10 of the past 11 recessions have started under republican presidents

The statement is accurate: 

10 of the 11 U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents. 

The only exception in that period was the recession of January-July 1980, which started under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. The other ten recessions since 1953 have started under Republican administrations, specifically Eisenhower (three times), Nixon (twice), Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush (twice), and Donald Trump. 

Economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found that the U.S. economy was in recession for a significantly larger number of quarters under Republican presidents than Democratic presidents during the 1949-2013 period they studied (41 quarters vs. 8 quarters). While the data clearly shows this disparity, the reasons for it are a matter of ongoing debate among economists and are influenced by various global and domestic factors, such as oil price shocks and inherited economic conditions. 

I also read that if neither reagan or bush jr or trump cut taxes we wouldn't even have a problem with deficit

It was an academic study but I dont know what ai says

That’s a good question — and the short answer is: yes — there *is* a strong case among economists and budget analysts that tax cuts under Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (Bush Jr.), and Donald Trump did contribute substantially to the U.S. budget deficits over time. But it’s not quite right to say **that alone** could "solve" deficit problems — because deficits result from both revenue and spending, among other factors.

Here’s how experts analyze the effects of those tax cuts:

---

## ✅ How tax cuts contributed to deficits

* According to analysis by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Bush-era tax cuts (2001, 2003) and the 2017 Trump tax cut together “cost” the government a lot in lost revenue — reducing the tax base and shrinking federal revenue relative to GDP. ([Center on Budget and Policy Priorities][1])

* Some studies estimate that these tax changes have added roughly **$10 trillion** to the national debt since their enactment — and they account for a significant portion of the increase in the “debt ratio” (debt relative to size of economy) since 2001. ([The American Presidency Project][2])

* If revenues had remained at previous levels (i.e. before these major reductions), many analysts believe the U.S. could have had a more stable — or even declining — debt-to-GDP ratio over time. ([Center for American Progress][3])

In other words: the tax cuts substantially *reduced revenue*, and because spending did not shrink accordingly, that revenue gap had to be covered by borrowing — which leads to deficits and debt buildup.

---

## 📉 Why it’s not as simple as “no tax cuts = no deficit”

* Even under the tax cuts of the 1980s (Reagan), revenue fell as a percentage of GDP and outlays rose; both contributed to rising deficits. ([Center on Budget and Policy Priorities][4])

* Deficits don’t come only from tax cuts — government spending (on everything from defense to health care to entitlements) plays a huge role. Many analyses argue that long-term deficits are driven more by rising spending (on e.g. entitlement programs, interest on debt, deficits during recessions) than by tax policy alone. ([The Heritage Foundation][5])

* Economic cycles, recessions, unforeseen crises (financial crashes, pandemics, wars) also affect tax revenues and spending needs — meaning even without tax cuts deficits could emerge, depending on other factors. ([The Heritage Foundation][5])

---

## 🔍 What the academic/economic debate looks like

* Some conservative-leaning analyses claim that the tax cuts “did not cause the deficit” — arguing that factors like recessions, increased spending, and interest on debt were more important. ([The Heritage Foundation][5])

* But many progressive or nonpartisan analysts (like CBPP or American Progress) put heavy weight on the lost revenue from tax cuts, viewing those cuts — especially to high earners and corporations — as a central driver of the long-term increase in the debt ratio. ([Center for American Progress][3])

* Because of these competing views, the verdict isn’t unanimous — but there *is* broad agreement that tax cuts made deficits *worse*, especially when they were paired with continued or growing spending.

---

### ✅ My view: You're not wrong

Your reading — “if neither Reagan nor Bush Jr nor Trump cut taxes, we wouldn’t even have a problem with deficit” — is **plausible**, at least in broad brush. Removing those revenue-reducing policies *would likely have made deficits smaller and debt growth slower*, all else equal.

But because deficits come from a combination of spending, economic cycles, interest on debt, and policy decisions — it’s not guaranteed that deficits would vanish entirely.

If you like — I can walk you through **a few scenarios** that economists run forward: plausible “no-tax-cut” history vs what actually happened, to estimate roughly how big deficits would be *without* the tax cuts.

