Reaganomics vs. Obamaism

[GHook93]

Bush may have started this mess, but Obama has made it 10 times worse. Let's use a proven method to end this recession.

Wrong! Clinton, Frank and Dodds started this mess. Bush ignored the build up and Obama is making it worse!

 

[American Cowboy]

Bush may have started this mess, but Obama has made it 10 times worse. Let's use a proven method to end this recession.

Wrong! Clinton, Frank and Dodds started this mess. Bush ignored the build up and Obama is making it worse!

Well Bush did start the stiimulus and the bail-outs.

You are talking about the housing crisis and Bush warned Congress we had a problem but Congress not only ignored the warnings but spoke out against Bush when he raised concerns. Dems have controled congress since 2006. They have choosen to ignore this fact plus it is just not worth arguing with the kool-aid drinking Obama cocksuckers. We can't fix the past, but the future is at stake and 4 more years of this stupid MFer could destroy the US completely.

 

[American Cowboy]

I worked for Reagan and I can tell you Federal spending went through the roof. I never saw hiring and spending like that in 30 years

Since you provided no link, you got some splain'n to do. 4% of what? 2.5% of what? Spending is usually expressed in dollars. What was the Federal budget under Carter vs Reagan? How many Federal Employees were there under Carter vs Reagan?

Oops That was the rate of growth in spending. It went from Carter's 4% to Reagan's 2.5%. Wait till we get the final numbers on Obama. KaBOOM!!!!

Carters top budget was $500 billion. Reagans was over $1 trillioin
How do you call Reagan fiscally conservative?

We had some issues with the Russians at the time. We had to build up our Military. It was not cheap, but Reagan won a War without firing a shot.

Obama spent a Trillion $$$ in his first 30 days.

 

[percysunshine]

What the heck is an 'Obamaism'?


Sounds like a neurological disorder.

 

[ShackledNation]

I was once a huge Reagan fan. But his fantastic rhetoric simply did not translate into the same policy. The treatment of Reagan by the left is clearly dishonest, but conservatives really need to understand that Reagan was not all he has been hyped up to be. He too was a big spender. Was it the fault of Congress? Maybe, and likely. But to claim that under Reagan spending decreased and the conservative dream was created is untrue. Reagan said so, and may have wanted so, but it wasn't so. Reagan's policies did not grow the economy in a sustainable way, hence the later recession.

Read this on Reagan.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

1. Reagan did not decrease spending.
-In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
-in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending under Reagan
-The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion,
-Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986.
-The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase.
-Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion, nearly doubled under Reagan.
-Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987, nearly tripled.

2. Reagan did not lower taxes.
-According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 equal $1.5 trillion by 1989.
-In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year.
-In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcecial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years.
-the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

3. Reagan decreased free trade.
-The Reagan administration has been the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover's. The portion of imports under restriction has doubled since 1980. Quotas and so-called voluntary restraints have been imposed on a host of products, from computer chips to automobiles.

Reagan increased spending, increased taxes, put more restraint on international trade, increased the deficit, but his rhetoric made people believe he was doing the opposite. The Great Communicator indeed.

 

[Patrick2]

I was once a huge Reagan fan. But his fantastic rhetoric simply did not translate into the same policy. The treatment of Reagan by the left is clearly dishonest, but conservatives really need to understand that Reagan was not all he has been hyped up to be. He too was a big spender. Was it the fault of Congress? Maybe, and likely. But to claim that under Reagan spending decreased and the conservative dream was created is untrue. Reagan said so, and may have wanted so, but it wasn't so.

Such broad statements used to imply Reagan wasn't a conservative is a distortion. People who weren't around then, or haven't read the history, probably don't grasp the titanic worldwide cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union. After four years of appeasement under Carter, the soviets were greatly emboldened and were supporting proxy wars and subversion of various kinds all over the globe. Plus, they initiated a huge buildup in their armed forces. It was this which confronted Reagan, and he responded with an american defense buildup that I have variously read as being a 40 to 57% increase in spending. It is NOT a conservative value to ignore defense - rather, it is considered one of the primary legitimate jobs of government. Wars aren't cheap, even cold wars. Many people can be credited with the downfall of the soviet union, but Reagan is foremost among them. To just ignore the immense value to the US and the world that that evil system is gone, and just look at the price tag, is simplistic.

