But glad you now recognize that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. (thank you Bush tax cuts)
How about let's just use numbers and not partisan blather?
What you say is true...and also not a whole truth.
Numbers and percentages are
Federal Revenues relative to GDP
1981, Reagan - 19%
*tax cuts*
1983, Reagan - 17% (low of revenue)
1987, Reagan - 18% (height of revenue)
*growing deficit at the height of growth and federal revenue*
*revenues flatline at 17%
until 1995*
2001, Bush 20% -
*tax cuts*
*Tech bubble bursts*
*9/11*
2003, Bush 16% -
more *tax cuts*
2004, Bush 16% (low of revenue)
2007, Bush 18% (height of revenue)
*growing deficit at the height of growth and federal revenue*
Both cases, twenty years apart, demonstrate the exact same thing.
Supply side economics does two things.
A) Creates revenue shortages, followed by revenue growth.
B) Leads to growing deficits because the cost of desired Govt is too high.
FTR, this is why Republicans (as Romney does) use 18% as the ideal number.
Currently it is at 15%, projected to get to 18% by '13 and 19% by '15.
From 1997-1999, the budget was balanced, and the number was 19%.
With entitlement costs rising, and defense costs going nowhere (don't allow yourself to be fooled by false 'cuts') then that number - objectively and demonstrably needs to be at least 19%, if not 20% heading into the future.
And this is why Republicans, both out of office or choosing not to run again, on at least three different commissions, have all said the same thing. Cuts and revenue increases.
Supply-side economics works if you can reduce the cost of Government...but you can't. Not even Bush with his Republican Congress from '01 to '07 managed to do it. Why? Because they want to stay in office (another term limit argument of mine!
)
Reagan and W Bush both had growing deficits precisely because the stark reality is that they can't generate enough revenues using supply-side for the Govt that the people desire.
And they all know this. But that doesn't stop them from using it as a tool to continue to convince people to vote against their best interests.
I'd be all for supply-side if it made mathematical sense.
I do believe we should keep taxes as low as possible...I think Clinton had it about right. Which is why he is easily the most fiscally conservative President of recent memory. Imagine that.
Numbers taken from here:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2015USp_F0f