# Reaganomics



## Listening (May 2, 2014)

There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."

It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....

But it does nothing to discuss the idea of Supply Side Economics.  Then you've got someone on the board who can't let go of Demand Side Economics.

There is NO ARGUING that things got worse under Reagan and then they got better.  

Three is also NO ARGUING that our debt increased under Reagan.

Now, I say under Reagan.  Even though R.R. had a degree in economics, my guess is that he wasn't up at night masterminding some kind of grand economic program.  I could be wrong, but that is a guess.  Just like I don't think Obama is masterminding his program either.

So, without the smoke screens of the garbage that goes on in the Political section, let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....


----------



## Listening (May 2, 2014)

This is an article that is found on the web under a number of different titles.  It will always be titled "The Abject Failure....."

The Abject Failure of Reaganomics

Talking about the Bush Run up in debt....which I totally deplore....it says:

But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America&#8217;s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called &#8220;supply-side&#8221; by its admirers and &#8220;trickle-down&#8221; by its critics.

*************************

So, Bush was Reagan's fault ?

Somehow Reagan causes Bush ?

But the same article says that:

During 1993, Clinton&#8217;s first year in office, the new Democratic administration pushed through tax increases, partially reversing the massive tax cuts implemented under Reagan. Finally, the debt problem began to stabilize, with the total debt at $5.7 trillion and heading downward, when Clinton left office in January 2001.

Indeed, at the time of Clinton&#8217;s departure, the projected ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion meant that virtually the entire federal debt would be retired. 

*****************

So Reagan takes over in a recession.  Runs up the debt...but Clinton has the base from which to retire the debt.

*BUSH CAME AFTER CLINTON*

So the way I see it.  They are not connected at all.  And there is good reason to believe that some of Clinton benefited from Reagan's time in office.

Oh, and let's not forget.  The American People threw out a democratic house and senate in 1994.  But Newt and Co. had nothing to do with this great financial performance (sorry....had to say it).

Just another example of how Reagan gets a rap, in my estimation, he does not deserve.

If I am missing the connection, please tell me.  This is in the CDZ for a reason.


----------



## oldfart (May 2, 2014)

Listening said:


> There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> 
> It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....
> 
> ...



Without searching for threads, I think this is well plowed ground in both the Economy and History forums.  Since such threads tend to go downhill pretty fast, I am not sure it is a good idea to resurrect the old threads.  

Personally I would be delighted to participate in a thread about Reagan's economic policies.  The hardest part would be to find agreement on what they were.  Conservatives will point to his speeches and sound bites.  Leftists will concentrate on his defense spending, increases in the public debt, and tax increases after 1981.  We would probably end up arguing about which was the "real" RR.


----------



## Listening (May 2, 2014)

oldfart said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> ...



Agreed.  Those threads tend to get pretty personal pretty fast.

It seems he was of the opinion that tax cuts would stimulate the economy.  He cut taxes on the wealthy.  They got that much wealthier.  Did everyone else.

Many indicators would say no.

But was it Reaganomics or just the globalization period we were going through.


----------



## oldfart (May 2, 2014)

Listening said:


> Without searching for threads, I think this is well plowed ground in both the Economy and History forums.  Since such threads tend to go downhill pretty fast, I am not sure it is a good idea to resurrect the old threads.
> 
> Personally I would be delighted to participate in a thread about Reagan's economic policies.  The hardest part would be to find agreement on what they were.  Conservatives will point to his speeches and sound bites.  Leftists will concentrate on his defense spending, increases in the public debt, and tax increases after 1981.  We would probably end up arguing about which was the "real" RR.



Agreed.  Those threads tend to get pretty personal pretty fast.

It seems he was of the opinion that tax cuts would stimulate the economy.  He cut taxes on the wealthy.  They got that much wealthier.  Did everyone else.

Many indicators would say no.

But was it Reaganomics or just the globalization period we were going through.[/QUOTE]

OK, some quick thoughts on you last comment and a little background.  In any period there are a bunch of things happening and they are all interconnected.  Good economic analysis rest on three foundations and when one is ignored or botched, the results usually turn out to be ridiculous.  Using Reaganomics for an example, the three are:

1.  Historical analysis.  Most economics starts here as "economic problems" are usually framed in a temporal context.  They start out with "How did we get into this mess?" and quickly progress to "Could we have avoided this mess?"  This way of initially framing a question has a number of drawbacks.  The past is generally linear and unique.  Events in year A are followed by events in year B and we rarely engage in counterfactual history.  What happened; happened.  But it creates an illusion that the events in year A CAUSED the events in year B, which may not be the case.  It provides no grounds, even if there is a causal link, of demonstrating how strong the relationship is.  Maybe what happened in year B was inevitable, regardless of what happened in year A (i.e. there is not causality between events in A and B; something other than events in A caused events in B).  Now this is just the type of issues that historical method is best equipped to deal with.  The usual tools usually are some sort of counterfactual history used to test the sensitivity of results to particular changes in the time line.

In the case of Reaganomics the big example of this is the question of the role of Reagan's military build-up in the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.  The build-up clearly preceded the collapse, but in what fashion did it cause it?  I have argued elsewhere (a History thread I believe) that there was little connection as the causes of the Soviet decline stretched further back and the system was unsustainable when Reagan took office.  I'm bringing this up not to re-start that debate, but to point out that historical method is the usual way of addressing these issues.

The second necessary skill set is mathematical and statistical analysis of data.  This is a pretty arcane field, which is why researchers in many fields have statisticians check their work.  For example, when you count things in time series data the numbers always seem to get expotentially bigger.  Everything seems a function of time.  If the public debt was $X trillion when Reagan took office and $3X trillion when he left, then isn't that terrible?  Well, not necessarily.  There are ways of removing the "Point with pride, view with alarm" factor.  We could concentrate on growth rates of  increases rather than absolute levels, or we could look at ratios such as the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP. This is data analysis, and I think you have to have a grasp as to how it's done to understand the numbers coming out of it.  

Finally there is economic analysis.  Economists carry around a tool belt of models to try to get to the essence of what's happening in a given situation.  These models all have false assumptions to simplify the problem, such as actors have perfect knowledge and are immortal.  The question is not how realistic the assumptions of the model are, but how sensitive the results are to the truth value of the assumptions.  Hopefully you can change assumptions and still get pretty much the same results.  

In the Reagan years the big debate was "supply-side" economics.  It was based on an idealized expectation of how markets would behave, especially with regard to assumptions about price flexibility.  The solution to a host of problems would be to concentrate on the supply side and increase the supply of goods and services.  Lowering tax rates would increase individual effort and thus output.  In 1981 this didn't work out too well because in a demand-constrained economy, too much of the benefit of lower taxes went to people who saved a substantial part of their income and there was no boost to demand.  It did cause the deficit to explode, however, and when the attempted adjustments ran into sticky prices (especially wages) the policies floundered.  

Like you, I believe that Reagan paid too much attention to anecdotal stories in arriving at this fundamental attitudes that dictated policy.  He was adept at negotiation and compromise and didn't really mind the other party getting what they wanted if he got what he wanted.  This made Reagan in practice not doctrinaire, despite his rhetoric.  But it also made him opportunistic almost to the point of having no real core principals about leading the economy.  

So let the fun begin.


----------



## Listening (May 3, 2014)

I would enjoy an evaluation of his policies as his policies.

However, it would seem that people like Paul Krugman (and I use the term "people" loosely in this case), can't resist saying George Bush was Reaganomics on Steroids.

That is complete and utter bull.  Bush's tax cuts were not couched in a failing economy.  He also had a GOP congress to work with.

Finally, he started some very expensive wars that pretty much spelled the financial doom of his presidency.

Bush's presidency was in a more globalized environment and was also at a time when boomers were starting to come out of the workforce.

Bush was stupid....I've alwasy said that .

Bushanomics wasn't Reaganomics.

For better or for worse, Reagnomics did run up some debt.  But, with or without the help of Reagan's policies, Clinton had what he needed to eliminate the debt.  

You can't blame Reagan for Bush.

Reagan created 15 million jobs (or so this says)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

If that is true, that is a pretty good record, especially considering the mess that came to him.  Maybe I am missing something.

Reaganomics did rely on supply side economics.  I've never quite understood the idea behind this.  Produce bunch of stuff and there will


----------



## Meathead (May 4, 2014)

Reagan is a hero to many and a villain to some. That is the way it has always been with great men. History will remember Reagan more for his foreign policy and his congenial leadership than economics. He was an American renaissance in the wake of 17 years of failed presidents (LBJ,Ford,Nixon,Carter).


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 4, 2014)

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans.  By all standards that count, he was a complete failure. 

OTOH, maybe it wasn't him at all. There's some reason to believe it was Nancy and her astrologer who were running things ...


----------



## Meathead (May 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans.  By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.


We're talking about Reagan, not Obama!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 4, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans.  By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.
> ...



That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

I've posted facts about Reagan. If you would like to lie about President Obama, start a new thread but for now, how about we stick to facts, huh?


----------



## Meathead (May 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


You've posted essentially nothing. Real adorable soundbite stuff and tired mantra, but nothing of substance.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 4, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Then prove its not true.

And, since you made this about Obama, compare this with Reagan's record -







Facts only, please.


----------



## Meathead (May 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


You compare it with Reagan's record and get back to me. I accept the initial report, but it's a world-tallest-midget type thing at this point in Obama's administration


----------



## Indeependent (May 4, 2014)

Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.


----------



## Meathead (May 4, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.


Seriously, we can only discuss failures? Not your thread and seems like you're running some kind of re-education camp.


----------



## Indeependent (May 4, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.
> ...



The use of Cocaine or Supply Side Economics has almost immediate positive results which then quickly slide into an abyss.


----------



## Meathead (May 4, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I despair of publicly educated Americans. Although it is indeed sad, I too am American, though spared the publicaly educated aspect.


----------



## Listening (May 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans.  By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.
> 
> OTOH, maybe it wasn't him at all. There's some reason to believe it was Nancy and her astrologer who were running things ...



