NATIONAL DEBT EXPLODES under Trump now threatening programs like SOCIAL SECURITY

[centerleftFL]

Take this to the bank

By the end of his second term, Trump will be the first President since Coolidge to retire US debt.

Trump will also put Congress back on a real budget and get back the line item veto Presidents had prior to the Progressives stealing it with the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

You are living in a fantasy world, Trump has not even talked about cutting spending, all he wants to do is spend more on different things.

He says all that WEALTH he is creating will add to the TAX COFFERS. He's repeated it since he came down the escalator.

 

[candycorn]

The article does not just say MEDICARE. It says SOCIAL SECURITY. He and McConnell and the rich got their tax cuts! That is all that matters, right?

US debt explodes under Trump — threatening vital programs like Social Security

TANA GANEVA
26 JUN 2018 AT 12:34 ET


President Donald Trump is fond of boasting about the economic gains achieved by his administration, even as critics point out that improving economic indicators can be traced back to Obama era policies. The President often brags that his business acumen, applied to America’s economy and world trade, has resulted in wins for the American people.

But as Politico reported Tuesday, the US federal deficit has also soared during his time in office, threatening the future of vital programs like Social Security and Medicare.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, in less than two decades the federal deficit will the biggest in history.


“The prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” according to CBO director Keith Hall.


“In CBO’s projections, most of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population. Growth in spending on Medicare and the other major health care programs is also driven by rising health care costs per person,” he said.



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/us...ng-vital-programs-like-social-security/soared

Doubtful.

If it wasn’t under threat before, I doubt anything the blob has done in 18 months has truly endangered it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We hobbled along for 8 years until we got Trump, now we took off..

Exactly what has taken off?

It was not the UE rate....

It was not job creation...

It was not the Labor Force Participation Rate

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Take this to the bank

By the end of his second term, Trump will be the first President since Coolidge to retire US debt.

Trump will also put Congress back on a real budget and get back the line item veto Presidents had prior to the Progressives stealing it with the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

You are living in a fantasy world, Trump has not even talked about cutting spending, all he wants to do is spend more on different things.

He says all that WEALTH he is creating will add to the TAX COFFERS. He's repeated it since he came down the escalator.

And all his sheep think it is true, that is the really sad part.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Take this to the bank

By the end of his second term, Trump will be the first President since Coolidge to retire US debt.

Trump will also put Congress back on a real budget and get back the line item veto Presidents had prior to the Progressives stealing it with the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974

You are living in a fantasy world, Trump has not even talked about cutting spending, all he wants to do is spend more on different things.

You'll see

Any day now!

 

[airplanemechanic]

Obama added 10 trillion. Far more than any other President. Trump isn't even remotely close to that number. Stick with Russian collusion, Stormy Daniels and kicking Republicans out of restaurants.

Trump is on his way to surpassing that, despite being handed a strong economy.

Obama's debt to GDP ratio rose 38% from 2009 - 2016. Trump's estimated for his first four years is only 3%.

I should hope so, since he was handed a strong economy. If there's one guy I bet could fuck that up, it's your tariff and subsidies President.

Any republican can mess it up.

The bush boy was handed an even better economy and in 8 short years completely collapsed it.

Obama handed him a good economy and he's doing his best to mess it up.

Bush was handed the dot-com bubble which trimmed 6 trillion in wealth from the US economy in late 2000 early 2001.

 

[depotoo]

Reaganesque Keynesianism.

Increasing the debt load, passing it on to our kids.

Give it time.
A reminder, from a post of mine back in April-

Why did the middle class thrive and have more money under Reagan? proof inside?


The Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created. Nonetheless, there are those, such as Secretary Reich, who have attempted to portray the 1980s as a period of economic hardship and decline for most Americans.


This paper will rely on data from the Census Bureau to analyze the income growth of the 1980s. The evidence shows that the percentage of households in the low income category declined during the 1980s, while the proportion of high income households increased. Furthermore, while the middle class shrank as a share of all households, the reason for this is upward, not downward, mobility.


