Th fact that they are worried, very worried!, should suggest to you that they think the chance is significantly greater than zero. You both can't be right. One of you is obviously wrong, and I think I know which.
A Sanders nomination would be a wet dream come true for the Republicans, no matter who the GOP nominee is.
Reagan's policies were in part responsible for massive wealth generation that bolstered the working class as well for about 20 years. if you are concerned about the 1986 balancing that was also democrat policy. and if you are concerned about tax receipts... they went up massively after his tax cuts... $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988 -- If you want to rip on republicans - feel free rip on the establishment republicans and democrats but don't misrepresent what tax cuts did for our economy and those working in it. We lived it. It was very good for a while. I was making a thousand dollars a week teaching tennis as 21 and 22 (112 grand a year today.) year old in back then. The economy was smoking good because of lowered taxes and deregulation. People were making cash... and the irony was that hollywood was trying to make fun of republicans but Alex P. Keaton was loved because the economy was kicking ass.
"Prof. John Maynard Keynes in 1920 wrote that you cannot have economic growth without inequality." Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_not_as_bad_as_you_think_.html#ixzz41a1WOtfv How obviously right he was. And to the extent we've had economic growth in the US, it's directly because of republican policies. You are correct about that. If democrats had their way, we could flush economic growth down the toilet. But at least we'd get rid of inequality, which to some people is even worse than a depression.
What growth? http://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
Because of his "weaponized Keynesianism". His reckless spending, which frightened even his own party, made the country a debtor nation (to the Chinese) for the first time in its history.
Whenever an entity making a GDP arguments... puts the words "Real" in front of the numbers... you know they can make anything they wish happen by playing with the the rate of inflation they employ. You have to be very careful when examining such arguments. Its much better to look at the actual numbers for comparison sake.... and then if necessary factor in inflation in your own mind. for instance if you look at the actual GDP numbers at the time... you have to realize they were a very impressive move out of negative territory in 1982. If you look at GDP numbers after the recession and the tax cuts... Starting with 1983... they were large. 4.6, 7.3, 4.2, 3.5, 3.5, 4.2 http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=5 The large economic expansion is part of the reason tax receipts went up even though tax rates were cut dramatically. I think the top bracket had been 70 percent before Reagan cut it to 50 percent and then 28%.
congress kept spending and to be fair.. .his updating the military and spending on star wars... did largely contribute to the fall of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe. so I understand why you dislike him so.
Overall, between 1981 and 1989, real GDP per capita increased by nearly 23%; in the same span of time, the value of the stock market more than tripled.20 http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html