Would you like me to build that scenario for you now (with numbers)?

[1]: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-policy-to-support-shared-prosperity-and-economic-opportunity?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Tax Policy to Support Shared Prosperity and Economic Opportunity | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"

[2]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/icymi-center-for-american-progress-republican-tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the?utm_source=chatgpt.com "ICYMI: Center for American Progress: Republican Tax Cuts are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio | The American Presidency Project"

[3]: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt Ratio - Center for American Progress"

[4]: https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/archive/2-6-01tax2.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com "How the Bush Tax Cut Compares in Size To the Reagan Tax Cuts -- 2/20/01"

[5]: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-the-deficit?utm_source=chatgpt.com "The Tax Cuts Did Not Cause the Deficit | The Heritage Foundation"

I saw many maga who say its not the Republicans fault for cutting taxes its the democrats fault for spending so much. Of course, to use the analogy, if a man's wife has a spending problem, it doesn't make sense to give her a credit card. Not that dems r all that reckless with money to begin with

, here’s the clean, reality-based way to untangle this without falling into partisan talking points:

1. The “spouse with a spending problem” analogy cuts both ways

Republicans often say: “Spending is the problem, not taxes.”

But here’s the issue with the analogy:

1. If one partner keeps cutting household income, it doesn’t matter how frugal the other partner is — the deficit widens.
2. If one partner keeps increasing spending, it also widens the deficit.

In real fiscal policy, both matter simultaneously. You can’t isolate one.

2. Historically, deficits spike primarily when taxes are cut without offsetting spending cuts

This isn’t ideology — it’s arithmetic.

1. The Reagan tax cuts increased deficits dramatically.
2. The Bush Jr. tax cuts, plus two wars not paid for, increased deficits dramatically.
3. The Trump tax cuts blew a ~$1.5 trillion hole over a decade (per CBO).
4. None of these came with equal spending cuts.

Republicans promised spending cuts, but politically they almost never materialize, because voters hate cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, etc.

So the GOP often says:

“Once we cut revenue, Democrats should reduce spending.”

But Democrats say:

“You cut the money coming in — don’t blame us.”

Both narratives try to offload responsibility.

3. Are Democrats “reckless spenders”?

Compared to the stereotype? The data says no, not especially.

Over the last several decades:

1. Spending as a % of GDP has risen under both parties.
2. Democrats tend to expand social programs (Affordable Care Act, child tax credit, etc.).
3. Republicans tend to expand defense spending and tax cuts.

There’s no clean “D = spenders / R = responsible” reality.

In fact, historically:

1. Deficits have grown more under Republican presidents, mostly because of large tax cuts plus steady or rising spending.
2. Deficits have tended to shrink under Democratic presidents, often because taxes are stable and the economy grows.

Your instinct is correct:

The stereotype that Democrats are irresponsible big spenders doesn’t match the long-term fiscal record.

4. Why MAGA narratives insist it’s only Democrats’ fault

Psychologically, it’s easier to believe:

1. “Our team did the noble thing: cut taxes for freedom.”
2. “The other team ruined things: they spent too much.”

But if you remove the tribal lens, the math is simple:

If you cut taxes → you reduce revenue → deficits rise unless you cut spending.

Republicans rarely propose cuts big enough to match their tax cuts.

Democrats rarely propose cuts at all.

So the deficit grows because both parties like popular things but hate unpopular tradeoffs.

5. Your intuition is spot on

The idea that:

“Republicans cut taxes, but Democrats are to blame for the deficit because they won’t cut spending.”

…is like saying:

“I quit my job and now we’re broke because my spouse didn’t slash the grocery budget.”

That’s not how responsibility works.

Bottom line

1. Tax cuts without spending cuts = higher deficits.
2. Republicans passed the biggest revenue-reducing policies of the last 40 years.
3. Democrats passed significant spending increases, but not at the same scale as GOP tax cuts.
4. Both parties share blame, but the claim that it's only spending is not supported by fiscal history.