 

[ShackledNation]

I was once a huge Reagan fan. But his fantastic rhetoric simply did not translate into the same policy. The treatment of Reagan by the left is clearly dishonest, but conservatives really need to understand that Reagan was not all he has been hyped up to be. He too was a big spender. Was it the fault of Congress? Maybe, and likely. But to claim that under Reagan spending decreased and the conservative dream was created is untrue. Reagan said so, and may have wanted so, but it wasn't so.

Such broad statements used to imply Reagan wasn't a conservative is a distortion. People who weren't around then, or haven't read the history, probably don't grasp the titanic worldwide cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union. After four years of appeasement under Carter, the soviets were greatly emboldened and were supporting proxy wars and subversion of various kinds all over the globe. Plus, they initiated a huge buildup in their armed forces. It was this which confronted Reagan, and he responded with an american defense buildup that I have variously read as being a 40 to 57% increase in spending. It is NOT a conservative value to ignore defense - rather, it is considered one of the primary legitimate jobs of government. Wars aren't cheap, even cold wars. Many people can be credited with the downfall of the soviet union, but Reagan is foremost among them. To just ignore the immense value to the US and the world that that evil system is gone, and just look at the price tag, is simplistic.

First of all read the rest of my post, you may have missed it because I was in the process of editing.

Second, I am talking way more than the war here. Reagan increased social security spending, and countless other programs having nothing to do with the Cold War.The issue is whether or not Reagan cut government and spending and debt and taxes. He did not.

Third, site your sources. I do not deny that Reagan helped end the Cold War. But pretending he did so while reducing government is not the way it happened, and that is what people tend to believe when remembering Reagan. His rhetoric, not his policy.

 

[American Cowboy]

1. Reagan did not decrease spending.

2. Reagan did not lower taxes.


3. Reagan decreased free trade.

1. I guess you needed to read a little farther

Reagan decreased the rate of growth in spending. It went from Carter's 4% to 2.5% under Reagan. That is a reduction in Government spending.

2. On Tax cuts Dems won out. Reagan ended up raising taxes on the top 10% and lowered taxes on the lower 50%. Just what you lib fucks wanted so why bash him?

Bottom line:

In a 1996 study from the Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

 

[ShackledNation]

1. Reagan did not decrease spending.

2. Reagan did not lower taxes.


3. Reagan decreased free trade.

1. I guess you needed to read a little farther

Reagan decreased the rate of growth in spending. It went from Carter's 4% to 2.5% under Reagan. That is a reduction in Government spending.

2. On Tax cuts Dems won out. Reagan ended up raising taxes on the top 10% and lowered taxes on the lower 50%. Just what you lib fucks wanted so why bash him?

Bottom line:

In a 1996 study from the Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

1. Rate of growth, not spending. Reagan still increased spending. So no, I am correct. He did not cut spending. He increased it.
2. I'm not a liberal, nor am I bashing Reagan. I am simply pointing out the truth. As I said, Congress may have caused much of it. But Reagan failed to decrease taxes. Just because he may have wanted to decrease them doesn't mean he did. So yes, I was right. Reagan did not lower taxes.

Bottom line: If Reagan did not decrease spending and did not lower taxes, what caused those variables listed in the CATO study? And before you start with your anti liberal ranting, I am a libertarian, meaning I am probably more pro free market and anti government than you.

 

[American Cowboy]

1. Reagan did not decrease spending.

2. Reagan did not lower taxes.


3. Reagan decreased free trade.

1. I guess you needed to read a little farther

Reagan decreased the rate of growth in spending. It went from Carter's 4% to 2.5% under Reagan. That is a reduction in Government spending.

2. On Tax cuts Dems won out. Reagan ended up raising taxes on the top 10% and lowered taxes on the lower 50%. Just what you lib fucks wanted so why bash him?

Bottom line:

In a 1996 study from the Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

1. Rate of growth, not spending. Reagan still increased spending. So no, I am correct. He did not cut spending. He increased it.
2. I'm not a liberal, nor am I bashing Reagan. I am simply pointing out the truth. As I said, Congress may have caused much of it. But Reagan failed to decrease taxes. Just because he may have wanted to decrease them doesn't mean he did. So yes, I was right. Reagan did not lower taxes.

