If you can't [deficit] spend your way to prosperity

[JBeukema]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

 

[ScreamingEagle]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

5. Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House

 

[JBeukema]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

5. Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term) Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% 0.05 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R Truman Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.7% D D Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2% D D Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3% D D Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3% D D Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.07 -3.0% D D Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.19 +0.2% D D Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.28 -3.3% D D Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.66 +11.3% D R Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% 1.04 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 51.1% 66.1% 1.40 +15.0% D D Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% 1.18 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.45 -9.0% R R Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.73 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.4% 83.4% 2.63 +20.0% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D Obama1 Barack Obama
D 2009– 83.4%


111th D, 112th R


only the bushes were more (Obama's not yet calculated)

 

[JBeukema]

U.S. National Debt Graph + Amazing YouTube Story of the Debt

 

[The T]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

5. Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House

Cumulative Totals:

Dem POTUS = 15.4
Rep POTUS = 15.1

Not a lot of difference. Of course there are many other factors not considered in the totals....

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

5. Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term) Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% 0.05 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R Truman Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.7% D D Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2% D D Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3% D D Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3% D D Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.07 -3.0% D D Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.19 +0.2% D D Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.28 -3.3% D D Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.66 +11.3% D R Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% 1.04 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 51.1% 66.1% 1.40 +15.0% D D Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% 1.18 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.45 -9.0% R R Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.73 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.4% 83.4% 2.63 +20.0% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D Obama1 Barack Obama
D 2009– 83.4%


111th D, 112th R


only the bushes were more (Obama's not yet calculated)

And this relates to post #3, how?

Reagan deserves credit for trying to slow spending.

a. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, from the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act, set specific deficit reduction targets, and would have required drastic slashing of defense and domestic spending programs by 1990…except that Congress re-wrote the bill. John Samples, “The Struggle to Limit Government: A Modern Political History,” p. 139.

b. “Ronald Reagan sought- and won- more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last [forty-five] years to cut inflation adjusted nondefense outlays, which fells by 9.7 percent during his first term.” Veronique de Rugy, “President Reagan: Champion Budget-Cutter,” AEI - Papers

c. But…over his two terms, total federal spending increased 22% faster than inflation. On the other hand, if you consider it as a percentage of GDP, since he grew the economy, spending actually decreased from 22.2% to 21.2 %. Historical Tables | The White House


Of course, the discussion doen't include what Reagan bought with increased spending, and refusal to cut defense spending.

He changed the course of history.

Compare that to the current President's trillion dollar boondoggle, which has proven to be another nail in the coffin of Keynesian economic theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

5. Average Annual Spending Increases (excluding interest)
a. JFK 4.6%
b. LBJ 5.7%
c. Nixon 2.9%
d. Ford 2.7%
e. Carter 3.2%
f. Reagan 1.9%
g. BushI 2.0%
h. Clinton 1.9%
i. BushII 5.6%
Historical Tables | The White House

Cumulative Totals:

Dem POTUS = 15.4
Rep POTUS = 15.1

Not a lot of difference. Of course there are many other factors not considered in the totals....

I think it also clears up an unspoken assumption that Republican means conservative...

Bush's stats clearly show him not to be conservative, as this implies smaller government and less regulation....

 

[The Rabbi]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Well, Reagan ushered in one of the longest periods of post war prosperity through his policies, having inherited a terrible economy.
Obama has one of the slowest growth recoveries on record, despite spending billions more in "stimulus".
So why are you dredging up a 30 year old policy? Could it be to deflect attention from the Liebturd Obamarrhoid's failed policies??

 

[uscitizen]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

The SS withholding was also increased too much giving Congress access to those surplus funds to spend.

How many spending bills did Reagan veto?

 

[uscitizen]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Well, Reagan ushered in one of the longest periods of post war prosperity through his policies, having inherited a terrible economy.
Obama has one of the slowest growth recoveries on record, despite spending billions more in "stimulus".
So why are you dredging up a 30 year old policy? Could it be to deflect attention from the Liebturd Obamarrhoid's failed policies??

Postwar prosperity? When?
Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, etc.

 

[Revere]

What was the national debt, budget deficit, or size of government relative to GDP or any other metric in the 1980s?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It must hurt to have no one on the left that could hold Reagans junk.

The debt? That's it? That's all you have?

Did you not notice the vast growth? I haven't heard of anything like it.

He even carried the union vote during his re-election.

Damn, just admit he was the best and you guys have the 2 worst, and move on.