You couldn't prove that statement if your life depended on it.

This is the CDZ, not your typical bulls**t zone.

Get out of the thread if you are not going to post an argument.

He didn't lead the country on a road to ruin.  He ran up debt.  But for whatever reason, Clinton (along with a whole lot of help from a very conservative congress) was able to create a trajectory that had us on the road to NO DEBT and he came after Reagan.  So, how did Reagan put us on the road to ruin when we are on a very good road after he left office ?

Post with numbers or shut and get off the  thread.


----------



## Listening (May 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Yes, we can see you posted a lot of nothing relative to the topic.

I've reported all your posts and being off-topic.

When you want to discuss Reaganomics in the way the OP proposes, I'll be happy to listen.  Otherwise you are just trolling.

Get out of the thread.


----------



## Listening (May 4, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.



No.  Read the OP.  

This is about the economic policies that are called Reaganomics.  

What are they and what were the results ?

This isn't a thread for you and your moron friend Luddy to hijack.  If you want to discuss Reaganomics as proposed in the OP, fine.

Other wise get out of the thread.  Go to the one entitled "The Failure of Reagonmics" in the Political Forum where everyone can trash each other at will.

This forum is supposed to be more structured and regulated.

Post to the OP or get out.


----------



## Listening (May 10, 2014)

Listening said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans.  By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.
> ...



O.K....still awaiting those numbers.  So far it has been just crickets.


----------



## Listening (May 10, 2014)

oldfart said:


> 1.  Historical analysis.  Most economics starts here as "economic problems" are usually framed in a temporal context.  They start out with "How did we get into this mess?" and quickly progress to "Could we have avoided this mess?"  This way of initially framing a question has a number of drawbacks.  The past is generally linear and unique.  Events in year A are followed by events in year B and we rarely engage in counterfactual history.  What happened; happened.  But it creates an illusion that the events in year A CAUSED the events in year B, which may not be the case.  It provides no grounds, even if there is a causal link, of demonstrating how strong the relationship is.  Maybe what happened in year B was inevitable, regardless of what happened in year A (i.e. there is not causality between events in A and B; something other than events in A caused events in B).  Now this is just the type of issues that historical method is best equipped to deal with.  The usual tools usually are some sort of counterfactual history used to test the sensitivity of results to particular changes in the time line.
> 
> *************************
> 
> So let the fun begin.



So here is a quote from a web-site that is obviously pro-Reagan.  

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.

************************

And I say So What ?

I think these numbers are supposed to mean something.  

Maybe it pre-supposes that people know that a growth of Federal Revenues is a good thing.

I'll do some more looking to see if these numbers are available on any other presidents.

Now, this one was interesting.....

*Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8*


----------



## whitehall (May 10, 2014)

Reagan has been dead for years. We had to live through the crooked dot-com bubble, the go-go Enron insanity and the pardoning of the most notorious corporate crook in history during the Clinton administration. Almost two decades have passed and the radical left still can't seem to get a grip on reality. When are they going to realize that Obama is president?


----------



## BobPlumb (May 10, 2014)

The national debt did increase under Reagan.  Of course he has to compromise with a democrat led house and senate for both terms of his presidency.  That is not to say that he shares no blame for the increased debt and deficit spending.

Edit:  The democrates controlled the house for all 8 years under Reagan.  The republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years.


----------



## Listening (May 10, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> The national debt did increase under Reagan.  Of course he has to compromise with a democrat led house and senate for both terms of his presidency.  That is not to say that he shares no blame for the increased debt and deficit spending.
> 
> Edit:  The democrates controlled the house for all 8 years under Reagan.  The republicans controlled the Senate for 6 years.



All this understood.

The question at hand seems to be if Reagan made a mistake in increasing the debt.  Something must have gone well, because Clinton was able to put the country on a trajectory (with the help of Newt and Co.) to pay off the debt.

So, in my estimation, Reagonmics did not put the country on the road to ruin (if that is your criteria).

However, there are other metrics.

That Bush43 tried the same thing with his head up his rear isn't Reagan's fault.  As much as I like Dick Cheney, he should have been more clear on his statement about deficits not mattering.  They do matter if the economy does not turn around.


----------



## Publius1787 (May 10, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Nice photo. I don't suppose you could tell me how many people dropped out of the labor force to bring the unemployment number that low?


> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/almost-3-times-many-people-dropped-labor-force-joined.html
> 
> Employers added a whopping 288,000 jobs, the most in two years... .. ..
> 
> The number of people in the labor force fell by a whopping 806,000, wiping out the February and March gains and a bit of January as well








.


----------



## Listening (May 16, 2014)

Here is a site that claims Reagan was a huge success......

Here is the start of the thread from the site.......

*Reaganomics: The Success of President Reagan&#8217;s Economic Policies*

The poster then claims......


    20 million new jobs were created.
    Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
    The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
    The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
    Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
    Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
    Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
    The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
    The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
    The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
    During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
    In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
    The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
    (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
    The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
    The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth&#8211;assets minus liabilities&#8211;of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today&#8217;s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
    Economic growth averaged 7.1% over the first 7 quarters.

***********************

Again, what I don't see are the connectors.  It's great that you can cite all these good things.  And I lived it, so I know it is  true.

But, that does not mean Supply Side Economics had anything to do with it (does not mean it didn't either).


----------



## Listening (Aug 3, 2014)

Listening said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I guess we're done waiting.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 4, 2014)

Listening said:


> This is an article that is found on the web under a number of different titles.  It will always be titled "The Abject Failure....."
> 
> The Abject Failure of Reaganomics
> 
> ...



Reagan was conservative at heart but a pragmatist in practice.  While he wanted lower taxes overall, he wasn't stupid.  He pushed to drop the maximum income tax rate to 28%, but he also said that the long term capital gains rate should be equal to the income tax rate.  Things didn't really get fucked up until after Congress pushed to drop the Capital Gains rate down to 15%.  On top of that, Reagan approved of a huge increase in FICA taxes (payroll taxes).  With all that extra revenue, Reagan also increased the size of the federal government, and he didn't do it in a small way.  He almost doubled it during his two terms.  

Overall, Reagan was good for the economy.  The lowering of tax rates didn't become a real problem until GW cut them at the beginning of his first term.  When GW cut them, he pushed for those cuts because the CBO was projecting long term surpluses for years to come.  GW said that should revenues drop, those tax cuts could always be ended early.  So what happened?  Revenues dropped, and Republicans screamed that we needed to cut taxes more to increase revenues.    At some point during GW's administration, Republicans became this group of ideological retards who forgot basic math.  And that folks is why we are where we are today, not because of Reagan.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 4, 2014)

Listening said:


> But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring Americas economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called supply-side by its admirers and trickle-down by its



I think that the proper way to address such a challenge is to ask the critic "Compared to what?"

If we hadn't embarked on the path Reagan set us on, what path would we have followed? The liberal path models that which is found in Europe.

So, let's compare the US economy since 1980 to various European economies which followed the model preferred by Democrats.

In 1980 US GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 12,394
In 1980 French GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 12,562
In 1980 German GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 11,674
In 1980 Dutch GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 12,941
In 1980 United Kingdom GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 9,509

In 2000 US GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 36,618
In 2000 French GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 22,080
In 2000 German GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 22,350
In 2000 Dutch GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 24,804
In 2000 United Kingdom GNI/Capita (in constant dollars) was 25,232

The US economy grew by 195%
The French economy grew by 76%
The German economy grew by 91%
The Dutch economy grew by 92%
The UK economy grew by 165%

After this point we run into EU integration problems - the nature of the economy changed in Europe. It's interesting to observe the UK experience - Thatcherism seems to produce the same results as Reaganism.

So what is/was the liberal alternative? Slower growth for America. 

If we followed the French model, US GNI/cap in 2000 would be 21,813 instead of 36,618
If we followed the German model, US GNI/cap in 2000 would be 23,672 instead of 36,618
If we followed the Dutch model, US GNI/cap in 2000 would be 23,796 instead of 36,618
If we followed the English model, US GNI/cap in 2000 would be 32,844 instead of 36,618

Frankly I don't see the appeal of choosing a path which makes the nation purposely poorer. Then again, I'm not a liberal and I don't share the mindset that equality bought by making everyone poorer is a better outcome than everyone being better off even if that increases inequality.


----------



## EconChick (Aug 4, 2014)

Good thread, Listening.

To me, you can't start an analysis of the Reagan years before you establish JUST how bad the economy was in 1979.  People say that O inherited a really bad economy.  He did.  But what Reagan inherited was much worse.

Inflation was in double digits, as high as 18%
Unemployment was in double digits, as high as 11%
Interest rates were in double digits, close to 19% (can you imagine trying to buy a home then?)
Growth was stagnant.
Productivity was lower than it was after Reagan
I'm tired now but there are other stats that should be looked at.

So when you hear people talk about tripling the debt, etc.....it is the surest sign of a Keynsian indoctrinated person because even that is not in any context.  Also, he ended the entire Cold War with some of those expenditures.

And the reason I say those people are clearly Keynsian indoctrinated is because the liberal arts schools I went to dished out the same Keynsian stories.


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 5, 2014)




----------



## Bush92 (Aug 5, 2014)

Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 5, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.



or as George H.W. Bush called it, "voodoo economics"


----------



## Listening (Aug 5, 2014)

Agit8r said:


>



This is the clean debate zone.

If you have a point to make with your post, please make it.

Just posting a graph is not meaningful.


----------



## Listening (Aug 5, 2014)

Agit8r said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.
> ...



This isn't a supported statement.  

If you need to vent or drop little one line turds, please go to the politics section.

This forum is for DEBATE and discussion.  Not propaganda.


----------



## Listening (Aug 5, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Good thread, Listening.
> 
> To me, you can't start an analysis of the Reagan years before you establish JUST how bad the economy was in 1979.  People say that O inherited a really bad economy.  He did.  But what Reagan inherited was much worse.
> 
> ...



I agree that we need to see these numbers in context.

