In response to:

Why Did America’s Economy Boom When Reagan and Clinton Reduced the Burden of Spending?

James92 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 8:59 AM
NDM, Remember, Clinton didn't increase taxes until near the end of his tenure. Bush 43 inherited that mess. Also during much of the Clinton terms, the Republicans controlled the house, thus leaving much of the long term effects of the Reagan economic policies in place. The people and the country benefited from that. Facts and truth - don't lie.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 7:31 PM
THERE WAS NO SURPLUS under Clinton; Just another liberal lie.
True Conservative! Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 12:53 PM
Another nugget of stupidity so egregious that no amount of mockery will suffice ... js!
jsullivan154 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 9:12 AM
James...The budget surplus was inherited from Clinton....... The mess was inherited from Bush....
Common sense and facts 101. Don't lie
Bush tax cuts mainly for the wealthy at a time of fast and furious economic fleecing of our Banking, Housing and Jobs etc, we are still digging out from is common knowledge??
Turn off fox and friends of misinformation and seek truth? Or balather on showing your ignorance?

Triggered by an appearance on Canadian TV, I asked yesterday why we should believe anti-sequester Keynesians. They want us to think that a very modest reduction in the growth of government spending will hurt the economy, yet Canada enjoyed rapid growth in the mid-1990s during a period of substantial budget restraint.

I make a similar point in this debate with Robert Reich, noting that  the burden of government spending was reduced as a share of economic output during the relatively prosperous Reagan years and Clinton years.