Middle Class "Shrinking" Upward


The graph below shows the percentage of all households in low, middle, and high income categories. During economic decline, household income tends to fall, while during economic progress, household incomes tend to increase. The 1982-89 expansion conforms to the expected pattern of income growth during an economic upturn.


The percentage of households in the low income category dropped during the 1980s. This group comprised 27.5 percent of all households in 1980, 28.5 percent in 1982, and only 25.3 percent by 1989. As a share of all households, the proportion of those with low incomes became less prominent by the end of the 1980s.


Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6 percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of high income households is another sign of solid income growth.


Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989. In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?


If the middle class shrinkage had resulted from massive income losses resulting in expansion of the low income group, it would clearly signal that something was seriously wrong. However, a review of the data shows that the reverse was happening. Income gains were pushing a greater proportion of middle class households into the high income category. Of the 4 percentage point reduction in the middle class percentage between 1980 and 1989, all of it is accounted for by net upward movement into the high income category.


Conclusion


Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.


http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/...


Unfortunately, the page was taken down during the Obama admin.

But no fear, here is another to help back up its assertions of fact-



When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.


All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.


President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:


1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.


2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.


3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.


4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, 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%.


These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. 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. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.


During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. 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.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven 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.


Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Wow, even the New York Times recognized it in a 1990 article-

We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time.

The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let's look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan's new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Creation of wealth.

The amount of wealth produced during this seven year period was stupendous - some $30 trillion worth of goods and services. Again, it was a world record. Never before had so much wealth been produced during a comparable period. According to a recent study, net asset values - including stocks, bonds and real estate - went up by more than $5 trillion between 1982 and 1989, an increase of roughly 50 percent.

There are other important measures. Steady economic growth. As we begin the decade of the 1990's, we are in our 86th straight month of economic growth - a new record for peacetime, five months longer than the wartime growth of World War II and only 23 months short of the wartime record set during the Vietnam War in the 1960's. Most experts now predict that it will last right through 1990, and perhaps beyond.

Income tax rates, interest rates and inflation.

Under President Reagan, top personal income tax rates were lowered dramatically, from 70 percent to 28 percent. This policy change was the prime force behind the record breaking economic expansion. Interest rates and inflation also fell sharply and, so far, have stayed comfortably low - afurther indication of the power and pervasiveness of Mr. Reagan's economic policies. The stock market. Perhaps the key indicator of an economy's booms and busts is the stock market, the bottom line economic report card. And here the record has been striking. During the period from 1970 to 1982,the stock market barely moved. The Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocksinched up about 35 percent during that entire period. But starting in late1982, just as Reaganomics began to work, the stock market took off like a giant skyrocket. Since then, the Standard & Poor's index has soared,reaching a record high of 360, almost triple what it was in 1982.

There were other consequences of the expansion. Annual Federal spending on public housing and welfare, and on Social Security, Medicare and health all increased by billions of dollars. The poverty rate has fallen steadily since 1983.

The Reagan Boom - Greatest Ever

 

[task0778]

Obama added 10 trillion. Far more than any other President. Trump isn't even remotely close to that number. Stick with Russian collusion, Stormy Daniels and kicking Republicans out of restaurants.

Trump is on his way to surpassing that, despite being handed a strong economy.

Obama's debt to GDP ratio rose 38% from 2009 - 2016. Trump's estimated for his first four years is only 3%.

I should hope so, since he was handed a strong economy. If there's one guy I bet could fuck that up, it's your tariff and subsidies President.

Any republican can mess it up.

The bush boy was handed an even better economy and in 8 short years completely collapsed it.

Obama handed him a good economy and he's doing his best to mess it up.

Since the recession ended in June 2010 our economy has averaged just about 2% growth during Obama's tenure. That is not a good economy, and it wouldn't even be that high except for fracking, which he opposed. Trump is doing way better than Obama ever did.

You can blame Bush for the 2008 recession, but if you did you'd be flat out wrong. Nothing that Bush ever did was a factor in that collapse.