As I've voiced, it could not have been all that bad because it provided Bill Clinton a foundation to put us on track to totally pay off our debt.  

Obviously things must have been pretty good for that to happen.

Additionally, tripling the debt is always a interesting claim (as a % of GDP).  Reagan had to restore the military.

He also had to fix Social Security which Carter claimed he had done (but based his claim on overoptimistic performance) and hadn't.  It forced Reagan into a position to raise taxes to save it (you know how the left always jacks with him for being so irresponsible).


----------



## EconChick (Aug 5, 2014)

Agit8r said:


>






First of all, you realize there are 6 unemployment rates, don't you?  U1 through U-6.  I can't believe you'd post a graph that doesn't even show you which rate you're trying to tell the audience you're referring to.

You're doing that either out of ignorance or deceit. Neither one is good.


----------



## EconChick (Aug 5, 2014)

Agit8r said:


>



The next thing I'd like to point out is you lefties never put your graphs, links, and numbers into any context.

I guess that works on people naïve enough to not question your assumptions and context...but that pool of dum dums is getting smaller and smaller as every day Americans are figuring out what a mess O's made of the economy, and especially their livelihoods.

So lets' give this some context.  As I mentioned in my post, Reagan inherited double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates.

What were the rates under Carter before Reagan started fixing the economy?

Hint:  they were, wait for it...........wait...wait...wait for it........they were double digit.


----------



## Agit8r (Aug 5, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



As you can see from the graph, Reagan inherited 7.5% unemployment, which is single digit (because the decimal doesn't count)


----------



## EconChick (Aug 5, 2014)

Agit8r said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...



The real truth is Reagan inherited just short of 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 6, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > EconChick said:
> ...



His numbers are spot on, but he fails to give us the rest of the story.  By the end of Reagan's second term, the unemployment rate was down to 5.4%.  What is interesting is that Obama is on much the same path that Reagan saw with unemployment as it was 7.8% when Obama took office, then it rose to a high of 9.9%, and then began coming down to the current 6.2 or 6.3%.  By the time Obama leaves office, it will likely be in the 5's.  

One big difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan increased government spending dramatically, which was good for the economy.  Obama has barely increase federal spending at all since his first year which was not his actual budget.


----------



## Listening (Aug 6, 2014)

This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.

The previous post indicated similarities between Obama and Reagan.

And yet, 4 years into Reagan's  term, people seem to think things were getting better and were feeling pretty good.

Obama was re-elected by a populace that does not like the direction the country is going.

Reagan took over when interest rates were where ?

Versus Obama who has enjoyed some of the lowest interest rates to date.

But what has this got to do with Reaganomics ?  I really don't know.

If you read the OP....you'll see that is why I started the thread.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Aug 6, 2014)

Listening said:


> There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> 
> It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....
> 
> ...


what reagon believed was to cut taxes on corporations ... which he did... he believed by doing this corporations would make more money and they would spend that money to expand their companies... which they didn't do ... they kept their welth and jobs became scarce... reagan believed that the money would trickle down to the middle class and the poor ... it didn't... Bush continued his policies and he saw that he had to raise taxes. which that created a problem with his base along with huricane Andrew  ... where Bush 1 said well I realize I'm 5 days late so lets not play the balme game... humm where did we hear that statement before...

then clinton got elected what did he do??? he raised the taxes on everybody ...republicans ranted it will be the end of the country... what happen ???well , you all know...  he signed into law repairing of roads and bridges and water systems... along with police and fire jobs... under bill clinton we had more jobs more money coming into the coffer ... then when he left office Clinton had a 500 billion dollar surplus, to pay on the national debt ... we all know what happen there ... did I leave anything out???


----------



## billyerock1991 (Aug 6, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.



I don't  know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Aug 6, 2014)

Listening said:


> This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.
> 
> The previous post indicated similarities between Obama and Reagan.
> 
> ...



if you are going to compare you need a subject... like I said I remember living under reagan ... companies were borrowing money to stay afloat ... in comparison under Obama compamies didn't have to borrow large sums and because of the previous president bank debackle under bush the banks wouldn't loan money... where Obama turned the down fall of the market ... reagan didn't do that... Reagan kept his policies and if you look his unemployment record it too went up where under obama his unemployment went down ... now you ask what this has to do with reaganomics ... you see what reagans policy of cutting taxes did and you see what obama did when he let the bush tax cut expire ... jobs went up when taxes went up ... jobs went down when taxes were cut ...its that sinple... if you don't want a comparison then you really don't wnat to know who did a better job ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Aug 6, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > EconChick said:
> ...


your truth not the reality of truth
...


----------



## EconChick (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.
> ...



No, the unemployment rate had gone up after Reagan's inauguration, but barely just after he had submitted his budget and given it a chance to take affect.  That means the high UE number was due to Carter's policies.  Once Reagan's policies took effect, the numbers dropped steadily till he left office.  Not like Obama's that go up and down.

He left office at 5.2% Unemployment.  But more importantly, inflation had dropped so drastically that the price of everything...a house, food, cars, etc.....things that matter to the middle class....had come way down.

And what else was a great thing for the middle class???  Interest rates had gong as high as 20% under Carter but were brought wayyyyyyyyyyyyy down by Reagan so people could afford homes.

This is why people loved the 80s.

As for Clinton, he enjoyed the heavy lifting Reagan did at ending the very costly Cold War.  Clinton got the benefit of that with defense cuts left and right....and after Reagan had cleaned out the cobwebs in the economy and gotten it firing on all four cylinders.


----------



## EconChick (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...



It's laughable that anyone would claim a president starts being held responsible for the unemployment rate before he even gets inaugurated, or before he even submits a budget to Congress.

Wake up guys.  You don't know how to read data.


----------



## Meathead (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.
> ...


You should have gotten out from under your rock more in the 80s. You might have some idea of what happened then and likely more insight on Obama's failures.

Reagan changed America and the world for better. His successors have failed this country in a chronologically sliding scale. I hope that with Obama we have bottomed out.


----------



## EconChick (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.
> ...



Sorry, Billyrock, I'm sure you're a nice, hardworking guy, but you don't know how to read the stats at all.


----------



## pinqy (Aug 6, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Ok, I have to nitpick here. Besides the fact that you yourself have referenced the UE rate without specifying each one, there are NOT 6 unemployment rates. The U-1 and U-2 measure aspects of unemployment (long term unemployment and job losers) and the U4,5, and 6 include people who are not unemployed in the numerator, with the U-6 including millions of employed.  They are measures of Underutilization.


Also, the current measures didn't come into being until 1994, and it's not possible to reconstruct earlier, so any graph or set prior to 1994 will necessarily be what is now the U-3 but was the U-5 from 1976-1983 and the U-5b from 1984-1993.

So he couldn't have been using any other rate, and, as you've demonstrated yourself, simply saying UE rate is understood as being the U-3


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.
> ...



You mean those years when NAFTA and GATT sent millions of American jobs out of country?


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 6, 2014)

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

 Reagan vs. Obama...its no contest.


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 6, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY]Ronald Reagan TV Ad: "Its morning in america again" - YouTube[/ame]

 If we could only go back, sigh.


----------



## Listening (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.
> ...



I lived through the Reagan years.

They started slow and by the end, things were rocking.

I lived in this country.  I watched unemployment drop and interest rates come down substantially.

The Clinton economy was made possible by Reagan.


----------



## Listening (Aug 6, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > This thread was about Reaganomics...whatever that means.
> ...



No, it isn't that simple.

Obama has been hemoraging jobs like crazy.  He's had the highest UE rate even though he didn't inherit the mess Reagan did.

Now this thread was about Reaganomics and the concept of trickledown.  If you can't discuss that, get off the thread.


----------



## Listening (Aug 6, 2014)

Folks we are discussing Reaganomics and just what that meant.

We are not comparing to Bush, Clinton or Obama.

Please keep that in mind.


----------



## EconChick (Aug 6, 2014)

pinqy said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...



Once again, Pingy, you're completely off.

As you showed yourself, there's an apples to oranges problem, and no it is not assumed to be U-3.

You said it was not possible to reconstruct the graph before 1994 that looks comparable to today's U3-U6, but people extrapolate and do it all the time.  They just make sure they're consistent on the following definitions.


 *U3 &#8211; Unemployed as share of labor force (the o&#64259;cial rate)3
 &#8226; U4 &#8211; (Unemployed + discouraged) as share of (labor force + discouraged)4
 &#8226; U5 &#8211; (Unemployed + discouraged + &#8220;marginally attached&#8221 as share of (labor force + discouraged + &#8220;marginally attached&#82215
 &#8226; U6 &#8211; (Unemployed + discouraged + &#8220;marginally attached&#8221; + employed part-time for economic reasons) as share of (labor force + discouraged + &#8220;marginally attached&#8221




But now that we've gotten this meaningless piss ant point of yours addressed, what does it have to do with my bigger point that Reagan brought down high interest rates, high unemployment rates, and high inflation?  He decimated the Soviet Union and had high growth.

It doesn't change that point in the least.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Aug 6, 2014)

Damn, was post #30 such a stinking turd that no one has anything to say about it? You know how hard it is to dig up longitudinal data like that?

At least tell me the analysis blows and why.


----------



## EconChick (Aug 6, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring Americas economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called supply-side by its admirers and trickle-down by its
> ...



I thought it was great stuff, Rik!  I have a bad habit of speeding through threads and missing lots of posts.  But RIGHT ON!


----------



## pinqy (Aug 7, 2014)

EconChick said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > EconChick said:
> ...


 No, i'm really not.



> As you showed yourself, there's an apples to oranges problem,



How did I show that? And what is the problem you're thinking of? 


> and no it is not assumed to be U-3.


 Ok, that should be easy enough....show one example from the media, government or academia where "unemployment rate" without any other adjectives/qualifiers refers to anything other than Unemployed/Labor Force.  



> You said it was not possible to reconstruct the graph before 1994 that looks comparable to today's U3-U6, but people extrapolate and do it all the time.


