Gee whiz, Tassie, no one needs "to understand economics...all they have to do is apply logic"--and no one in DC, the media, & the field of academics can do that? But of course you and your bud bud buddies can apply logic without understanding economics and arrive at the one and only truth that all the smart people, especially those in the field of academics, don't know...but you ignoramuses (demonstated by your own statements) do know so well.

Get real. Don't be so obummed out, Tassie. You can make it through 3 more years of Obummer even if you dropped out of academia after one year because you coudn't take it. Or am I being an ass for ASSuming that? I'm joking, Tassie girl--do get a life.

Not nice of me to be like Jack---, but your camp bullied Yvette, in open racist way, and I'm getting back by bullying yoe in open far rightwingnut style. Shame on me--no excuse for me doing that just because your bud-bud-buddies do it also.

Trickle down never worked. Revenues did increase under Reagan, from $559 billion in 1981 to $909 billion in 1988, but spending also increased from about $700 billion in 1981 to $1.4 trillion in 1988. Revenue never made up for the tax cuts Reagan instituted and, besides, he average annual deficits of more than $200 billion in 1983, 1985 and 1986 with annual deficits of more than $150 billion in 1984, 1987 and 1988. The federal debt, which was about $900 billion when he too office, nearly tripod to $1.87 trillion when he left office.

Spending and revenues always increase during a presidential administration-economies grown brining more revenues and inflation creates higher spending levels. Only very recently has spending started to remain flat.

You also forget to note the the price of oil dropped from a high of $78 a barrel in 1979 to $25 a barrel in 1984. The run-up of oil in the 1970s was responsible for inflation (remember Gerald Fords "WIN" buttons? "Whip Inflation Now" Inflation was a problem long before Carter and was fueled by oil prices and a hand's off Fed policy. Reagan appointed a monetary supply manipulator to the Fed to bring inflation down. The result is that people like me with savings get little or no income from those savings. )

Bush I increased annual deficits to about $300 billion during three of the four years he was in office, doubling the national debt to $3.7 trillion when he left office.

Bill Clinton cut annual deficits from $290 billion when he took office to a surplus of $236 billion when he left office.

George W. Bush increased the annual deficits in each year he was in office, from $128 billion to a high of $458 billion while failing to cut spending-the result was a 2.5 increase in the national debt. Bush had six years of a GOP controlled Congress to deal with the deficit, but he didn't. And the true deficits were hidden by keeping the costs of the "War on Terrorism" off-budget, meaning that adds to the total debt accrued under Bush II

The result was that interest on the debt, about $800 billion in 2009, was just slightly less than the entire national debt was in 1980-$950 billion. A breath-taking fact given that alleged fiscal conservatives held the White House for 22 of those 29 years and Republicans held majorities in both house of Congress for 12 of those years and a majority in one house for another 4 years (Reagan's first term, the Senate.) .

In 2008, according to Keynesian economics, the US government should have begun deficit spending, in good health from surplus spending from the relative good economic times of the previous 10 years-but the cupboard was bad.

Revenues in 2009 were poor due to the greatest economic downturn since 1930. Obama increased spending to help ameliorate that downturn, as per Keynesian economic theory. But, he cut spending after a spike in 2009-2010. . Spending in 2009 was 3.517 trillion and $3.537 in 2012.
Revenues have nearly doubled but are not up to the pre-Crash of 2008 levels, Almost, but not quite.

When Democrats make the Republicans look like spendthrifts, you know were in trouble as a nation. the only time deficits have decreased were during Democrat administration. check any source you like, you'll find the figures there in black and white. Giving either party money and power is like giving a teenager keys to the car and a bottle of whiskey. That Democrats do better at driving drunk is a testament not to their policies, but the drunken sailor spending habits, the voodoo economic policies (as Bush I called Reagan's economic policies) and general reckless stewardship of the Federal Treasury.

Again, you failed to do your homework or are purposely twisting facts. I doubt that your NJ property taxes doubled-unless you had a reassessment. And, beside, the state has little if anything to do about your property taxes, at least in New Jersey. Yet you failed to grasp that or intentionally hid it.


YOu also somehow say "Keynesian economics can no longer work in America because we borrow money and spend it on Chinese goods" You are mixing up personal debt in the Us with the federal debt. The US government doesn't buy stuff from China-mmost military hardware is made in the Us and the rest of it is spend on services and programs here in the US. Only a tiny sliver goes to foreign aid and none of that aid goes to China. Again, you are flailing are straws.


Besides, every president since Nixon, Republican and Democrat has promoted the 'globalized economy" that has stripped the US of it's industrial base and shipped it overseas to China, India, etc. Somehow Germany was able to avoid that tragedy. But here, it's been the only bi-partisan policy that has had little debate on the federal level.

And so what-Clinton was governor of a state with it's fair share of bigots and had a bigoted predecessor who endorsed him. Nationally, the only way Democrats could fight the southern strategy started by Nixon in 1972 and carried on until today is by nominating southern candidates. Clinton is a good 'ol boy, Bubba, who pulled the Democratic Party rightward with the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1992, Tyson Food supported Clinton while Archer Daniel Midland supported Dole. That's the definition of diversity in politics today-what multi-national support which candidate. Please rise for your corporate anthem..

Overspending is not a measure of supply side economics. The deficits run in the 80s are not relevant to the growth of federal revenue. Revenue did in fact double as you admit so supply side worked.

You apparently are confused about the affect of inflation on savings. It eats away at the value of dollars held. The only way to combat this is to lower inflation or invest investments that benefit from inflation like real estate.

Bill Clinton fought tooth and nail against balancing the budget . In fact Newt rejected 7 Non Balanced Clinton budgets before shutting down government and forcing a balanced budget. But you already know this yet still persist in giving Clinton credit? The budget battles of the mid to late 90s are widely documented. Stop being dishonest.

Inflation spiked after the Arab Oil embargo. Then it dropped from double digit to 5.8 in 1976. Under Carter it went up again to 13.5%

Obama has wasted more money than any President proving Keynes wrong. How much more will he piss away?

I have asked you many times to describe how Southern Strategy was deployed? We already know that LBJ made some very racist comments about how the Dems would keep the black vote for 100 years. His Great Society vote buying scheme which is still used by Democrats today