanding economy to increase wealth and economic security, lessen economic shocks caused by unemployment, and expand the middle class."

Made in 2000, this statement effectively covers a scant 10 years, during an "expanding economy."

I wonder, could the expanding economy, rather than "the programs" have had anything to do with "increased wealth and economic security?" Might "the programs" have been irrelevant?

I don't think so. In my opinion, they added to and augmented the expansion. Meanwhile, they were complementary, and I don't deny that. Investment, research and development, and the growth of industry is important to expand economies, but what fuels the growth (or if it makes more sense, is JUST as important) is people able to purchase goods and services, pay their bills, etc...

Ford was hardly a friend to labor, but he (and many others of the time) saw the very simple fact that sustainability of a market base required keeping that market able to buy. That sustainability kept businesses in business. Today's corporations look at weekly, monthly, quarterly, and at time year end bottom lines instead of what those short term profits cost overall.

Government, in order to balance interests and maintain a sustainable economy must also balance overall costs against the clamor for short term profitability in favor of one sector of the economy.

If they "added to the expansion" then I'd be hard pressed to prove it in light of the alternative, overwhelming evidence of economic growth. Of course, I'd also be hard pressed to disprove it: So, I'll conceed that they may have had some effect, totally disproportionate to their tremendous costs.

Thus the problem with these programs in economic collapse: The cost/benefit ratios become significant. I.E. Who pays for them?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ah yes, they held a gun to Reagan's head the entire time. He didn't have the power to veto it or anything.

How is veto power the same as controlling Congress, I must have missed something?

The dems could not have overrided his vetos.

More to the point the Dems gave Reagan the budget he ASKED for.

EVen more to the point is the fact that some of you apparently fail to realize that these parties have been working on CONCERT in the bankrupting of this nation.

Clinton's (mostly) balnced budget was an anomaly.

But thanks to the fall of the soviet and a bubble, revenues were up and spending down.

The next step was to start paying down the national debt.

Greenspan says in his book that he realized that if America did that the whole system of debt creating money might collapse. (no I don't really understand that either, but that's what he said)

The powers that run this nation do NOT want it out of debt, folks.

Banks make money because of this debt.

A LOT of money.

And money is political power

Also, because when a potential adversary like China is owed billions of dollars, there is less of a chance of them taking aggressive actions against our interests. Debt is used as a tool for peace.

 

[Woyzeck]

How is veto power the same as controlling Congress, I must have missed something?

Was there supposed to be more to your post?

So, Reagan couldn't have possibly done anything to stop the budget. Nothing like vetoing it or anything? It's not like the office of President has that power. It's not a check on the legislative branch or anything.

Again, am I missing something here? You want Reagan, the Executive, to take over the role of Congress?

You realize that's a Monarchy and not a Republic, right?

Again, did you leave anything out of your post or are you intending to turn the President into a Monarch?

Weird, all that sounds like nothing at all what I was saying. I'm not sure how you get monarchy from the veto power the presidents have always had. The power to, y'know, veto bills. If Reagan was so bent on getting a fiscally sound budget he could have... oh I don't know... vetoed the bill?

I never made any mention of Reagan controlling Congress, I simply said he had the power of veto to control spending. But I guess he just wanted to spend 'like a liberal'. Although I think the correct phrase these days is spend 'like a Reagan.'

 

[Paulie]

Why don't we all just man up to the fact that both sides have destroyed the budget at this point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, bullshit.

Republicans were arguing that that Reagan didn't have to cut spending. They were called "Supply-Siders." But it's convenient for Republicans who have deified Reagan to conveniently forget this and re-write history because they have contributed enormously to the budget deficits that they now claim to be so concerned about. The fiscally responsible Republicans were were pushed aside by the All Tax Cuts All the Time wing that has come to dominate the party.

THAT is why Stockman left, not because of Democrats.

So what happened when Regan proposed to cut spending by closing the Department of Education? Did he get that? Did he get ANY Spending cuts by the Dem controlled Congress?

(Hint: NO!)

Please produce a Republican Majority Senate bill from 1981-1987 which sought to abolish the Dept. Of Education.

Thanks.

Right, because Conservatives and Republicans are two different animals and starting in 2010 we're going to school you on the differences

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, Reagan couldn't have possibly done anything to stop the budget. Nothing like vetoing it or anything? It's not like the office of President has that power. It's not a check on the legislative branch or anything.

Again, am I missing something here? You want Reagan, the Executive, to take over the role of Congress?

You realize that's a Monarchy and not a Republic, right?

Again, did you leave anything out of your post or are you intending to turn the President into a Monarch?

Back in the hannity.com days, you were a fairly decent poster.

You've turned into a joke.

No doubt because you insist on defending the indefensible.

First, Hannity Board is for politics for pussies, I haven't looked back and haven't even thought about posting there since I got here.

Second, Reagan was a President and not a Monarch, your remarks still don't acknowledge that at all

Third, what do you think I'm defending? Because he was a great negotiator, Reagan asked for things he knew he'd never get from Congress, but he could claim he "Gave up" in order to get the stuff he knew he could get passed: tax cuts and military build up. Why is that indefensible?

 

[Toro]

I'll be the first to admit that I suck at economics, on such a scale as our Fed.
So, here's my question:
If tax-cats aren't the answer and we don't make enough sustainable revenue from raising taxes, what is the best method for generating black ink?

Its absolute nonsense to say we can't raise taxes enough to pay for the deficit. Federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are 14%, the lowest since 1940.

Now, whether or not you think that's a good thing is another issue. Raising taxes during a recession is bad policy.

Much of the deficit is due to the recession. It is important to note that the last Bush budget generated a $1.4 trillion deficit. Was that Bush's fault? The tax cuts probably contributed ~$200 billion to the deficit, so the answer is "not really." When the economy returns to trend line growth, the deficit will narrow on its own. It won't be eliminated, and the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, or some other form of tax increases should be implemented when trend line growth resumes.

Ultimately, the problem is there is too much spending. We have promised too much to ourselves in terms of social security and medicare. Those programs have to be reformed and benefits will have to be cut. Today, social security recipients receive far more than they paid in, and that includes any compound interest within the social security trust. It will just get worse in the future.

But cutting spending during a recession, just like raising taxes, is bad policy.

Unfortunately, this is a recession unlike any other since WWII, and most closely resembles the Great Depression on the 1930s. This is a recession caused by excessive debt arising from the housing and tech bubbles. What will cure it is time and deleveraging. We are going to have slow growth for years, and thus we are going to have high deficits for years. It doesn't matter who or which party is in power.