I'll never forgot when, in my first political science college class, my professor (who refuses to identify his political alignment, but I'd guess is a liberteraine) was raging about the ridiculous standards Americans put on their presidents... what they demand their presidents give them, and what they DON'T demand. The economy was a red herring for politicians.

"I mean, honestly, do people really think the president has a big lever in his office that he uses to point to "good economy" when he's gotten some and "bad economy" when the wife makes him sleep on the couch?"

Presidents must enact policies based on economic reality, instead of lunatic-fringe fantasy (i.e., tax cuts increase revenues, deficits don't matter, etc.).

When policy is based on reality, prosperity is much more likely.

revenues. As Casey Stengel used to say, "you could look it up." Start with that icon of liberalism, Jack Kennedy.

The problem is that spending by the government increases even more.

No, in fact they do not. Not in the long term. In the short term tax cuts create a Keynesian stimulus that can end a recession because they pump more money into the economy. The same thing could be achieved by increasing government spending (and more effectively because none of that money is saved). The point is to run a short-term deficit. It doesn't matter how it's done. And you don't want to do it in the long run.

There has never been any evidence that supply-side theory is anything but bunk. It's idealogy, not economics.

If you go from a 90% marginal rate to 30%, my guess is the resulting boom in economic activity will produce more revenue.

If you go from 30% to 29%, my guess is the is no similar effect.

Those two statements are as supported as anything you said, I note.

FACT: The Reagan and Bush II tax cuts have led to the highest deficits on record.

There is a very interesting historical fact--that in modern times, the government's take on the GDP is about 20%--cut tax rates, economy grows, more taxes. Raise rates, the economy slows, same 20%.

and statistics. What you say is not true if you are view the figures based on the size of the economy. A simple example. Mr Smith earns 200,000 a year and has 20 grand in debt. Mr Jones earns 50,000 a year and has 5 grand in debt. They are both 10% of their income in debt. Yes, 20k is greater than 5 K, which is what you are pointing out--and is irrelevant.

What you also fail to mention is that the deficit was far higher during WW2 and until the late 50's than it was when Reagan became president. And yes, they have records for that. You could look it up, if you are really interested.

And you fail to mention that Bush 41 raised taxes--how come the deficit didn't decline, but continued to climb?

did you learn your economics? And were did you learn your history? What do you think becomes of "saved money?" Banks loan it to other people who then either buy stuff with it, or start businesses with it. And the middle man, banks, then have income to invest in the economy.

Keynes recommended deficit financing, but what that basically leads to is inflation/printing money.

And define long term. A hundred years? Twenty? Five? Two?

did you learn your economics?

Some place else other than listening to Rush Limbaugh?

...and "What you say is not true if you are view the figures based on the size of the economy"

What difference does the size of the economy make other than that's the ONLY statistic that supply siders can fit into their warped view of the world?

read about it in some poorly written textbook, or listening to Democrat talking points. I bought my first house during the Carter era, paying 13% interest (and was glad I did, because in 6 mos my friends were getting 18% mortgages). We kept the house at 60 degrees all winter because it was too expensive to heat. I drove a Datsun 210, stick shift, for the gas mileage. It was small, uncomfortable and you timed zero to 60 with a sundial. I remember Carter's malaise, misery index and Democrats telling me that this is as good as it gets.

The Reagan was elected. I was a skeptic, voted for John Anderson the first time around.

Things changed. As I am fond of saying, "you can look it up."

interested in talking points than the truth. Real simple analogy. Family A making 200 k a year (a "big economy") spends 220k per year. If they cut their lifestyle by 10%, they balance the budget.

Family B making 50k a year spends 55k a year. If they cut THEIR lifestyle 10%, they balance their budget.

Now, if family A spends 210k per year, they are able to balance their budget by cutting expenses 5%. Yes, their 10k of deficit is higher than the 5k of family B--but it will take less sacrifice to get there even though the "number" is bigger.

And that's not even accounting for inflation. Since inflation has eroded the present value of the dollar by about 50% since 1985, todays deficits in NON INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars need to be adjusted if you mean to make any meaningful historical comparison.

I bought my first new car in 1973 for 2500 dollars. Care to try that trick today? When I was in high school, gas was 30 cents a gallon. Minimum wage was 2 dollars an hour. And on, and on, and on.

I don't disagree that deficits are unwise in the long run. But I don't care how much or little you earn or tax, if you spend more than you make you go bankrupt. You cannot tax your way to prosperity unless you are willing to cut expenditures.