Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See
Did Reaganomics Work?
- FY 1989 - $255 billion.
- FY 1988 - $252 billion.
- FY 1987 - $225 billion.
- FY 1986 - $297 billion.
- FY 1985 - $256 billion.
- FY 1984 - $195 billion.
- FY 1983 - $235 billion.
- FY 1982 - $144 billion.
Hey, Bosephus, lol. Did the income to the treasury rise or not.........that is the only question. What they spent is NOT important. You are the quintessential phony-baloney. Saying that they spent MORE has nothing to do with how much they took in. You are a MARXIST, no doubt, and a Stalinist to boot!
here ya go dipshit ..
Cost of Tax Cuts as a Percentage of GDP
According to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO, the Bush tax cut is projected to amount to 1.5 percent of GDP in 2010.
(11) These figures should be compared to an adjusted Reagan tax cut of 2.1 percent of GDP.
The Bush tax cut thus is not that much smaller than the adjusted Reagan tax cut. The Bush tax cut would cost 1.5 percent of GDP in 2010; the adjusted Reagan tax cuts cost about 2.1 percent of GDP. The Bush tax cut appears to be only modestly smaller than the Reagan tax cuts, amounting to more than 70 percent of the cost of the adjusted Reagan tax cut, rather than being a small fraction of the Reagan tax cut.
Table 2
Percentage of GDP
ERTA 1981 5.6%
Minus: 40 percent adjustment for impact of inflation on baseline 2.2%
Equals: ERTA cost against indexed baseline 3.4%
Minus: TEFRA 1982 increase 1.2%
Equals: Net cost of Reagan tax cuts (as % of GDP) 2.1%
```````````````
The Legacy of the Reagan Tax Cut
Even if the Bush tax cut represented only a modest proportion of the properly measured Reagan tax cut, the basic logic of the comparison would be problematic. The Reagan tax cut does not represent a valid basis for evaluating what size tax cut is fiscally responsible.
Even with the subsequent tax increase in 1982, the 1981 tax cut imposed a damaging fiscal legacy on the nation. The unified budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980 to $221 billion in 1986 and a peak of $290 billion in 1992. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit (adjusted for the economy's business cycle) rose from 0.7 percent in 1980 to a peak of 4.8 percent in 1986.
Some advocates for the Bush tax proposal have argued that the Reagan tax cuts were not a cause of the large budget deficits during the 1980s. Rather, they argue, the problem arose because of large spending increases. This argument is not supported by the evidence. CBO produces estimates of revenues and outlays that adjust for the state of the business cycle. These figures indicate that, adjusted for the state of the business cycle, revenue fell from 19.4 percent of GDP in 1981 to 16.9 percent of GDP in 1986 and 17.3 percent in 1987. Outlays rose from 19.9 percent of GDP in 1981 to 21.7 percent in 1986 and 20.6 percent in 1987. Between 1981 and 1987, revenues fell three times as much as a percentage of GDP as spending increased. (Revenues declined by 2.1 percent of GDP while outlays increased by 0.7 percent of GDP.) Furthermore, all of the increase in outlays relative to GDP was due to interest outlays, which themselves mostly reflected the tax cuts. Excluding interest, outlays actually fell: Non-interest outlays fell from 19.7 percent of GDP in 1981 to 19.4 percent in 1986 and 18.8 percent in 1987. These data clearly demonstrate that the Reagan tax cuts played a substantial role in the budget deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s
The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01
bite my butt.