Bottom line: If Reagan did not decrease spending and did not lower taxes, what caused those variables listed in the CATO study? And before you start with your anti liberal ranting, I am a libertarian, meaning I am probably more pro free market and anti government than you.

See OP genius

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy:

1. Reduce Growth of Government spending.
2. Reduce Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
3. Reduce Government regulation.
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Bush may have started this mess, but Obama has made it 10 times worse. Let's use a proven method to end this recession.

BTW I too am a Libertarian and incase you did not know the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.

 

[Patrick2]

I was once a huge Reagan fan. But his fantastic rhetoric simply did not translate into the same policy. The treatment of Reagan by the left is clearly dishonest, but conservatives really need to understand that Reagan was not all he has been hyped up to be. He too was a big spender. Was it the fault of Congress? Maybe, and likely. But to claim that under Reagan spending decreased and the conservative dream was created is untrue. Reagan said so, and may have wanted so, but it wasn't so.

Such broad statements used to imply Reagan wasn't a conservative is a distortion. People who weren't around then, or haven't read the history, probably don't grasp the titanic worldwide cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union. After four years of appeasement under Carter, the soviets were greatly emboldened and were supporting proxy wars and subversion of various kinds all over the globe. Plus, they initiated a huge buildup in their armed forces. It was this which confronted Reagan, and he responded with an american defense buildup that I have variously read as being a 40 to 57% increase in spending. It is NOT a conservative value to ignore defense - rather, it is considered one of the primary legitimate jobs of government. Wars aren't cheap, even cold wars. Many people can be credited with the downfall of the soviet union, but Reagan is foremost among them. To just ignore the immense value to the US and the world that that evil system is gone, and just look at the price tag, is simplistic.

First of all read the rest of my post, you may have missed it because I was in the process of editing.

Second, I am talking way more than the war here. Reagan increased social security spending, and countless other programs having nothing to do with the Cold War.The issue is whether or not Reagan cut government and spending and debt and taxes. He did not.

Third, site your sources. I do not deny that Reagan helped end the Cold War. But pretending he did so while reducing government is not the way it happened, and that is what people tend to believe when remembering Reagan. His rhetoric, not his policy.

We have a three-branch government. Reagan didn't have unilateral control of the government. The point of my bringing up the defense build up is because that was a large part of the spending, and was unavoidable. Reagan had to cope with a democrat house for 8 years. Social security spending vetoes would easily have been demogogued by the democrats. Besides not having a monopoly on power, Reagan had to stand for re-election, and old people vote in large numbers. What would be the value of ideological purity if he didn't get elected? And you are wrong on the facts - Reagan DID cut taxes with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jroc]

Reagan increased Government spending and tripled the deficit

So I guess he fails his own agenda

Reagan reduced spending. So you are either stupid or a liar, which is it? Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. Under Reagan American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. Reagan creating 21 million jobs. Which is what we need now. Inflation went from 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988.

The national debt did go from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, but we got something for our money, unlike Obama's wasteful spending that has accomplished nothing.

I worked for Reagan and I can tell you Federal spending went through the roof. I never saw hiring and spending like that in 30 years

Since you provided no link, you got some splain'n to do. 4% of what? 2.5% of what? Spending is usually expressed in dollars. What was the Federal budget under Carter vs Reagan? How many Federal Employees were there under Carter vs Reagan?

Reagan made a deal with congress to cut spending they screwed him maybe you forgot that part?

 

[ShackledNation]

1. I guess you needed to read a little farther

Reagan decreased the rate of growth in spending. It went from Carter's 4% to 2.5% under Reagan. That is a reduction in Government spending.

2. On Tax cuts Dems won out. Reagan ended up raising taxes on the top 10% and lowered taxes on the lower 50%. Just what you lib fucks wanted so why bash him?

Bottom line:

In a 1996 study from the Cato Institute:

• On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

1. Rate of growth, not spending. Reagan still increased spending. So no, I am correct. He did not cut spending. He increased it.
2. I'm not a liberal, nor am I bashing Reagan. I am simply pointing out the truth. As I said, Congress may have caused much of it. But Reagan failed to decrease taxes. Just because he may have wanted to decrease them doesn't mean he did. So yes, I was right. Reagan did not lower taxes.