 A link would be helpful.  I've never heard of anyone giving any numbers for the U-4, 5, or 6 for before 1994.   Obviously the official rate goes back to the 1940's



> They just make sure they're consistent on the following definitions.
> 
> 
> *U3  Unemployed as share of labor force (the o&#64259;cial rate)3
> ...


That would be terrible.  Since Discouraged workers are a subset of marginally attached, they would be double counting discouraged. 

But the main problem is that the data available for the U=4 to U=6 doesn't exist.  That's what makes it impossible.  Marginally Attached was not collected and discouraged only had quarterly data available and then was radically redifined. Any chart going back would be the official rate, which had one minor definition change and some small effects of the overall redesign, and so is really fine to use as historical comparison unless you're doing really technical analysis.



> But now that we've gotten this meaningless piss ant point of yours addressed,


You're the one who raised the topic with your attack when it was pointed out that you were just making up that Reagan inherited near 12% unemployment rate. But since your attack was patently ridiculous in that you were insisting which unemployment rate be mentioned when in this very thread you've referred to the UE rate without specifying U-3, I thought it appropriate to point out that even your attack was pointless.



> what does it have to do with my bigger point that Reagan brought down high interest rates, high unemployment rates, and high inflation?  He decimated the Soviet Union and had high growth.
> 
> It doesn't change that point in the least.


Well, the fact that you completely made up the unemployment numbers Reagan was facing was kind of the point. "*The real truth is Reagan inherited just short of 12% unemployment from the Carter Administration.*" and then when you're corrected you attack and yet get your attack wrong. Jan 1980 rate was  6.3 and was 7.4 when he took office.  That's way short, not "just short", of 12%


----------



## Listening (Aug 7, 2014)

Folks,

This thread is about Reaganomics.

Discuss his policies and what people mean when they use the  term.

Arguments over data for comparison are O.K. by me as long as it isn't to be used in comparing Reagan to Carter.


----------



## Listening (Aug 7, 2014)

Listening said:


> There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> 
> It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....
> 
> ...



What was was Reaganomics ?


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 30, 2014)

*Billboard Soapdish*

Someone should mention that it was during the era of Reaganomics that consumerism really took off (the big '80s).

It was during the 1980s that we enjoyed Hollywood (USA) movies such as "Wall Street" (1987) and made mix tapes on high-quality audio cassettes.

This is not the first time this has happened in American history.  During the Roaring Twenties, over-investments trickled down into a pageant-styled American culture which culminated in the Great Crash.  Likewise, critics of Reaganomics cite the post-1980s balloon bust.

Why does society celebrate top-down overindulgence?

There seems to be something about 'wealth enthusiasm' that catalyzes talk about political cooties.







Federalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Politico (Aug 30, 2014)

Listening said:


> What was was Reaganomics ?



Something that happened thirty years ago that has no bearing on anything happening now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 6, 2014)

Listening said:


> This is an article that is found on the web under a number of different titles.  It will always be titled "The Abject Failure....."
> 
> The Abject Failure of Reaganomics
> 
> ...




This is the same straw reasoning the Left brings to every instance, wherein an action demonstrates the innate failure of the Left and the superior nature, of Nature.

"Reagaonimics"... is merely the natural order of economics.  Wherein people go about their business freely exchanging goods and services with one another, to the mutual and respective profit of all participants.

All Reagan did was to drag the  encumbrances common to government, particularly government infected with foreign ideas hostile to the natural order of economics and every other aspect of American principle....; Reagan's adherence to the natural principles of economics produced the largest increases over the longest period of economic growth in human history and, for that, the Intellectually Less Fortunate HATE him for it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 6, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.



There are no Reagan Failures, neither short, nor long term!


----------



## Crystalclear (Sep 6, 2014)

Reaganomics is a good economic policy. Lower taxes for the rich means that they can invest more. Production goes up, more jobs are needed, so welfare costs go down.


----------



## sameech (Sep 7, 2014)

Listening said:


> Agreed.  Those threads tend to get pretty personal pretty fast.
> 
> It seems he was of the opinion that tax cuts would stimulate the economy.  He cut taxes on the wealthy.  They got that much wealthier.  Did everyone else.
> 
> ...



Probably a combination.  I think Reagan naively believed that if he enacted policies that were favorable to capital, that all these capitalists would be good civic minded people and do the right thing for America.  Unfortunately, we also had the largely unchecked thug Carl Ichan who showed the world how it was easier to raid other people's capital rather than actually create wealth by constructive investment in additional production capacity.


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 7, 2014)

Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 7, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> Reaganomics is a good economic policy. Lower taxes for the rich means that they can invest more. Production goes up, more jobs are needed, so welfare costs go down.



And then Reagan does an amnesty to fill those jobs he supposedly created.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 7, 2014)

Listening said:


> There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> 
> It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....
> 
> ...



"Reaganomics' is a misnomer, in any case. His Presidency was dominated by 'Volkernomics', not Reagan's economic dumbassery.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 7, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> I don't  know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ...



And of course resulted in yet another Wall Street bailout as well.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 7, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Sorry, Billyrock, I'm sure you're a nice, hardworking guy, but you don't know how to read the stats at all.



Well, given how stats are massaged and likely inaccurate or outright false to begin with, especially government generated stats, this isn't really a problem, since they're made up anyway.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 7, 2014)

EconChick said:


> No, the unemployment rate had gone up after Reagan's inauguration, but barely just after he had submitted his budget and given it a chance to take affect.  That means the high UE number was due to Carter's policies.



this is funny stuff; Carter's policies had little to do with unemployment numbers, the oil crisis did. Reagan's policies weren't much different than Carter's, i.e. cutting capital gains tax rates, adding tax deductions that actually let the middle classes benefit, etc. 



> Once Reagan's policies took effect, the numbers dropped steadily till he left office.  Not like Obama's that go up and down.



It can just as easily be claimed the economy improved when Carter's policies took effect. It was Carter who appointed Volcker, after all, and Reagan kept him on. But the reality is the economy didn't really improve, some market bubbles were artificially created, which isn't the same as an improving economy.



> He left office at 5.2% Unemployment.



And how was unemployment calculated at the time? ...



> But more importantly, inflation had dropped so drastically that the price of everything...a house, food, cars, etc.....things that matter to the middle class....had come way down.



No, inflation didn't drop way down, the *rate* of inflation merely slowed down, which isn't the same thing. That inflation is still there today. It never went away. Prices on some things dropped because the stock and housing markets sucked vast amounts of capital into the bubbles, leaving the rest of the economy short of cash and customers. In any case the housing bubble crashed late in Reagan's term, and on into Bush's term, along with the usual major rash of bankruptcies, failed banks, and consumer borrowing against grossly over-valued housing deflated prices for a few years, while millions took advantage of easy bankruptcy laws to welch on their debts and then turn around and do the same thing all over again.



> And what else was a great thing for the middle class???  Interest rates had gong as high as 20% under Carter but were brought wayyyyyyyyyyyyy down by Reagan so people could afford homes.



lol more nonsense; if all those homes were so 'affordable' there wouldn't have been such a wave of bankruptcies, particularly of Saving and Loans. As for interest rates 'going down', that is also misleading, since people were borrowing against grossly over priced 'assets', like houses. 

Which is actually the cheaper interest cost, a 10% loan on a $10,000 house, or a 5% loan on the same house priced at $100,000? ... 



> This is why people loved the 80s.



Actually only crooks and the dishonest loved the '80's.



> As for Clinton, he enjoyed the heavy lifting Reagan did at ending the very costly Cold War.



Gorbachev ended the Cold War; Reagan kept it going for two years longer than it needed to go.



> Clinton got the benefit of that with defense cuts left and right...



George H. Bush and Dick Cheney cut the Defense budgets, not Reagan; Reagan spent massive amounts of money on 'defense', usually on worthless programs, like refurbishing old obsolete battleships the Navy didn't even want but Republican Senators and Congressmen wanted for their districts. Newt Gingrich in particular carried astoundingly huge amounts of pork back to his district; it was unrecognizable by the time the boom there ended.



> .and after Reagan had cleaned out the cobwebs in the economy and gotten it firing on all four cylinders.



Yes, even more bubbles were artificially generated, true.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 7, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> > Reaganomics is a good economic policy. Lower taxes for the rich means that they can invest more. Production goes up, more jobs are needed, so welfare costs go down.
> ...



Indeed. I'm still waiting for anybody to post the history of retail meat prices after he issued thousands of visas to the meat packers so they could bust the unions there. People keep babbling about 'inflation has been defeated', but the prices are still way above 1970 prices, for some reason. I thought Reagan ended inflation n stuff.


----------



## Listening (Sep 12, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> ...


----------



## Listening (Sep 12, 2014)

Picaro said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Crystalclear said:
> ...



He did.

When did these prices go up ?

I know for certain that as crude oil has gone up, so have food prices.  Corn, soybeans and Canola all go to make biofuels and can be done so without subsidies (provided there is an outlet which there seems to be).  This means that food prices will float on the price of crude.

What was crude in Reagan's day ?

What is it today ?


----------



## Zander (Sep 12, 2014)

Listening said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Wouldn't the price of cherry's be more apropos?


lol


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 12, 2014)

EconChick said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...




*"Zone 1":* Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.


----------



## Listening (Sep 15, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



What was your point?

What you said means nothing.

Reagan did a great job.

Clinton did too.  Remember his first initiative ?  Gays in the Military. 

He did such a great job that the American people wiped out his democratic house and senate.  Clinton threw the left under the bus and went to work with Republicans and had a very successful administration.

For which he can thank Reagan.

*ADMIN EDIT: Please keep the name calling out of the CDZ*


----------



## EconChick (Sep 15, 2014)

Listening said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > EconChick said:
> ...



Love how you stay on top of the liars around here, Listening!  Those of us who lived through Reagan know it was great times for almost everyone but the perennially self-pitied who couldn't be helped if someone gave them a million bucks.


