If you dig into the numbers, you'd see your view is all wrong. The national debts increase during Reagan and Bush (Sr. and 43) years had little to do with tax cuts, but more to do with spending increase. In fact, Tax revenue INCREASED during Reagan years after the tax cut. It is the crazy spending with all the useless program that's causing this debt situation.
First, the revenue thing is really hard to say, since Reagan presided over the LARGEST TAX INCREASES as well as his original massive tax cuts. Republicans do want to forget that part of Reagan's legacy, but unfortunately for them, it is what Reagan did!
Second, here is what the data say on revenue and spending as percent GDP during the 80s (I know you are a conservative, you don't like seeing facts and data, but please humor me):
Year GDP Rev as % Spending as
1980 2,724.2
19.0 21.7
1981 3,057.0
19.6 22.2
1982 3,223.7 19.2 23.1
1983 3,440.7 17.5 23.5
1984 3,844.4 17.3 22.2
1985 4,146.3 17.7 22.8
1986 4,403.9 17.5 22.5
1987 4,651.4
18.4 21.6
1988 5,008.5
18.2 21.3
1989 5,399.5
18.4 21.2
1990 5,734.5
18.0 21.9
At the beginning of the 80s, Revenue is 19.0% of GDP; at the end, it is 18.0%!!! And mid-80s don't even crack 18%!!! So much for "tax cuts increasing revenue". Perhaps it was Reagan's tax increases that killed the revenue explosion that Laffer curve zealots expected
Spending, on the other hand, is lower as %GDP at the end of the 80s than the beginning of the 80s: 1980 was 21.7%, 87-89 were lower than that! 90 was just 0.2% higher, which is still lower than 1981.
Sorry dude, saint Ronny's voodoo economics didn't bring the revenues you are brain washed to believe it did
Most economist would agree that long term effect of tax increase is highly unpredictable, it is as likely to hurt tax receipt as help.
Source please, I'd like to see who these "most" economists are, unless you are purely making shit up. Perhaps they are the same ones that never told you Reagan increased taxes or his tax cuts didn't really grow revenues. Are those "economists" called Hannity or Limbaugh by any chance?
All these revoking tax cut/increasing tax for the rich are not based on factual data, it's purely political ideology.
Take your own medicine much?
For good comparison, here are the 90s:
1991 5,930.5 17.8 22.3
1992 6,242.0 17.5 22.1
1993 6,587.3 17.5 21.4
1994 6,976.6 18.0 21.0
1995 7,341.1 18.4 20.6
1996 7,718.3 18.8 20.2
1997 8,211.7 19.2 19.5
1998 8,663.0 19.9 19.1
1999 9,208.4 19.8 18.5
2000 9,821.0 20.6 18.2
Didn't evil sexual deviant Clinton raise taxes? Seems like revenue went up constantly every year after 1993! (little blip in 99). And that tax-and-spend liberal's spending is 4% lower! at the end of his term. It must be the Newt Gingrich revolution really reigning in the spend and showing Clinton the way -- too bad those good Republicans lost their way in the 2000s, with W's and Rove's compassionate conservatism and borrow-and-spend logic
I am sorry if I am giving you too many facts and data. I know conservatives are allergic to facts, and I don't mean to make your brain-washed head explode. I hope you learned something today, though: don't make shit up if it can be looked up easily