 

[depotoo]

As well as 9/11, the war on terror and the worst modern historic hurricane season and what followed. He also had to deal with years of denials from Dems a financial crisis was looming.

Obama added 10 trillion. Far more than any other President. Trump isn't even remotely close to that number. Stick with Russian collusion, Stormy Daniels and kicking Republicans out of restaurants.

Trump is on his way to surpassing that, despite being handed a strong economy.

Obama's debt to GDP ratio rose 38% from 2009 - 2016. Trump's estimated for his first four years is only 3%.

I should hope so, since he was handed a strong economy. If there's one guy I bet could fuck that up, it's your tariff and subsidies President.

Any republican can mess it up.

The bush boy was handed an even better economy and in 8 short years completely collapsed it.

Obama handed him a good economy and he's doing his best to mess it up.

Bush was handed the dot-com bubble which trimmed 6 trillion in wealth from the US economy in late 2000 early 2001.

 

[airplanemechanic]

We hobbled along for 8 years until we got Trump, now we took off..

Exactly what has taken off?

It was not the UE rate....
View attachment 201262

It was not job creation...
View attachment 201264
It was not the Labor Force Participation Rate
View attachment 201265

Black unemployment: Lowest in history
Hispanic unemployment: Lowest in history
Stock market records: Dozens since he took office

People want jobs and now they have them.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Every election for the past 50 years democrats have said that republicans were going to end social security.

 

[Dana7360]

The article does not just say MEDICARE. It says SOCIAL SECURITY. He and McConnell and the rich got their tax cuts! That is all that matters, right?

US debt explodes under Trump — threatening vital programs like Social Security

TANA GANEVA
26 JUN 2018 AT 12:34 ET


President Donald Trump is fond of boasting about the economic gains achieved by his administration, even as critics point out that improving economic indicators can be traced back to Obama era policies. The President often brags that his business acumen, applied to America’s economy and world trade, has resulted in wins for the American people.

But as Politico reported Tuesday, the US federal deficit has also soared during his time in office, threatening the future of vital programs like Social Security and Medicare.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, in less than two decades the federal deficit will the biggest in history.


“The prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” according to CBO director Keith Hall.


“In CBO’s projections, most of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population. Growth in spending on Medicare and the other major health care programs is also driven by rising health care costs per person,” he said.



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/us...ng-vital-programs-like-social-security/soared

More lying media scum.

What's the lie?

Anything from the msm.

So the article is lying when it states that the congress is trying to cut social security and medicare?

You can't be that gullible can you?

 

[miketx]

The article does not just say MEDICARE. It says SOCIAL SECURITY. He and McConnell and the rich got their tax cuts! That is all that matters, right?

US debt explodes under Trump — threatening vital programs like Social Security

TANA GANEVA
26 JUN 2018 AT 12:34 ET


President Donald Trump is fond of boasting about the economic gains achieved by his administration, even as critics point out that improving economic indicators can be traced back to Obama era policies. The President often brags that his business acumen, applied to America’s economy and world trade, has resulted in wins for the American people.

But as Politico reported Tuesday, the US federal deficit has also soared during his time in office, threatening the future of vital programs like Social Security and Medicare.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, in less than two decades the federal deficit will the biggest in history.


“The prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” according to CBO director Keith Hall.


“In CBO’s projections, most of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population. Growth in spending on Medicare and the other major health care programs is also driven by rising health care costs per person,” he said.



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/us...ng-vital-programs-like-social-security/soared

More lying media scum.

What's the lie?

Anything from the msm.

So the article is lying when it states that the congress is trying to cut social security and medicare?

You can't be that gullible can you?

You are the one swallowing the proven liars line.

 

[Dana7360]

The article does not just say MEDICARE. It says SOCIAL SECURITY. He and McConnell and the rich got their tax cuts! That is all that matters, right?