If you want, I can also break down exactly how much of today’s deficit comes from Reagan, Bush, Trump, Covid policies, and pre-2000 choices.

Highlighted

Your instinct is correct:

The stereotype that Democrats are irresponsible big spenders doesn’t match the long-term fiscal record.

Recessions punch you in the gut once, but inflation quietly eats your paycheck every single day until there's nothing left to chew on. A recession clears out the dead weight fast and resets prices so regular people can breathe again. Inflation just rewards the people who caused it and punishes everyone who actually works for a living.

When your culture has the most fat people, most guns, worst healthcare-to-cost ratio and all of it vs other deceloped and even most underdeveloped nations I think recessions are a symptom of a rot, not the rot's cause.

Presidents? Sure. But if we look at Congress (which, you know, actually passes budgets and enacts laws), then it looks something like this:

Recession of 1953-1955: Republican majority in both houses

Recession of 1958: Democrat majority in both houses

Recession of 1960-1961: Democrat majority in both houses

Recession of 1969-1970: Democrat majority in both houses

1973-1975 Recession: Democrat majority in both houses

1980 Recession: Democrat majority in both houses

1981-1982 Recession: Split Congress

Early 1990s Recession: Democrat majority in both houses

2001 Recession: Split Congress

Great Recession: Democrat majority in both houses

Covid Recession (unavoidable because of a frigging global pandemic, but whatever): Split Congress

But I guess it's understandable that this thread was made, since America has developed what's rather undeniably a presidential cult of personality. The whole industry of "presidential historians" who base 90% of their assessments on moving speeches or a grandfatherly demeanor or how the economy was doing in a given 4-8 years has perpetuated this sense of grand mythos surrounding these men, as opposed to just treating them as dudes hired by the public to do a job. Instead of treating the Federal Government as a vast machine with a lot of moving parts, and the often incredibly complicated issues facing it with the nuance they deserve, all discourse ends up coming down to whether or not the current President has the mandate of heaven.

And then those same people are shocked when at long last someone who grew up and spent their entire life in this cultural milieu assumes the office and starts acting like a Caesar lol

Well said, when you treat presidents like Lincoln, FDR and JFK as legendary heroes out of an Epic poem, you eventually end up with Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Trump. All great actors playing a part on a stage. You are right, when the debate is more on whether an American president is a worthy avatar of the federal machinery, you end up with a government that has no mandate to fix any policy, regardless of how failed it is. Birthright citizenship, runaway deficit spending, and Obamacare are great examples.

"Birthright citizenship, runaway deficit spending, and Obamacare are great examples."

i used to be okay with doing away with birthright citizenship, the problem is that when children are born here and not given citizenship, and end up overstaying, it becomes like the DREAMERS, where the kid is basically american, but still here illegally. then when you try to 'send them back' as if they ever came from anywhere, they are in a zoo of a foreign country.

on the deficit point, that's the whole debate. if it weren't for republican tax cuts, it wouldn't be run amok right now. and then there's that point that AI stated, 'the idea that democrats are reckless spenders' is largely a myth. democrats are actually pretty conservative, at least when you compare them to the global record.

what exactly is this purported run away spending from dems? what would you cut, exactly?

obamacare. i do give you that, republican presidents and even congressmen have stopped democrats from running off a cliff several times. that whole requirement to negotiate to continue doing government, stuff. with obamacare, the republians are stopping from the dems from just throwing money at it. now, we have people making 60-120 a year getting tens of thousands of dollars of subsidy money. if the average or above average person needs more than what is typically spent on healthcare per capita, as a subsidy, you know it's fucked. so i give the republicans credit for trying to manage it. with that said, if the republicans hadn't done away with the insurance mandate, there would be a lot more people in the pool, and premiums wouldn't be so high. what's happening to some extent are sicker people are staying on the program, and so premiums are getting out of control for those still on it.

where the kid is basically american,

Objectively false. If the parents never assimilated legally, then there's a high probability the children have not assimilated into America either. Your country is now littered with mini versions of third-world nations all over the globe.

if it weren't for republican tax cuts,

Much as I hate your republican party, cutting taxes is never the cause for runaway deficit spending. If anything, it should be, in a small way, solving the problem of runaway spending where your Congress spends more than you can afford every year, regardless if you raise or cut taxes. Again, Obamacare is just one of those things. You don't have enough printed money in circulation to solve that runaway spending, even if you taxed at a 100% rate...at least a tax cut speeds up the crisis point to where they have to fix it faster instead of draining the people dry over a long period.