----------



## Listening (Sep 16, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Thanks.

It seems people just can't wait to take a bite out of Reagan.  I know he had his issues (folks who were not around don't know that the press was actually very hard on the man) and less-than-perfect moments. 

But, at a time when we needed someone who could lead, he stepped forward and did a great job.

Life was not great through 1984.  But, somehow he still managed to wipe up the electoral map with Mondale (nobody else had the balls to run against him).


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 16, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...





Listening said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > EconChick said:
> ...


you haven't a clue what you're talking about reagan screw up the country so bad we are still trying to get out of a lot of the finanical decisions he made


----------



## Listening (Sep 16, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...





billyerock1991 said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The irony of this post is unbelievable.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 16, 2014)

Listening said:


> you haven't a clue what you're talking about reagan screw up the country so bad we are still trying to get out of a lot of the finanical decisions he made





billyerock1991 said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



The irony of this post is unbelievable.[/QUOTE]
did reagan slow down the unemployment ??? no he did not ...  did reagan balance the budget??? no he did not ...did reagan bring down the national debt??? no he did not ... he did casue the national debt go up ... yes he did, 5 times the amount after he left office . and the unemployment went up after he left office even higher the the previous administration.. and we all know under clinton unemployment went down because he raised taxes ... we balanced the budget because he raised taxes
whats unbelieveable is how republicans like are are so stupid to what happen ... its like you live in a dream world


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 17, 2014)

Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?


Fun times.


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 17, 2014)

Listening said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Reagan had issues??
Criminal issues, like Iran Contra. Like over 130 felony convictions in his administration, many pardoned later when bush 1 became prezident. Imagine this vs the screaming over a nothing issue that's going nowhere?......*BENGHAZIIIIIII*? To Reagans credit though, there were many convictions in the S&L scandal under him. No convictions of any wrongdoing in the housing crash by Obama's administration, the so called  progressive.


----------



## Listening (Sep 17, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?
> 
> 
> Fun times.



Does anyone care what the Milquetoast Bush said ?  

Does anyone think Milquetoast Bush knew what he was talking about ?


----------



## Listening (Sep 17, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > you haven't a clue what you're talking about reagan screw up the country so bad we are still trying to get out of a lot of the finanical decisions he made
> ...


did reagan slow down the unemployment ??? no he did not ...  did reagan balance the budget??? no he did not ...did reagan bring down the national debt??? no he did not ... he did casue the national debt go up ... yes he did, 5 times the amount after he left office . and the unemployment went up after he left office even higher the the previous administration.. and we all know under clinton unemployment went down because he raised taxes ... we balanced the budget because he raised taxes
whats unbelieveable is how republicans like are are so stupid to what happen ... its like you live in a dream world[/QUOTE]

ROTFLMAO.....

Reagan had massive interest rates to deal with.

Tell me.....why did the country re-elect him so handily if he was doing so badly ?

Please...explain it to me.

Clinton balanced the budget by cutting the military and by carrying the economic expansion started by....wait for it.....Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Sep 18, 2014)

Picaro said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Crystalclear said:
> ...



Inflation is the natural result of Socialism.  

Socialist policy inflates the cost of doing business, those costs are passed along to the consumer.  To the PENNY... the increase in the cost of ANY and every product in service, since... (pick a time) is a direct result of and directly attributable to: The INCREASE IN THE COSTS TO BUSINESS by socialists in government.

Proving, ONCE AGAIN, that there is no free phone.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 21, 2014)

Listening said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



ROTFLMAO.....

Reagan had massive interest rates to deal with.

Tell me.....why did the country re-elect him so handily if he was doing so badly ?

Please...explain it to me.

Clinton balanced the budget by cutting the military and by carrying the economic expansion started by....wait for it.....Ronald Reagan.[/QUOTE]
bases were not cut by reagan moron ... his budget balance was caused by him raising taxes in the first two year in office


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 22, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> his budget balance was caused by him raising taxes in the first two year in office



Clinton didn't balance any budget.


----------



## sameech (Sep 22, 2014)

The last couple quotes are so broken I don't know who said what.  Clinton's deficit reductions were the byproduct of a period of global expansion that benefited several countries that had nothing to do with the US policies along the same trends lines.  Reagan lowering the interest rate and increasing spending gave consumers more money with which to consume, which stimulated growth.  Reagan, however, left the equity raiders unchecked, destroying lots of businesses which were land rich and cash poor so to speak, and Clinton set the stage for the mass exodus of middle class jobs.  Neither were particularly that great in terms of the chickens that have come home to roost, but I suppose I would give Reagan the slight edge over Clinton, though that probably has more to do with Top O'neil than reagan himself.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 22, 2014)

sameech said:


> The last couple quotes are so broken I don't know who said what.  Clinton's deficit reductions were the byproduct of a period of global expansion that benefited several countries that had nothing to do with the US policies along the same trends lines.  Reagan lowering the interest rate and increasing spending gave consumers more money with which to consume, which stimulated growth.  Reagan, however, left the equity raiders unchecked, destroying lots of businesses which were land rich and cash poor so to speak, and Clinton set the stage for the mass exodus of middle class jobs.  Neither were particularly that great in terms of the chickens that have come home to roost, but I suppose I would give Reagan the slight edge over Clinton, though that probably has more to do with Top O'neil than reagan himself.


total bull shit... go educate yourself... cause what you said here is total bull shit... clinton raised taxes on the rich and the working class by doing this the republicans rant about how it was going to run the country into the ground ... they pusded this rant all the way to the 1994 when republicans took the house... there wasn't one thing that reagan did that gave more money to the people ... he had cut so much IN taxes it forced george bush senior to go back on his no new taxes ... bush saw that the reagan bull sit tax cuts cause the country to lose jobs ... with his banking deregulation and his deregulating the monoply laws is why we are in the mess we are to daY ...


----------



## sameech (Sep 22, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> > The last couple quotes are so broken I don't know who said what.  Clinton's deficit reductions were the byproduct of a period of global expansion that benefited several countries that had nothing to do with the US policies along the same trends lines.  Reagan lowering the interest rate and increasing spending gave consumers more money with which to consume, which stimulated growth.  Reagan, however, left the equity raiders unchecked, destroying lots of businesses which were land rich and cash poor so to speak, and Clinton set the stage for the mass exodus of middle class jobs.  Neither were particularly that great in terms of the chickens that have come home to roost, but I suppose I would give Reagan the slight edge over Clinton, though that probably has more to do with Top O'neil than reagan himself.
> ...



I agree that the bolded part sums up your position.  If you go from paying double digit interest rates to single digit interest rates, you have more money to consume.  I don't care what generic republicans allegedly were saying.  It is just reality.  Give the banks 10% less on your debt and you have that 10% to buy goods and services.


----------



## Listening (Sep 24, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...


bases were not cut by reagan moron ... his budget balance was caused by him raising taxes in the first two year in office[/QUOTE]

Please;

Learn how to quote a post.

Second. Learn how to read.  You response makes no sense in the context of my post.

Reagan has MASSIVE INTEREST RATES to deal with.

That's a fact.


----------



## AntiParty (Sep 25, 2014)

Listening said:


> There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> 
> It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....
> 
> ...



20 posts on such a simple concept.

Reaganomics (The workers get paid more when the upper class gets paid more) <-Happened during the Great Depression, Learn More.

*Profits are an all time high and workers wages are an all time low.<-----*

Today some sources state CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners.....

Profit is a team effort and we need to stop this concept that the CEO and/or Supervisors do all the work. Without the workers, the CEO and Supervisors don't have anything. Many CEO's have never been inside the businesses the "run".


----------



## Friends (Sep 26, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


 
NAFTA and GATT were passed with bi partisan support.


----------



## Friends (Sep 26, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.


 
Any argument for more military spending is an argument for higher taxes to pay for it. By the end of World War II the top tax rate was 94 percent. 

Because the Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan, and because it was collapsing from within, Reagan's military buildup was unnecessary. Because Soviet leaders felt their power slipping away, provoking them with a nuclear arms race was dangerous.


----------



## Listening (Sep 26, 2014)

Friends said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.
> ...



All speculation and conjecture on your part.


----------



## Friends (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?
> 
> 
> Fun times.


 
Unfortunately George H.W. Bush did not have the integrity to turn down Reagan's offer to be his running mate.


----------



## Friends (Sep 26, 2014)

Listening said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



There is nothing speculative about the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes while raising defense spending. That is what Reagan did.


----------



## Listening (Sep 26, 2014)

Friends said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



It is all speculative.

Reagan turned loose and economic expansion of unmatched proportions.

Bush finally killed it with his drunken sailor congress.


----------



## Listening (Sep 26, 2014)

Friends said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?
> ...



If you are not going to debate the topic, then get off the thread.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

Listening said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Who are you? Somebody?


----------



## Friends (Sep 26, 2014)

I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.

Nevertheless, he did not seem to generate the hatred on the left that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama generated on the right.

During the Reagan years liberals were demoralized. We knew that the Great Society had been a failure, that the civil rights legislation had been a disappointment, but we were unwilling to do much thinking about why they had failed.

However, this thread is about Reagan's economic polices. The good economic numbers that happened during his administration were due exclusively to stimulating the economy with borrowed money. The U.S. economy was like an athlete who trained using amphetamines and steroids. The rich got, and stayed, richer. The rest of the country did not benefit.

More jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan. The Carter recession of 1980 was much milder than the Reagan recession of 1982. Unemployment never got as high under Carter as it got under Reagan. Of course, Reagan's deficits were vastly higher than Carter's deficits. The inflation of 1979 - 1980, which declined after 1982 was due to fluctuations in the world price of petroleum over which neither president had much control over.

The enduring legacy of Reagan is to leave most Republicans with the delusion that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases.


----------



## Listening (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



This is the CDZ.  I don't have to be anybody.

Either debate the topic or get off the thread.


----------



## Listening (Sep 26, 2014)

Friends said:


> I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.
> 
> Nevertheless, he did not seem to generate the hatred on the left that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama generated on the right.
> 
> ...



