A look backward to May, 2003 with an article by Robert Freeman.

[elocs]

Considering our current fiscal and economic meltdown it helps to look at some words from nearly 7 years ago and to examine the roots of what got us to this calamity. Perhaps we can learn from history, but the mindless teabaggers and their ilk never will. I hope we will be left with something when it is finished, but it may take a generation to recover from this if we ever do. I fear that I may be living in what will one day be described as the decline and eventual fall of the United States of America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

First we have the Eistein quote about how insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results and a look back upon Reagan's supply side economics theory:

Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent for the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich. Stockman was quickly dismissed.

The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic.

Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion. Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second deficit exploded to $208 billion. By the time the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an annual deficit of $290 billion per year.

Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office, it had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled it in the next 12 years.

Contrast this with the actions of Bill Clinton:

Is there anything to compare this to? When Bill Clinton took office he intentionally reversed the Supply Side formula, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them on the lowest wage earners. Supply Side true believers predicted the arrival of the Apocalypse. Bob Dole said the stock market would collapse. Newt Gingrich said the world would fall into another Great Depression.

What actually happened?

Between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years.

Real interest rates fell by over 40% producing the greatest housing boom ever. Overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations. Most impressively, Clinton reversed the mammoth deficits of the Supply Side years, turning them into surpluses. He used these surpluses to begin paying down the national debt.

By virtually every meaningful measure-employment, growth, inflation, interest rates, investment, deficits and debt-the economy performed better once the Supply Side experiment was terminated and replaced with a more honest economic policy where we actually pay our bills as we go.

What did Bush proceed to do with the strong economy he inherited?

This might all be ancient history if the spectre of Supply Side economics had not reared its ugly head again once Bush II took office. In selling his $1.6 trillion tax cut-half of which went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans-Bush promised in 2001 that it would produce 800,000 new jobs. In fact, the economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since Bush took office, again, the worst economic performance since the Great Depression.

The effects of Bush's tax cut on the deficit and debt are exactly what we would expect having seen Reagan's results-only worse. Bush inherited from Clinton a fiscal surplus of $127 billion. In his first year he turned that into a deficit of $158 billion. In this, his second year, he will run a deficit of over $400 billion-a swing to the worse of over $600 billion in only two years.

Now Bush has sold us on still another megadose of this same Supply Side voodoo. Two thirds of his new $350 billion tax cut will go to the top 10% of income earners. Bush's Congressional ally, Tom DeLay, promises more such cuts for every year Bush is in office.

The long term effects of these policies are profoundly damaging. When Bush took office, the government's ten year surplus was forecast to total $5.6 trillion. This was critical to building fiscal soundness as the Baby Boomers begin to retire.

Bushco and his cohorts raided and raped our treasury and economy and gutted our financial future and inheritance to the point where it may never recover. It's likely that history has never seen a theft of this magnitude.

Doesn't President Obama wish he had the economy that Bush inherited from Clinton. But then it is no accident that Republicans seem to want to bury the nation in debt, all the while claiming that they are fiscally conservative. What a con job. One reason the Republicans likely pile up the national debt and reward the rich is so that when a Democrat takes the presidency they will need to first have to battle a huge budget deficit and federal debt and so that the Democrats cannot institute any social reform policies. Unfortunately they have been very successful at this.

[zbdent]

1. "Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion" ... AND

Reagan's hand-picked man ran the numbers through every scenario he could to prove Reagan's policies would have been better than Carter's ...

and he couldn't avoid the realization that Carter's plans would have reduced the deficit, or at least the deficit would have been significantly smaller than Reagan's ...

[BeFree]

2. Simply put

Reagan borrowed 200 billion dollars and paid interest on that money to rich people who loaned the US the money.

The rich people who loaned the money made out like bandits.