Reaganomics

[Listening]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post with numbers or shut and get off the thread.

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

 

[Listening]

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

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

So let the fun begin.

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

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

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

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

And I say So What ?

I think these numbers are supposed to mean something.

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

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

Now, this one was interesting.....

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

 

[whitehall]

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

 

[BobPlumb]

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

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

 

[Listening]

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

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

All this understood.

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

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

However, there are other metrics.

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

 

[Publius1787]

That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

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

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

Then prove its not true.

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


Facts only, please.

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

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/almost-3-times-many-people-dropped-labor-force-joined.html

Employers added a whopping 288,000 jobs, the most in two years... .. ..

The number of people in the labor force fell by a whopping 806,000, wiping out the February and March gains and a bit of January as well

.

 

[Listening]

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

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

Reaganomics: The Success of President Reagan’s Economic Policies

The poster then claims......


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

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

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

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

 

[Listening]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post with numbers or shut and get off the thread.

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

I guess we're done waiting.

 

[auditor0007]

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

The Abject Failure of Reaganomics

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

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

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

So, Bush was Reagan's fault ?

Somehow Reagan causes Bush ?

But the same article says that:

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

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

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

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

BUSH CAME AFTER CLINTON

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rikurzhen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EconChick]

Good thread, Listening.

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

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

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

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

 

[Agit8r]

 

[Bush92]

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

 

[Agit8r]

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

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

 

[Listening]

This is the clean debate zone.

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

Just posting a graph is not meaningful.

 

[Listening]

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

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

This isn't a supported statement.

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

This forum is for DEBATE and discussion. Not propaganda.

 

[Listening]

Good thread, Listening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EconChick]

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

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

 

[EconChick]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Agit8r]

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

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

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

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

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

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