A Real Lockbox for Social Security

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2000, no money was borrowed from SS, and the rest of the government ran a $87 billion surplus (for a total surplus of around $240 billion). Too bad such a fiscally irresponsible President got elected. Now we are running $600 billion deficits, which include borrowing the $150-160 billion a year SS surplus.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about 1993-1997?

Yeah, it took a while to balance the budget after the fiscally irresponsible Reagan and Bush Sr. adminstrations, particularly because of the former. Democrats always have to clean up Republican's messes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess you missed the balanced budget standoff.

The '80s deficits were caused by an unexpected, drastic slowdown in the rate of inflation, which caused Congress to spend more money than it took in. Those deficits were also smaller than FDR's deficits.

Democrats in Congress actually approved larger budgets than Reagan proposed.

Blaming the large deficits on a decrease in inflation is one of the lamest excuses I've ever heard. A decrease in inflation decreases the interest payments on the debt.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Which is obviously more than offset when money is appropriated for each year based on expected inflation.

Reagan actually proposed smaller budgets than the Democrats in Congress enacted.

Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace after the Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes.

Huge dents in defense spending were fine for the '90s. Wasn't an option in the '80s, and isn't now.

The main cause of the deficits was large tax cuts and increased military spending. What's you're arguing about is probably just a few billion dollars, basically rounding errors.

Why was military so important then? In 1980, Senator Monyihan said "The USSR will fall in 10 years". It turned out everyone (except Senator Monyihan) vastly over-estimated the power of the USSR.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There were three primary causes: (1) a large and sustained defense build-up; (2) the unexpected rapid decline in inflation; and (3) the recession in the early 1980s.

You like selectively ignoring facts. The GOP-Clinton budget standoff is one of them.

The fact that federal revenues grew at a faster rate after the Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes is another.

I'm the one ignoring the facts? Reagan's tax cut cost the treasury a huge amount of money.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Tax revenues almost doubled due to economic growth under Reagan. So yes, you're ignoring facts, as usual.

Thanks to inflation, population growth, and that he was President for 8 years, and had an above average economy for being a Republican (still sh**tty compared to a Democrat).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, and it didn't double. That's BS.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, population growth and inflation do not explain the doubling of revenues. Again, you ignore that revenues grew at a faster rate after the Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes.

He had a better economy than any Democrat except Kennedy/Johnson.

1980: 517.1
1989: 991.2

Reagan was President for 8 years, not 9. Quite a lot of that doubling of revenues is from inflation and population growth.

JFK + LBJ 1962(no data for 1961)-1969 almost doubled
Nixon+Ford 1969-1977 almost doubled
Reagan 1981-1989 increase of about 66%
Clinton 1993-2001 probably would have doubled without the Bush tax cut