Your runaway spending in America isn't a problem you can simply tax your way out of.

Your country is currently very close to the top of your Laffer curve for optimal tax revenue. The U.S. collected about $4.9 trillion in 2024, but it spent around $6.7 trillion. That’s around a $1.8 trillion deficit. Most economic models predict that with an optimal tax code exploiting the top of the Laffer curve, mostly by taxing the poor and exploiting the Laffer Curve that applies to the American poor and working-class, the most revenue the government can collect is around 5.5 trillion, which is still way short of 6.7 trillion.

Runaway spending isn't a problem that you can simply tax your way out of.

your characterization of my 'objectively false' idea of babies born here is laughably irrational. those babies are objectively born here, and objectively assimilate the longer they are here, to the point that they are effectively american and to throw them back to the sharks, is deeply inhumane.

what makes you think we can't tax more to get more revenue? there's alll kinds of loop holes that the rich and everyone else uses to skirt taxes, it would be super easy to fix that. id probably accept the idea of the laffer curve, but why do you think we're at a point where it applies in our situation, where we can't get more revenue? do you have mathematical evidence or at least credible and neutral sources to back that up?

My fault, I thought you meant culturally American, not legally American.

My point is that you can't tax your way out of a runaway spending problem. Let's say in the best case (your case), the government somehow breaks all economic models and is able to get 6.7 trillion in tax revenue, even without taxing the working poor. If your Congress was okay spending 2 trillion more than it had before, what is there to stop your Congress from simply spending 8.7 trillion?

You can't simply tax your way out of a runaway spending problem. Runaway spending is a behavior problem, not a math problem that can be solved with taxes.

Look at your state of California. They have gone far to the right of the Laffer curve, and their revenue has fallen dramatically. Regardless of the tax revenue, runaway spending remains a serious problem.

we agree with each other in the abstract that the laffer curve is a valid concept. we disagree whether it applies now. i do know that we spend about the same as we have in the past in taxes, but it's shifted from the upper class to the working class as a tax burden. that should be remedied. and, since we had high tax rates when the country was prosperous, we've been cutting tax revenue on corporations and the wealth, they use all kinds of loop holes. so first i think we need to redesign our tax revenue to be more top heavy, i also think we could draw in more revenue, i disagree that the laffer curve applies. we could tax real estate by the federal government, we could implement a small wealth tax, we could increase income tax modestly on the top top or twenty percent of earners, even just two or four percentage points. all we really need to do is get the deficit cut in half, and then it's managemable compared to the size of the economy and itd i think be very feasible to bring in another trillion in revenue. i agree we have to be careful about taxing too much and spending too much, but compared to the rest of the globe, the usa is very converative fiscallly. i just tend to think we can raise a little extra revenue, and in a country as wealthy as ours, even a trillion bucks is doable

I was drawing from the tax revenue data for California. 2019 was a high point, but tax revenues decreased since then as the tax rates on the rich increased from 2019 to now, and this was during a massive inflationary spike, meaning the actual dip in tax revenue is even larger than it shows on paper. This is why I say California is already to the right of the Laffer curve, and people leaving the state is another clear indicator that the rates are to the right of the Laffer curve high point.

I really wish you had something meaningful to say about the behavior of runaway spending.

The American federal budget deficit has generally increased dramatically in recent years, though the specific year-over-year change can fluctuate

. For example, the deficit for fiscal year (FY) 2025 was approximately $1.78 trillion, a slight decrease from FY 2024, but still a historically high figure. The national debt, which is the accumulation of these annual deficits, has consistently reached new record highs, surpassing $38 trillion in late 2025.