US debt explodes under Trump — threatening vital programs like Social Security

TANA GANEVA
26 JUN 2018 AT 12:34 ET


President Donald Trump is fond of boasting about the economic gains achieved by his administration, even as critics point out that improving economic indicators can be traced back to Obama era policies. The President often brags that his business acumen, applied to America’s economy and world trade, has resulted in wins for the American people.

But as Politico reported Tuesday, the US federal deficit has also soared during his time in office, threatening the future of vital programs like Social Security and Medicare.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, in less than two decades the federal deficit will the biggest in history.


“The prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” according to CBO director Keith Hall.


“In CBO’s projections, most of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population. Growth in spending on Medicare and the other major health care programs is also driven by rising health care costs per person,” he said.



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/us...ng-vital-programs-like-social-security/soared

More lying media scum.

What's the lie?

Anything from the msm.

So the article is lying when it states that the congress is trying to cut social security and medicare?

You can't be that gullible can you?

You are the one swallowing the proven liars line.

So where is your proof of your claims?

 

[miketx]

More lying media scum.

What's the lie?

Anything from the msm.

So the article is lying when it states that the congress is trying to cut social security and medicare?

You can't be that gullible can you?

You are the one swallowing the proven liars line.

So where is your proof of your claims?

It's on tv everyday. If you want me to provide specific links, I rarely ever do that with libwits because all they do then is spin smoke and deny more. You'll probably respond this with something like "So you got nothing". All the tactics and "tricks" the libwits use are well documented. If you aren't one then I apologize.

If you are then you may be a fresh graduate of shill school, so let me recommend a book.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We need to pay defense contractors for more weapons that we'll never use. So Social Security's got to go. I would love it. All those old fucks that voted for Trump can lose it all for all I care.

what about the old fucks who didnt vote for him?....

 

[miketx]

We need to pay defense contractors for more weapons that we'll never use. So Social Security's got to go. I would love it. All those old fucks that voted for Trump can lose it all for all I care.

You just think you want that war on your ass, dumbfuck.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The article does not just say MEDICARE. It says SOCIAL SECURITY. He and McConnell and the rich got their tax cuts! That is all that matters, right?

US debt explodes under Trump — threatening vital programs like Social Security

TANA GANEVA
26 JUN 2018 AT 12:34 ET


President Donald Trump is fond of boasting about the economic gains achieved by his administration, even as critics point out that improving economic indicators can be traced back to Obama era policies. The President often brags that his business acumen, applied to America’s economy and world trade, has resulted in wins for the American people.

But as Politico reported Tuesday, the US federal deficit has also soared during his time in office, threatening the future of vital programs like Social Security and Medicare.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, in less than two decades the federal deficit will the biggest in history.


“The prospect of large and growing debt poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” according to CBO director Keith Hall.


“In CBO’s projections, most of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population. Growth in spending on Medicare and the other major health care programs is also driven by rising health care costs per person,” he said.



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/06/us...ng-vital-programs-like-social-security/soared

Here is a link that works

 

[Harry Dresden]

Obama added 10 trillion. Far more than any other President. Trump isn't even remotely close to that number. Stick with Russian collusion, Stormy Daniels and kicking Republicans out of restaurants.

Trump is on his way to surpassing that, despite being handed a strong economy.

Obama's debt to GDP ratio rose 38% from 2009 - 2016. Trump's estimated for his first four years is only 3%.

I should hope so, since he was handed a strong economy. If there's one guy I bet could fuck that up, it's your tariff and subsidies President.

1% GDP growth over 8 years is "STRONG" to you?

Don't have high expectations with a liberal president, huh? It's ok, I wouldn't either.

Did Obama never have a whole year of 3% economic growth?

Handed a recession, managed us through it. That's Obama's legacy.

he did not do that by himself,he had lots of help....more of his legacy....

 

[centerleftFL]

Reaganesque Keynesianism.

Increasing the debt load, passing it on to our kids.

Give it time.
A reminder, from a post of mine back in April-

Why did the middle class thrive and have more money under Reagan? proof inside?


The Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created. Nonetheless, there are those, such as Secretary Reich, who have attempted to portray the 1980s as a period of economic hardship and decline for most Americans.


This paper will rely on data from the Census Bureau to analyze the income growth of the 1980s. The evidence shows that the percentage of households in the low income category declined during the 1980s, while the proportion of high income households increased. Furthermore, while the middle class shrank as a share of all households, the reason for this is upward, not downward, mobility.


Middle Class "Shrinking" Upward


The graph below shows the percentage of all households in low, middle, and high income categories. During economic decline, household income tends to fall, while during economic progress, household incomes tend to increase. The 1982-89 expansion conforms to the expected pattern of income growth during an economic upturn.


The percentage of households in the low income category dropped during the 1980s. This group comprised 27.5 percent of all households in 1980, 28.5 percent in 1982, and only 25.3 percent by 1989. As a share of all households, the proportion of those with low incomes became less prominent by the end of the 1980s.


Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6 percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of high income households is another sign of solid income growth.


Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989. In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?


If the middle class shrinkage had resulted from massive income losses resulting in expansion of the low income group, it would clearly signal that something was seriously wrong. However, a review of the data shows that the reverse was happening. Income gains were pushing a greater proportion of middle class households into the high income category. Of the 4 percentage point reduction in the middle class percentage between 1980 and 1989, all of it is accounted for by net upward movement into the high income category.


Conclusion


Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.


http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/...


Unfortunately, the page was taken down during the Obama admin.

But no fear, here is another to help back up its assertions of fact-



When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.


All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.


President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:


1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.


2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.


3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.


4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, 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%.


These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. 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. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.


During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. 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.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven 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.


Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Wow, even the New York Times recognized it in a 1990 article-

We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time.

The two key measures that mark a depression or expansion are jobs and production. Let's look at the records that were set. Creation of jobs. From November 1982, when President Ronald Reagan's new economic program was beginning to take effect, to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. It was a world record: Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Creation of wealth.

The amount of wealth produced during this seven year period was stupendous - some $30 trillion worth of goods and services. Again, it was a world record. Never before had so much wealth been produced during a comparable period. According to a recent study, net asset values - including stocks, bonds and real estate - went up by more than $5 trillion between 1982 and 1989, an increase of roughly 50 percent.

There are other important measures. Steady economic growth. As we begin the decade of the 1990's, we are in our 86th straight month of economic growth - a new record for peacetime, five months longer than the wartime growth of World War II and only 23 months short of the wartime record set during the Vietnam War in the 1960's. Most experts now predict that it will last right through 1990, and perhaps beyond.

Income tax rates, interest rates and inflation.

Under President Reagan, top personal income tax rates were lowered dramatically, from 70 percent to 28 percent. This policy change was the prime force behind the record breaking economic expansion. Interest rates and inflation also fell sharply and, so far, have stayed comfortably low - afurther indication of the power and pervasiveness of Mr. Reagan's economic policies. The stock market. Perhaps the key indicator of an economy's booms and busts is the stock market, the bottom line economic report card. And here the record has been striking. During the period from 1970 to 1982,the stock market barely moved. The Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocksinched up about 35 percent during that entire period. But starting in late1982, just as Reaganomics began to work, the stock market took off like a giant skyrocket. Since then, the Standard & Poor's index has soared,reaching a record high of 360, almost triple what it was in 1982.

There were other consequences of the expansion. Annual Federal spending on public housing and welfare, and on Social Security, Medicare and health all increased by billions of dollars. The poverty rate has fallen steadily since 1983.

The Reagan Boom - Greatest Ever

Rosy scenario. Boy, you certainly left out a whooole bunch of unintended consequences with that white wash. Included the MANY who didn't get their boats LIFTED, union busting, a first of the many redisbribution of wealth with the tax code, a GOVERNMENT BAILOUT OF THE S&L's and huuuge deficits.

Standard GOP SOP.

Oh yeah, all politics is local and personal so they say. I lost MY well paying job of 12 years as a direct result of Reagan policies.