Statistics can be fun. Understanding what they mean is a completely different story.
Sure, I can do that. Bush II is easy, we'll save him for last. Reagan was the first. He wanted to reduce taxes; his was the economic plan/vision the Democrats called "voodoo economics." Regan's own economic advisers didn't use that term, though some -- notably David Stockman -- did call them "stupid."
A good summary can be found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
In then end, money didn't trickle down to the middle and lower classes, but the rich did get richer. As Max Smart was wont to say, "Sorry about that."
While cutting the revenue side by lowering taxes, Regan embarked on a strong increase in spending, mainly on the defense/military front. In effect, he defeated the Soviet Union by getting them to play "spend more to keep up military." Rather stupidly, the Soviets played along, so the U.S. bankrupt the Soviet government. A successful tactic, if one could recognize it as such, and then, having achieved the objective, back off & pay down the debt necessary to achieve the goal.
Of course, that didn't happen. Bush the first added to he debt. In fairness, he tried to raise taxes (revenues), but was rather severely handled by the Republican faithful for the effort. Debt wasn't brought down until the Clinton administration. Using skewered logic, some Republicans claim credit for that.
Now I'm one of the people who felt Bush II was too dumb to offer much of a threat. Regardless of where you come down on the man personally, I & others forgot he had friends, just like Warren Harding (go look him up). While there was no Teapot Dome ripoffs, the military contractor friends & political allies involved with Bush II were successful in their attempt to influence him, and wound up doing rather well, financially.
The problem with them doing rather well -- by getting spending up -- was that Bush II cut taxes even further than Regan. I'm pretty sure he's the only American President who went to war & didn't raise taxes. Certainly no one else went to war and lowered taxes. So after ripping through the surpluses from the Clinton years, Bush II just borrowed. And borrowed. The party faithful and the wealthy were still happy -- they had lower taxes.
And the schemers like Rove were probably happy too. Clearly the Republicans would be out after Bush II. The Democrat administration that followed would inherit that debt, and have to deal with it. Moreover, the Republicans could hammer at them to "reduce spending because the debt's so high." And reducing spending would men the Democrats couldn't get anything much done, especially on the social front, so would in turn be vulnerable in the subsequent election. Any social programs -- Democratic mainstays -- could be labeled "unaffordable." (Never mind that the debt was occasioned by defense spending, not social programs.)
Do I think Obama care is the answer? Of course not. We need a single payer system -- because the problem with health care in the U.S. is the costs, not who pays. Apparently only the Federal Government is big enough to get the "negotiated rates" where we can afford heath care. We pay tens to hundreds of times more than the rest of the world for exactly the same medicines (no, I'm not just talking about "generics") and procedures.
It didn't have to be that way, but that's what happens when a group gets greedy, and we as a people let them get away with it. They get big and powerful enough, it takes someone equally large to put a stop to it.
Edit
(from a long article in the
NYT entitled "The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath" Sunday, October 13, 2013):
“The one that really blew my mind was the nasal spray,” said Robin Levi, Hannah and Abby’s mother, referring to her $80 co-payment for Rhinocort Aqua, a prescription drug that was selling for more than $250 a month in Oakland pharmacies last year but costs under $7 in Europe, where it is available over the counter.
* * *
We're doing the same thing with education, by the way.
Most everyone agrees that increasing the education -- the knowledge base -- of our populace is our only out; to (1) address the cycle of poverty & welfare, and more importantly, (2) to be able to compete with the lower wages of manufacturers overseas.
Not to mention the beginning of lower manufacturing costs via reduction in wages within the U.S. by robotic technology. Currently, a robot with a 2.5-year lifespan, that can completely replace a warehouse worker, costs about $32,000. Y'all can figure out what robots
don't need that humans do, and you can divide $32,000 by 2.5 for an annual cost... And robots will get cheaper...
So, who's winning on the education front? Well, the bankers are getting richer...
Interpreting the data is just no fun at all. Maybe Tea-Party Republicans should be allowed only the health services available to the founding fathers. The rest of us, Independents & Democrats, get what's available now. We sure do live in different worlds.