Receipts as a percentage of GDP is not a correlative comparison to growth in government revenues. For instance, the the receipt chart, total government revenues from 1981 to 1987 grew almost 173%; however, spending outpaced the revenue growth. As a % of GDP is not a fair comparison because structural job growth (not temporary 6 month jobs) grew by 20 million new jobs with whole industries (computers, etc.) being created. The jobs were not created by government (Keynesean type) spending, they were created by mostly private enterprise and lowering the tax burden on capital formation. As we have seen after a 787 billion "stimulous" package, structural employment actually fell by 2.2 million jobs; the created ones were mostly temporary. If the GDP grows quickly, tax revenues grow, but don't grow in a 1:1 ratio. So, if GDP is much larger, you get additional tax revenue. The issue was proven that lowering marginal tax rates add more jobs and more to the economy than taxing capital creation. This was true under John Kennedy as well. As for the post about nobody complained about deficits during the Bush Jr. years, that is shallow and unfounded. Many, many fiscal conservatives complained about the "spending" programs and government expansion under Bush Jr; myself included. Of course, like the current Administration, Jr. had a lot to deal with as well (if you remember the serious downturn in the economy after a certain date in 2001). Reagan had a tough economy to deal with as well, but the results began to take place 2.5 years after he took office. In my opinion, he did not veto enough spending bills. Let's also remember who was in charge of Congress during those years for the most part - they weren't represented by the elephant. Who controls spending? You can certainly discern that one. The Republicans got their "butts" kicked for spending so much if you recall as well.