Carter was thrown out in 1980 (his bid for a second term).  Reagan won his with 49 states.  But that means nothing (except that he apparently duped a lot of democrats too).

Reagan took over a disaster that was much worse than what Obama faced given the inflation rates of the times.  Most of Reagan's early job losses were due to the contracting economy (thank you Jimmy).

Reagan's deficits mean nothing.  

Had Bush not been such a fool, the trajectory Clinton put us on would have retired all debt (Thank you Ronnie).  So Reagan's borrowing was meaningless.  

Bush's borrowing was simply stupid.


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 26, 2014)

Friends said:


> I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.
> 
> Nevertheless, he did not seem to generate the hatred on the left that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama generated on the right.
> 
> ...


I agree. But not a single one of his budgets were passed without the help of Tip O'Neil and other Democrats approving it. They took the pork and ran. Reagan wanted his defense build-up and O'Neil wanted pork for congressional districts. So they made a deal.


----------



## AntiParty (Sep 27, 2014)

Friends said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Oh, you thought being in a party would help you against the machine?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 27, 2014)

“[Reaganomics] did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html


----------



## AntiParty (Sep 27, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “[Reaganomics] did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.”
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html



The "hit" still hasn't stopped because it's still being practiced now........

But some can't figure out why the Middle Class is broke......


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 27, 2014)

*'Reaganomics’ Failure*

But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America’s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called “supply-side” by its admirers and “trickle-down” by its critics.

Reagan’s tax cuts brought a rapid ballooning of the federal debt, which was $934 billion in January 1981 when Reagan took office. When he departed in January 1989, the debt had jumped to $2.7 trillion, a three-fold increase. And the consequences of Reagan’s reckless tax-cutting continued to build under his successor, George H.W. Bush, who left office in January 1993 with a national debt of $4.2 trillion, more than a four-fold increase since the arrival of Republican-dominated governance in 1981.'



The Abject Failure of Reaganomics Consortiumnews


----------



## Meathead (Sep 27, 2014)

The amazing thing is that 25 years later pathetic attempts to attack his legacy continue.

Now that's a fucking legacy!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 27, 2014)

“The full Reaganomics program was not only tax cuts for the rich and corporations, it included union busting and social spending cuts. Social spending cuts were meant to offset the reduction in revenue created by the tax cuts, a just mean leverage of the lack of representation for the poor which actually shrunk the economy. Union busting was presumably meant to cut costs for business and create more capital that could then drive economic growth. _*But capital on it's own can't drive growth. In order to have economic growth, the public has to be able to spend on products other than sustenance and shelter. Reducing wages of union workers dragged down the wages of non-union workers and shrunk the economy into which capital wanted to sell product*_. It was an unforced error in economic policy that still has ideological support after thirty years of U.S. economic travail.”



Why Reaganomics Fails -- Succinctly Stephen Herrington


----------



## Friends (Sep 27, 2014)

Listening said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.
> ...


 
Why did, "Reagan's deficits mean nothing?" They were not supposed to happen. According to Reagan's Voodoo Economists tax cuts would balance the budget by 1983.

------------

One of the leading national issues during that year was the release of 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran since 4 November 1979.[1] Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration, in fact, 20 minutes after he concluded his inaugural address, the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages. The timing gave rise to an allegation that representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election to thwart President Carter from pulling off an "October surprise".

According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in U.S. banks.

After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the U.S. Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.

Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[2] former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation. There have been allegations that the 1980 Camarate air crash which killed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro, was in fact an assassination of the Defence Minister, Adelino Amaro da Costa, who had said that he had documents concerning the October surprise conspiracy theory and was planning on taking them to the United Nations General Assembly.
October Surprise conspiracy theory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## AntiParty (Sep 28, 2014)

Meathead said:


> The amazing thing is that 25 years later pathetic attempts to attack his legacy continue.
> 
> Now that's a fucking legacy!



Just like Thomas Edison and Christopher Columbus..............
Legacy........

Only a legacy due to lies, not actuality.


----------



## Listening (Sep 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> *'Reaganomics’ Failure*
> 
> But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America’s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called “supply-side” by its admirers and “trickle-down” by its critics.
> 
> ...



How long do we have to listen to this whining ?

Clinton then has an economy strong enough to almost totally retire that debt (along with some help from the GOP).

Obama has added more to the debt than Reagan and Bush combined.  A LOT MORE.

And there is no economy to sustain his spending.

The quoted article should be printed and then used to wipe your ass.  That's all it is good for.


----------



## Meathead (Sep 28, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > The amazing thing is that 25 years later pathetic attempts to attack his legacy continue.
> ...


Reagan's legacy is both historic and historical. The incessant whining is squarely historical revision.


----------



## Friends (Sep 28, 2014)

Meathead said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Reagan's legacy is the delusion that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, and never a good idea to raise them.


----------



## Listening (Sep 28, 2014)

Friends said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > AntiParty said:
> ...



Doesn't the left continually crow about all of Reagan's tax increases ?

Reagan s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero - Bloomberg

Make up your mind.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 30, 2014)

Listening said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > *'Reaganomics’ Failure*
> ...


 
 true that Obomination has added more debt than reagan and bush combined!!! every president since reagan has been worse and more corrupt than the previous one.Reagan at the time though bankrupted america worse than all presidents combined with thr worst debt ever,thats common knowledge.reagan is the grandfather of them all who started shipping jobs oeverseas thats why the media worships him because he was the grandfather of all the presidnets we have had since who have all betrayed americans.


----------



## Friends (Oct 18, 2014)

Listening said:


> So, how did Reagan put us on the road to ruin when we are on a very good road after he left office ?
> 
> .


 
We did not get on that "very good road" until President Clinton raised taxes on the rich. We got off the road as soon as George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich.


----------



## Friends (Oct 18, 2014)

Listening said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


 
Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28 percent. He raised flat and recessive taxes. In other words, taxes for the rich declined. Taxes for the rest of us went up.


----------



## Meathead (Oct 18, 2014)

Friends said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > AntiParty said:
> ...


Reagan is the most consequential leader of the modern age. Taxes are but a footnote in his legacy. The man changed the world and rendered generations of leftists impotent worldwide ffs!


----------



## Friends (Oct 18, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Reagan has been dead for years. We had to live through the crooked dot-com bubble, the go-go Enron insanity and the pardoning of the most notorious corporate crook in history during the Clinton administration. Almost two decades have passed and the radical left still can't seem to get a grip on reality. When are they going to realize that Obama is president?



The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan is the delusion among most Republicans that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, and never a good idea to raise them.

During the Roosevelt administration taxes on the rich got higher and higher.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

The unemployment rate got lower and lower.

United States Unemployment Rate 1920 ndash 2013 Infoplease.com

Real per capita gross domestic product got higher and higher.

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spent our way to prosperity.


----------



## Friends (Oct 18, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


 
Reagan made the rich richer while tripling the national debt and turning the United States from the world's greatest creditor country to the world's greatest debtor country.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Oct 18, 2014)

From the start of the Reagan era, a precedent was set. Deficit spending became the norm. Since those days, we have continued to practice Reaganomics, in that sense. What we established was this imperative; *economic growth by any means necessary*. If we have to run a $200 billion or $2 trillion deficit to keep the economy growing, then that's what we're going to do. 
Growth wasn't a problem until the 1970's. I mean, if you built a hardware store in a California town during the 1950's, business was almost guaranteed to increase over time because that town was doubling in population every decade. Eventually though, markets get saturated. How many hair salons and coffee shops can you put on one city block? To continue to achieve growth, you have to put miniature Starbucks dollhouse stores inside of regular sized Starbucks stores. I jest, but you get the point. 

As far as deficit spending goes, and why we continue on this path, I think there's a Chinese phrase that sums up the problem...
"He who rides the tiger can never dismount"


----------



## Listening (Oct 19, 2014)

Friends said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



And you really believe that the wealthy were paying 70% ?

Seriously ?


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 19, 2014)

Supply side economics, obviously, failed spectacularly.  The central premise- that if the rich have more money, they will invest more and that will spur economic growth that will trickle down to the people- turned out to be completely false.  We did everything humanly possible to divert more money to the rich and they just reduced the share of productivity that workers get.

In fact, low tax rates actually correlate to LOWER economic growth:






Low taxes on the rich correlate with low growth

If you look at our 20 best years for GDP growth, the top income tax bracket was over 50% in all of them and over 70% in most of them.


----------



## Friends (Oct 19, 2014)

Listening said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



They were paying a lot more than they are now. One of the benefits of a high top tax rate is that it gives the government more power over the economic behavior of the rich.


----------



## AntiParty (Oct 19, 2014)

tuhaybey said:


> Supply side economics, obviously, failed spectacularly.  The central premise- that if the rich have more money, they will invest more and that will spur economic growth that will trickle down to the people- turned out to be completely false.  We did everything humanly possible to divert more money to the rich and they just reduced the share of productivity that workers get.
> 
> In fact, low tax rates actually correlate to LOWER economic growth:
> 
> ...



These facts are bumming me out! I wish Politics was SIMPLE.

Actually I love facts and nothing makes me happier than learning them. Reagonomics? Reagan was an actor. A person that was openly willing to act like someone they aren't. The Right Wing ate it up like a deer eating corn about to be shot. YUMMY YUMMY!

Yet I don't agree with you on Tax Rates. The softest brains can see that higher taxes won't create economic growth, the chart simply shows that not everyone is as stupid as the CURRENT Right Wing. I mean, Mitt Romney, the very FACE of everything wrong with America almost won an election. This doesn't make Obama a good President. It simply exposes our flawed political system.


----------



## AntiParty (Oct 19, 2014)

Friends said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



Do you think the people should have a higher tax rate, or a Corporation?


----------



## AntiParty (Oct 19, 2014)

Friends said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



That's because Americans don't understand Politics at it's most basic point.

The Right Hates Government.

The Left Hates Corporations.

Facts show you cannot become a political figure without Corporate Donors in America today. This isn't hard to understand.


----------



## AntiParty (Oct 19, 2014)

Reagan was an ACTOR that showed signs of intellect, until his party deemed him unfit to talk.