Bottom line: If Reagan did not decrease spending and did not lower taxes, what caused those variables listed in the CATO study? And before you start with your anti liberal ranting, I am a libertarian, meaning I am probably more pro free market and anti government than you.

See OP genius

My entire post was a rebuttal of your OP, so I suggest you look at the actual numbers I posted.

BTW I too am a Libertarian and incase you did not know the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.

No need to enlighten me on your source. In response to my rebuttal, you repeated your argument. I'm sorry, but Reagan did not accomplish everything you claim. Maybe you should reread the plethora of data I quoted in my first response.

 

[ShackledNation]

Such broad statements used to imply Reagan wasn't a conservative is a distortion. People who weren't around then, or haven't read the history, probably don't grasp the titanic worldwide cold war struggle between the US and the soviet union. After four years of appeasement under Carter, the soviets were greatly emboldened and were supporting proxy wars and subversion of various kinds all over the globe. Plus, they initiated a huge buildup in their armed forces. It was this which confronted Reagan, and he responded with an american defense buildup that I have variously read as being a 40 to 57% increase in spending. It is NOT a conservative value to ignore defense - rather, it is considered one of the primary legitimate jobs of government. Wars aren't cheap, even cold wars. Many people can be credited with the downfall of the soviet union, but Reagan is foremost among them. To just ignore the immense value to the US and the world that that evil system is gone, and just look at the price tag, is simplistic.

First of all read the rest of my post, you may have missed it because I was in the process of editing.

Second, I am talking way more than the war here. Reagan increased social security spending, and countless other programs having nothing to do with the Cold War.The issue is whether or not Reagan cut government and spending and debt and taxes. He did not.

Third, site your sources. I do not deny that Reagan helped end the Cold War. But pretending he did so while reducing government is not the way it happened, and that is what people tend to believe when remembering Reagan. His rhetoric, not his policy.

We have a three-branch government. Reagan didn't have unilateral control of the government. The point of my bringing up the defense build up is because that was a large part of the spending, and was unavoidable. Reagan had to cope with a democrat house for 8 years. Social security spending vetoes would easily have been demogogued by the democrats. Besides not having a monopoly on power, Reagan had to stand for re-election, and old people vote in large numbers. What would be the value of ideological purity if he didn't get elected? And you are wrong on the facts - Reagan DID cut taxes with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are right, we do have a three branch government, and Reagan could not control everything. But that is beside the point that under Reagan taxes, spending, and the size of government did not truly decrease. At best you can say they increased slower than Carter, which is hardly saying much. The value of ideological purity is honesty. Reagan's rhetoric did not match his policies. His allowance of the expansion of so many federal programs, including the department of education, is saddening.

I am not wrong on the facts. Apparently you forgot about the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All that occurred under Reagan was a change in particular taxes. He didn't actually decrease them.

The famous "tax cut" of 1981 you brought up did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The facts are that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut. But how about taxes as a percentage of the national product? There, we can concede that on a percentage criterion, overall taxes fell very slightly, remaining about even with the last year of Carter. Taxes fell from 18.9% of the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%. A large absolute increase in taxes, coupled with keeping taxes as a percentage of national product about even, is scarcely cause for tossing one's hat in the air about a whopping reduction in taxes during the Reagan years.

 

[American Cowboy]

1. Rate of growth, not spending. Reagan still increased spending. So no, I am correct. He did not cut spending. He increased it.
2. I'm not a liberal, nor am I bashing Reagan. I am simply pointing out the truth. As I said, Congress may have caused much of it. But Reagan failed to decrease taxes. Just because he may have wanted to decrease them doesn't mean he did. So yes, I was right. Reagan did not lower taxes.

Bottom line: If Reagan did not decrease spending and did not lower taxes, what caused those variables listed in the CATO study? And before you start with your anti liberal ranting, I am a libertarian, meaning I am probably more pro free market and anti government than you.

See OP genius

My entire post was a rebuttal of your OP, so I suggest you look at the actual numbers I posted.