Time to come down from the cross, use the wood to build a bridge and get over it.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm yes the debt, the same thing that the right and most are ragging on Obama now about.

Defecit = debt.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The economy wasn't shit canning under Reagan. He pulled it out, breathed life into and set it loose so it could grow.

Nobody after Reagan put the damn breaks on.

Now it's was outta hand under Bush. Obama said we was the anti-Bush, turns out he was Bush on a bender.

We are doing things now that may lead to a crash. Instead of easing us down the hole so we can climb out, we are about to be tossed off, on the chance that it might work.

I don't know about you, but doing the same damn thing, only more of it, is not a good idea. It no longer works so lets try something else.

Or we can just let the left finish what the right kept doing from when the left took over from the right that the left was doing first.....

Look, we are out of money. Every thing we spend is borrowed, something must change.

 

[rdean]

Reagan Legacy Project

In the late 90's, the Republicans started the "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project". The party needed a "hero", so they took Reagan, rewrote history and made one up.

Bush followed the purely invented policies of the made up Reagan legacy and expected them to work.

If Reagan grew the economy by moving wealth from the middle class to the top 1%, then Bush expected the economy to really grow by moving trillions from the middle class to the top 1%.

Only it didn't work. It was a fantasy. A scam.

You can't just "make stuff up". This is what happens. People think it worked then, it should work again. Only it didn't.

 

[uscitizen]

The economy wasn't shit canning under Reagan. He pulled it out, breathed life into and set it loose so it could grow.

Nobody after Reagan put the damn breaks on.

Now it's was outta hand under Bush. Obama said we was the anti-Bush, turns out he was Bush on a bender.

We are doing things now that may lead to a crash. Instead of easing us down the hole so we can climb out, we are about to be tossed off, on the chance that it might work.

I don't know about you, but doing the same damn thing, only more of it, is not a good idea. It no longer works so lets try something else.

Or we can just let the left finish what the right kept doing from when the left took over from the right that the left was doing first.....

Look, we are out of money. Every thing we spend is borrowed, something must change.

Everything we spend is borrowed?
I think not.
Rhou doest seem a bit overly dramitic and exaggerative.

 

[editec]

I find it odd that people fully understand that the supply side needs enough money to create good and services, but they cannot also understand that the demand side needs money to buy the stuff the supply side makes.

And what I find most troubling about this blindsidedness is that these people think they understand economics, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Reagan lowered taxes....and got a lot of government off our backs....which grew the economy.....same thing rightwingers want today....

Reagan's mostly dimwit congress overspent...same thing Obama and his dimwit congress is doing today....

The SS withholding was also increased too much giving Congress access to those surplus funds to spend.

How many spending bills did Reagan veto?

Excellent point!

There were two gifts that Reagan gave to Clinton (in terms of economics)...one noble and notable, the other the kind of sleight of hand that passes for simple accounting...

1. By ending the threat of the 'Evil Empire,' Reagan awarded Clinton with the 'peace dividend,' which allowed for some 2.2% of GDP less to be necessary in military preparedness.

2. The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People | Dissident Voice

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

c. Of course, the future will be far different: “Instead of Social Security subsidizing the rest of the budget, the rest of the budget will have to subsidize Social Security.” Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Recession Hurts Social Security Trust Fund - CBS News

These 'gifts' to the Clinton budgets, plus reductions in interest costs due to a burgeoning economy due to the tax policies of Reagan, benefitted both the Democrats and the American people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

how, exactly, do the rightwingers think Reagan made us prosperous?

or are they no longer saying his policies were a good thing?

or does he get no credit because Congress writes the budget?

They change their tune too much; I can't keep track of it

Well, Reagan ushered in one of the longest periods of post war prosperity through his policies, having inherited a terrible economy.
Obama has one of the slowest growth recoveries on record, despite spending billions more in "stimulus".
So why are you dredging up a 30 year old policy? Could it be to deflect attention from the Liebturd Obamarrhoid's failed policies??

Postwar prosperity? When?
Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, etc.

Reagan instituted across-the-board reductions in tax rates, while Bush and Clinton both pushed massive tax increases. The most disturbing conclusion is that the 1990 and 1993 tax increases have cost Americans far more than the extra earnings collected by the IRS; they have cost the economy at least two years of growth. Comparing the two recoveries:
• Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).

• After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.

• Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).

• Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).

• Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.

In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families