----------



## Friends (Oct 19, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Probably people, although I am undecided on the matter.


----------



## Friends (Oct 19, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> Reagan was an ACTOR that showed signs of intellect, until his party deemed him unfit to talk.


 
I believe it was Don Regan who said of Reagan, "It was not enough to tell him what to say. You had to write in chalk where he had to put his feet."


----------



## tuhaybey (Oct 19, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> The softest brains can see that higher taxes won't create economic growth



Higher taxes in and of themselves certainly don't create economic growth.  However, smartly investing in the future and in activities that benefit the economy now DOES create economic growth.  Borrowing less can be a good thing economically.  If the higher taxes on the rich enable you to lower taxes on the middle class, that helps the economy too.  It isn't the taxing in and of itself that is beneficial, it is what we do with the money that is beneficial.  And history seems to show us that the benefits of the things we do with the money significantly outweigh the harm of collecting the taxes.  Especially when we collect the taxes from the rich where it does the least economic harm.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 19, 2014)

Its easy to see that Reagan was very corrupt but I don't think it was that simple. He was desperate for approval, mostly from Nancy and her astrologer but also from his own people and the country. Additionally, he wasn't smart enough to cover his own tracks, or maybe he just thought he would get away with whatever he did. 

As it happens, that is exactly what has happened. In spite of them knowing he was a crook, many RWs idolize him.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 19, 2014)

Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.


----------



## Friends (Oct 19, 2014)

The most corrosive delusion to emerge from the Reagan administration is the belief that tax cuts generate increases in tax revenue.

There is enough truth to this to make it plausible to those who want to believe it. And who does not want to believe it? Wouldn't it be nice if we could lose weight by watching more television, while eating more potato chips with cheese spread?

During the Reagan administration the top tax rate declined from 70 to 28 percent. Income tax receipts increased by $196.3 billion in constant 2009 dollars. Hey, let's buy a big bag of chips, and ten pounds of Cheez Whiz!

Not so fast. During the Carter administration, the top tax rate remained at 70 percent. Income tax receipts increased by $161.1 billion.

Let us remember that Carter was in office for 4 years. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Thus income tax receipts in constant 2009 dollars grew by $40.275 billion under Carter. Under Reagan this declined to $24.5375.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The complex truth behind the Republican delusion is that income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of economic growth. However, they increase more when taxes are not cut than when they are cut. They increase still more when taxes are raised.

So, just as there is no such thing as an eat all you want and take it easy method of losing weight, so it was never possible during the Reagan administration to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making cuts in domestic spending that the overwhelming majority of the voters would have opposed.

In other words, Reaganomics was fraudulent. It was a scam designed to make the rich richer. It certainly succeeded there.


----------



## Friends (Oct 19, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.



During the Carter administration an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 19, 2014)

Listening said:


> There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."
> 
> It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan.  It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....
> 
> ...



Of course the debt was increased under Reagan.  This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices...  Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power.  This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 19, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Its easy to see that Reagan was very corrupt but I don't think it was that simple. He was desperate for approval, mostly from Nancy and her astrologer but also from his own people and the country. Additionally, he wasn't smart enough to cover his own tracks, or maybe he just thought he would get away with whatever he did.
> 
> As it happens, that is exactly what has happened. In spite of them knowing he was a crook, many RWs idolize him.



In truth, Ronald Reagan was among the single most morally innocent people to hold the office of the President of the United States, since the original GW and his predecessor, John Adams.

This without regard to fraudulent professions of those animated by evil, on this board, such as that quoted above.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 19, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.



Trickle Down Economics, is the circumstance wherein those with the power to do so, strip the product of labor from those who produced it, so as to bring it up to the lofty perch which they enjoy, use most of it to sustain their power and allow a very minor percentage to 'trickle-down' to subsidize those whose votes keep them in power.

It's a fool's errand at best.


----------



## Friends (Oct 19, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Of course the debt was increased under Reagan.  This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.
> 
> 
> These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices...  Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.
> ...



In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.


----------



## Friends (Oct 20, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.
> ...


 
Since at least the inauguration of Warren G. Harding in 1021 there have usually been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents, the per capita gross domestic product has usually grown more, even the stock market has grown more.


----------



## Treeshepherd (Oct 20, 2014)

Economic growth took care of itself until the 70's. Before then, capitalism was all about meeting the rising demands of a rapidly growing population. After that, the goal shifted more toward the cultivation of needs. Build it, market the ever living crap out of it, and they will buy it. Supply side economics. Pretty soon every garage in suburbia was cluttered with exercise machines, bread makers, moldy clothes, 4000 plastic toys made in China, and what have you. 

Much of the hyper-consumerism was enabled by credit. Credit products were developed. 

And that leads me to another aspect of the 80s. The percentage of the economy produced by finance increased dramatically. That trend continued into this century. The finance slice of the economy doesn't produce jobs like manufacturing and such. Trickle down doesn't work so well for job creation when it is far more profitable to start a hedge fund than open a widget factory. 

I'm not a fan of Reagan. But, I tend to regard our presidents more as reflections of society than orchestrators.


----------



## Listening (Oct 20, 2014)

Friends said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the debt was increased under Reagan.  This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.
> ...



If you are gong to stand on David Stockman's shoulders, you better hope there isn't a rope around your balls.


----------



## Friends (Oct 21, 2014)

Listening said:


> If you are gong to stand on David Stockman's shoulders, you better hope there isn't a rope around your balls.


 
What is that supposed to mean? David Stockman had an inside view of the Reagan administration. Reagan's economic policy was intrinsically fraudulent. Stockman had the integrity to say so. 

During the campaign of 1980 Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. That was a lie. Stockman said it was a lie. 

Reagan was stupid enough that me may have thought that was possible. Jack Kemp probably thought it  was possible. Arthur Laffer probably thought it was possible too. 

More intelligent Republicans knew it was not possible. Their motive was nefarious. They wanted to bankrupt the government, so that the Democrats could not spend money helping their constituents. They knew that the Republican Party benefits when white blue collar workers think, "The Democrats never did anything to help me. At least the Republicans won't take my guns." 

The Democrats let the tax issue get away from them. As long as most Americans got more from the government in benefits than they paid in taxes, the Democratic Party dominated the country.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 21, 2014)

Lots of myths about both Carter and the Reagan years. Here is a nice and accurate piece on the Reagan Era and the Reagan Myth:

Carter ruined the economy Reagan saved it

RE capital gains cuts and the like:



> *THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW
> According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.
> 
> There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product:*
> ...



The bolded is partly  what is going on today. Lower gains taxes and off-shoring of cash and profits is sucking money out of the economy, not growing it.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 21, 2014)

Friends said:


> During the campaign of 1980 Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. That was a lie. Stockman said it was a lie.
> 
> Reagan was stupid enough that me may have thought that was possible. Jack Kemp probably thought it  was possible. Arthur Laffer probably thought it was possible too.



There were several tax increases under Reagan; he signed off on them. The trouble was they were the kind of tax increases that sucked money out of the pockets of those who could least afford the taxes.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 21, 2014)

Friends said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the debt was increased under Reagan.  This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.
> ...



Golly... If I had not just said that Reagan was forced into deficit spending because of the escalating Social Justice spending; known as 'the great society' legislation of the 1960s, THAT would be SUCH a great point.

This policy was passed by SOCIALISTS IN THE LEGISLATURE and that 'most US citizens lack the strength of character to reject monies confiscated from those who produced it by the abuse of government power, by socialists...  doesn't change that.

If it helps... not a single of those people can be counted as "Americans".  As Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define: America.

See how that works?


----------



## Friends (Oct 22, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > During the campaign of 1980 Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. That was a lie. Stockman said it was a lie.
> ...


 
Reagan flattened the tax system. He raised taxes paid by working and middle class people. He cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28 percent.


----------



## Friends (Oct 22, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


 
If the increases in domestic spending under President Johnson was wrong, Reagan had the responsibility to say so. He had the responsibility to be very specific about which domestic spending programs he intended to reduce or eliminate. 

He did not do that, because he knew most of the increases in non military spending under Johnson - like Medicare and environmental protection - were popular with the voters. Instead he made vague generalities saying, "We are going to put the government on a diet," and stuff like that. That left white voters with the delusion that the budget could be balanced by cutting welfare programs for blacks.

If it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980's it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for the increases.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 22, 2014)

Friends said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help."  He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM."  These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.


And just in case ya missed it: THAT'S BAD!


Also, on this notion that a popular graft is a good graft, or that the evil that underlies the graft is justified because 'duh PEOPLES!' benefitting from such would be upset if an adult came along, recognized that they were responsible for their economic well being and not the illicit governance which was currently abusing its authority to confiscate the money that they were receiving, from those who produced it, as means to give it to them, so as to promote the interests of those who infected the government with the foreign ideas hostile to American principles, insuring, to the degree possible, the political power of that foreign insurgency, is NONSENSE!

Reagan did everything he could reasonably do to get the socialists in the house to roll back the legislation or to modify it to preclude the on-going massive increases in federal liabilities, but at the end of each day he still had the responsibilities set upon him by the US Constitution, without regard to the economic treachery which had been and was at the time (and which has today grown to fatal levels) and merely went about doing what he was otherwise obligated to do, trusting that Nature (God) would work it all out in his own way.   Which was brilliant, because God is working it out and it appears that he has just decided that we will be subjected the predictable and sadly: catastrophic consequences of natural law, which speak to the inviable nature of giving children and fools a voice in governance.

Sadly, the laws of cause and effect do not leave Reagan responsible for law which he vehemently opposed and which he was legally obligated to work within... or morally obligated to work around, such as was the case in the Contra thing.