BTW I too am a Libertarian and incase you did not know the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.

No need to enlighten me on your source. In response to my rebuttal, you repeated your argument. I'm sorry, but Reagan did not accomplish everything you claim. Maybe you should reread the plethora of data I quoted in my first response.

Your argument is with the Cato Institute, but I will play along for a second.

Reagan reduced growth in Federal spending from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5%. How do you not see that as a reduction in spending? The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. Under Reagan the US economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988. Unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. Inflation went from 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988.

 

[ShackledNation]

See OP genius

My entire post was a rebuttal of your OP, so I suggest you look at the actual numbers I posted.

BTW I too am a Libertarian and incase you did not know the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank.

No need to enlighten me on your source. In response to my rebuttal, you repeated your argument. I'm sorry, but Reagan did not accomplish everything you claim. Maybe you should reread the plethora of data I quoted in my first response.

Reagan reduced growth in Federal spending from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5%. How do you not see that as a reduction in spending?

It is a reduction in the rate of GROWTH of spending. That is what those numbers mean, and you are confusing a positive increase in the rate of growth of spending with a decrease in spending. That is simply not correct. Reagan spent more than Carter, 2.5% more in fact. He grew federal spending by 2.5%. How on earth is that a decrease in spending?

The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987.

Reagan became president in 1981. The deficit in 1983 was after 3 years of his presidency. On average, deficit as percent of GDP under Carter was 2.4%. For Reagan on average, deficit as percent of GDP was 4.2%. Deficits under Reagan were higher than they were under FDR during peacetime.
Government Spending Chart in United States 1792-2016 - Federal State Local

Reagan was the biggest peacetime deficit spender of the 20th century. To be honest I am shocked you are trying to claim otherwise. The statistics simply do not support it.

Under Reagan the US economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988. Unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. Inflation went from 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988.

That may very well be so, although I would appreciate it if you cite your sources or tell me where you got those numbers. But the issue I am talking about is what policies were present at the time. And the policies were not less spending, lower deficits, less government, and less taxes. So you can believe that deficits create more growth, or that Reagan's economy was sadly just another bubble economy, which partially collapsed in 1990, again in 2001, and even more so in the current recession. I am not blaming Reagan for all this. It started way before him. But he did little to provide real sustainable long term growth.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan reduced spending. So you are either stupid or a liar, which is it? Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. Under Reagan American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. Reagan creating 21 million jobs. Which is what we need now. Inflation went from 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988.

The national debt did go from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, but we got something for our money, unlike Obama's wasteful spending that has accomplished nothing.

I worked for Reagan and I can tell you Federal spending went through the roof. I never saw hiring and spending like that in 30 years

Since you provided no link, you got some splain'n to do. 4% of what? 2.5% of what? Spending is usually expressed in dollars. What was the Federal budget under Carter vs Reagan? How many Federal Employees were there under Carter vs Reagan?

Reagan made a deal with congress to cut spending they screwed him maybe you forgot that part?

Reagan gave a blank check to the Dept of Defense. I was there. Hire as many people as you want, all defense projects got green lights. Good years to work DoD

 

[Patrick2]

You are right, we do have a three branch government, and Reagan could not control everything. But that is beside the point that under Reagan taxes, spending, and the size of government did not truly decrease. At best you can say they increased slower than Carter, which is hardly saying much. The value of ideological purity is honesty. Reagan's rhetoric did not match his policies. His allowance of the expansion of so many federal programs, including the department of education, is saddening.

The biggest disappointment from Reagan was his failure to axe the department of education, but you are simply ignoring reality if you imply he was dishonest for not ignoring the huge dangerous threat posed by the soviet union at that time, and the costs that meeting that threat required ANDDDDDDD probably the huge future expenses that were saved by the non-existence of the soviet union after 1989.

I am not wrong on the facts. Apparently you forgot about the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.

No I didn't. What you have apparently forgotten about that bill was that it was the one he signed in return for a promise by the democrat congress to cut spending $2 for every $1 of taxes in the bill - a net improvement. For that you can accuse Reagan of being too trusting, but not dishonest.

The famous "tax cut" of 1981 you brought up did not cut taxes at all.