Now you and I may feel that what he should have done is to go on national television, state the case, wherein he defines socialism, explains how such is antithetical to the principles on which America rests, professing the certainty that McCarthy was right and communists were replete throughout the US Culture, media, academia, industry and government ... that they were working to undermine the viability of the United States and that such was a clear and present threat to the security of same and that just prior to coming before them, he had signed orders in recognition of the state of war which has long existed between the two competing ideas; good and evil... had directed the US Military to seize control of the United States, under his just powers to declare martial law... and that the members of the opposition party were at that moment being rounded up for trails which were being held at that moment in the basement of the K-mart down on L street and '... wait, I've just received word that the Judge and jury had found that the evidence born in the record of their public professions and policy advocacies had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Democrat Party is in fact a formal insurgency of Foreign Ideas which are in fact hostile to the principles upon which our nation was founded and which sustain her..." and that as a result each had been summarily executed... and that actions around the nation are being held in every state, city, town and burgh, to ferret out lesser Democrats... and unaffiliated socialists, even as the trials for these tens of thousands of enemy insurgents are under way.  "Convictions for most have already been determined... adjudication pends only their being located."  But within the law, such an option was not available to him.

In hindsight, would it have been the right thing to do?  Would it have prevented 9-11?  Yes... of course.  

Would it have prevented the collapse of the financial markets due to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy in 08?  Absolutely... .

Would it have prevented the abuse of power, election fraud and treachery common to the cult of obama, including the infection of the US Culture with Ebola? You bet... .

But it is not valid reasoning to judge Reagan on evidence of the carnage which, sure... he should have 'known' intellectually and we can rest assured he did, as such was inevitable,  but he did not have the advantage of witnessing it.  

So... it's like the old saw that 'if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would that be the right thing to do?  The answer for us, on the other side the equation is a resounding YES!... but, the instant one entered the dimension of the reality common to the 1930s... the act would have been little more than murder of a well loved, exceedingly popular, highly successful head of state.  And YOU would become: the anathema which you were sent to kill.

Twisted ain't it...?


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 22, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.


It already did, it allowed a washed up unionized actor to play the hero while being a zero...


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 22, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Why tell the working class what we already knew?
yet the responsibility of Reagan to reduce govt., the debt, reduce the budget was not what happened..
The only reason Reagan was a republican was because his penis was led into the party by Nancy...that nasty first lady that send out family breaking edicts from her lofty chamber...


----------



## Picaro (Oct 22, 2014)

The GOP controlled the White House and Senate for most of Reagan's Presidency. If they didn't like the House's treatments of his budgets they had more than enough power to stop any spending bill they wanted to. It's a load of BS that Reagan and the GOP were poor helpless victims trying to 'fight the good fight', and were just overrun by Commies, as alleged by the Reagan Deification Society.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 22, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



LOL!  Nonsense.

Reagan was a Republican because he had first hand experience with the true nature of the Left, which literally tried to have him killed, because he opposed them.  Things might have been different, if they'd only forced him, through the police powers of the State, to bake a cake for their pretend wedding celebrating unbridled debauchery and hedonism.  

But I doubt it, one is pretty much the same as the other.


With regard to the balance of your silliness: You're looking at the results of Reagan's Presidency and you're seeing increases in Federal Debt, which without Reagan would have been exponentially larger, without the benefit of having crushed the Soviet Union, without the benefit of having increased US Domestic output, without the benefit ... period.


One need look no further than the reality of the obama cult, which cried and cried over the 150 billion in average annual deficits of the Bush Administrations, which included the Clinton recession and security deficits that lead directly to 9-11, wherein a trillion dollar in US domestic production was lost as a result of a two hour long attack upon Manhattan and the subsequent world war that followed, all the while having to carry the domestic ideological left which promoted treachery to the point that it ELECTED in the wake of Bush, A MUSLIM MARXIST who increased annual deficit spending by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, from 150 billion in average deficit spending to 1500 billion in annual deficit spending.


The absurdity of the Ideological Left even TRYING to advocate against the infinite ascent of federal debt through spending is now something well beyond LUDICROUS!


So... LOL!  It would have been a nice try, if it weren't so palpably PATHETIC.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 22, 2014)

Picaro said:


> The GOP controlled the White House and Senate for most of Reagan's Presidency. If they didn't like the House's treatments of his budgets they had more than enough power to stop any spending bill they wanted to. It's a load of BS that Reagan and the GOP were poor helpless victims trying to 'fight the good fight', and were just overrun by Commies, as alleged by the Reagan Deification Society.



Ahhh... the old '"Republicans" had control...' ruse.

The GOP has long been controlled by the Progressive Left.  We're presently working through that, even as we speak.  And if ya need evidence of it, simply google: "Socialists crying over The Tea Party"  or any variation of the theme and you'll see the Left weeping and gnashing their collective teeth over the Party's end.  

Party control over the Senate doesn't help when the 'party' is the mirror image of the other party.  

Good news there... that crap is quickly coming to a close.  Sadly, at least as I see it, it's way too late.  Most likely the US is a fair replication of Gaza in ten years and for the same reason Gaza is what it is.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 23, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ahhh... the old '"Republicans" had control...' ruse.
> 
> The GOP has long been controlled by the Progressive Left.



Well, they did control the budget process. Whether one likes that fact or not doesn't change it, nor does the 'No True Scotsman' ruse work, either.


----------



## Friends (Oct 23, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help."  He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM."  These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.



You have not refuted any of my comments. Reagan never listed _specific spending cuts_. All he talked about was eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse," without explaining what he considered to be waste, fraud, and abuse.

David Stockman was Ronald Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was published in 1986, he made it clear that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1883, as Reagan said it was possible in his debate with Carter, without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of the voters, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Farm and business subsidies would have had to be eliminated. Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions would have had to be slashed. There was hardly any support for that. David Stockman revealed that Reagan's economic policy was fraudulent.

In one of his columns that I wish I saved George Will admitted that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved 100% in Congress the increase in the national debt would have only been 10% less than it was under Reagan. 

Since Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 Republican politicians have learned that while there is support for less government in principle, there is little support for specific cuts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 23, 2014)

Friends said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help."  He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM."  These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.
> ...



Waste, Fraud and Abuse define "The Great Society"... 

Now, will there be anything else?


----------



## Friends (Oct 23, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


 
That is your opinion. It is not the consensus. The War on Poverty was a failure. Medicare is popular. After Bush tried to privatize Social Security he ran into effective resistance not from liberal elitists, but from the voters. Then he expanded Medicare coverage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 23, 2014)

Friends said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



Consensus?  

ROFLMNAO!  

That's hysterical...

.

.

.

Now do: *DE N I I I i i i i i i i  E  R!*


----------



## Friends (Oct 25, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



That is not a rebuttal. It reveals that you have no rebuttal.

The overwhelming majority of the American people support Medicare.

Google


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 25, 2014)

Friends said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



It actually IS a rebuttal... in the form of a belittlement.  

The popularity perceived as 'the overwhelming majority of the American people support Medicare is as irrelevant, as would be 'the  overwhelming majority of the American people support plucking the eyes out of senior citizens.'  

This is because senior citizens have precisely the same claim to the product of labor of non-senior citizens, as would the non-senior citizens to the eyes of senior citizens.  

And THAT is setting aside the IRREFUTABLE FACT that 'medicare' is THOROUGHLY UNSUSTAINABLE AS IT WAS WRITTEN... let alone the UTTER BASTARDIZATION of such, which stripped medicare of ALL discernible standards, providing care to people who are otherwise WELL CAPABLE of providing for THEMSELVES.

But these things are what SOUND LEADERSHIP is designed to set straight... and SOUND LEADERSHIP is what POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is designed to DESTROY.

Now, because a culture cannot survive without sound leadership is an incontestable FACT... we can therefore be CERTAIN that Political Correctness was DESIGNED TO DESTROY THE CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES, along with western culture on the whole.

Feel better?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 25, 2014)

So, uh, when are those jobs gonna start trickling down?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 25, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> So, uh, when are those jobs gonna start trickling down?


Jobs do not trickledown.  State and Federal subsidy checks, 'trickledown'.  

Jobs are created by people who join with others to produce products and/or services to those who have a need for such, who trade the value they possess for the value intrinsic to the product/services... .  Through that transaction, both all parties profit.

This is known as capitalism... where free people exercise their God-given rights to pursue the fulfillment of their lives.

It runs counter to the irrational notions of socialism, which seeks to confiscate those profits from all individuals,  which it uses to pay the oligarchy in extravagance, then trickles-down the balance of the ill-gotten product of the labor of a free people, to the least common denominators, who's low character provides for them to live on  stolen monies even as it uses it's vote to undermine the viability of the very system that subsidizes their own existence; these people are known as "THE DREGS".   The least productive organism on earth... parasites who threaten the viability of whatever culture they infect.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 29, 2014)

Listening said:


> let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.
> 
> I'll start with a few posts.....



dear, Reaganomics was capitalism to the extent that Reagan could implement capitalism. Do you understand.


----------



## EconChick (Nov 3, 2014)

Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 3, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.



Yes, perhaps the biggest mistake people make here is assuming the president is the govt. It would be 100% impossible to recreate the Reagan economic era anyway so looking at those years for lessons  about what to do today is absurd. In Reagans era the Japanese were just getting a foothold in the American car market and China had barely taken its first steps toward capitalism.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 3, 2014)

EconChick said:


> Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.



Radical RWs hate our system of checks and balances. 

Reagan was corrupt, crooked and a disaster for the country.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Nov 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.
> ...



1) defeating communism, freeing 2 billon people,  saving the world from nuclear anniliation, and starting 
the longest period of continuous economic growth in US history was a disaster but only to  a libcommie airhead.


----------



## EconChick (Nov 3, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > EconChick said:
> ...


 

The ignorance is breathtaking.  Like someone saying America was not the first to put a man on the moon.

I expect the revisionists to come up with that one soon.


----------



## EconChick (Nov 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EconChick said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, and he had to contend with Dems always having the House.
> ...




I'm sure the little Red Book says that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 3, 2014)




----------



## Jroc (Nov 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


>




You're a moron..


*



			When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramaticallyacross-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.
		
Click to expand...





			The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.

Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.
		
Click to expand...







			it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent
		
Click to expand...

*

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times The real story The Daily Caller


----------