Nonsense. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. From wiki:

Included in the act was an across-the-board decrease in the marginal income tax rates in the U.S. by 23% over three years, with the top rate falling from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate dropping from 14% to 11%. This act slashed estate taxes and trimmed taxes paid by business corporations by $150 billion over a five year period. Additionally the tax rates were indexed for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985.

No ifs ands buts maybes or perhapses, Reagan cut taxes.

It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same.

So now you're going to work inflation into the definition of "tax cut", as if Reagan had conrol of inflation!!

The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission. The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes then and forevermore.

Reagan and every president since FDR has been confronted with the ponzi scheme started by the democrats of social security. What should he have done - allowed it to collapse?

The facts are that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut.

When people say "tax cut", they mean tax rates. Now you're confusing it with revenue. Reagan cut taxes, created a booming economy, and because businesses and individuals were doing well, revenues rose - and you think that's something to BLAME Reagan for??!!

 

[ShackledNation]

The biggest disappointment from Reagan was his failure to axe the department of education, but you are simply ignoring reality if you imply he was dishonest for not ignoring the huge dangerous threat posed by the soviet union at that time, and the costs that meeting that threat required ANDDDDDDD probably the huge future expenses that were saved by the non-existence of the soviet union after 1989.

I am not saying he is dishonest for not ignoring the soviet union. As I said before already, I am talking about domestic policy. He doubled spending on many domestic social welfare programs (social security). And he had higher deficits than FDR in peacetime.

No I didn't. What you have apparently forgotten about that bill was that it was the one he signed in return for a promise by the democrat congress to cut spending $2 for every $1 of taxes in the bill - a net improvement. For that you can accuse Reagan of being too trusting, but not dishonest.

I am not saying Reagan is dishonest. I am saying taxes under Reagan did not decrease. Which is still the truth. Reagan may have intended to cut taxes etc. with deals with Congress, but it didn't happen. I am not arguing for what could have been, I am arguing about what happened. And the tax burden did not decrease.

Nonsense. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. From wiki:

My source completely refuted everything in that wiki. Any cuts were made up for not only with bracket creep but hikes in social security taxation.

No ifs ands buts maybes or perhapses, Reagan cut taxes.

Not overall. Any taxes cut were more than made up for with other tax increases. Like the gas tax and hikes in social security taxation. He did a complete ideological about face with his social security 165 billion dollar bailout, which included huge tax hikes.

So now you're going to work inflation into the definition of "tax cut", as if Reagan had conrol of inflation!!

Didn't you credit Reagan with decreasing inflation? Apparently he has control of inflation when it gets better, but not when it has negative effects. Please, be consistent.

Reagan and every president since FDR has been confronted with the ponzi scheme started by the democrats of social security. What should he have done - allowed it to collapse?

Yes.

When people say "tax cut", they mean tax rates. Now you're confusing it with revenue. Reagan cut taxes, created a booming economy, and because businesses and individuals were doing well, revenues rose - and you think that's something to BLAME Reagan for??!!

The problem with that theory is that Reagan didn't cut taxes. Revenue rose because of tax increases. I agree that lowering taxes will cause economic growth in the private sector. But taxes weren't lowered. Revenue increases were caused by tax increases and inflation.

If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Much of Reagan's spending was covered by the creation of new money by the government, putting people into higher income brackets and effectively raising their taxes. Borrowing only means taxes will have to be collected later to pay off debts. Either method robs the productive sector. That was the point I was trying to make. If you cut taxes but not spending, it will hardly make a difference. Which is why our current economic situation requires cutting spending more than anything else.

Even if Reagan did cut taxes, his spending increased. Debts have to be paid off by future taxes or inflation, which functions to raise taxes anyway. Whether Reagan could control it all or not is irrelevant. Under Reagan, taxes did not truly decrease. We got a Keynesian bubble economy disguised as a free market small government economy, and now liberals point to the problems it caused as a way to discredit capitalism even though it never really was, all the while pursuing the same failed policies.

 

[Brutus]

You may have been mistaken when you said "Obamaism", I think what we're really talking about here is called "Obamunism."

I was thinking Marxism, but Communism works too

you may be jumping to conclusions, after all, some of people who had 2 communist parents didn't grow up to be communists