Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.
Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.
Any argument for more military spending is an argument for higher taxes to pay for it. By the end of World War II the top tax rate was 94 percent.
Because the Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan, and because it was collapsing from within, Reagan's military buildup was unnecessary. Because Soviet leaders felt their power slipping away, provoking them with a nuclear arms race was dangerous.
Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.
Any argument for more military spending is an argument for higher taxes to pay for it. By the end of World War II the top tax rate was 94 percent.
Because the Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan, and because it was collapsing from within, Reagan's military buildup was unnecessary. Because Soviet leaders felt their power slipping away, provoking them with a nuclear arms race was dangerous.
All speculation and conjecture on your part.
Reagan did a half Mellon supply side. He cut taxes, lowered domestic spending, but increased defense spending which helped win the Cold War. So the massive budget deficits during 1980's were necessary for defense, but unnecessary on domestic spending, but that's not Reagan's fault. Democrats controlled both houses of The Congress and Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy were not going to give up all those wasteful federal programs.
Any argument for more military spending is an argument for higher taxes to pay for it. By the end of World War II the top tax rate was 94 percent.
Because the Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan, and because it was collapsing from within, Reagan's military buildup was unnecessary. Because Soviet leaders felt their power slipping away, provoking them with a nuclear arms race was dangerous.
All speculation and conjecture on your part.
There is nothing speculative about the fiscal irresponsibility of cutting taxes while raising defense spending. That is what Reagan did.
Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?
Fun times.
Unfortunately George H.W. Bush did not have the integrity to turn down Reagan's offer to be his running mate.
Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?
Fun times.
Unfortunately George H.W. Bush did not have the integrity to turn down Reagan's offer to be his running mate.
If you are not going to debate the topic, then get off the thread.
Does anyone remember what George HW Bush called Reagan's economic strategy?
Fun times.
Unfortunately George H.W. Bush did not have the integrity to turn down Reagan's offer to be his running mate.
If you are not going to debate the topic, then get off the thread.
Who are you? Somebody?
I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.
Nevertheless, he did not seem to generate the hatred on the left that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama generated on the right.
During the Reagan years liberals were demoralized. We knew that the Great Society had been a failure, that the civil rights legislation had been a disappointment, but we were unwilling to do much thinking about why they had failed.
However, this thread is about Reagan's economic polices. The good economic numbers that happened during his administration were due exclusively to stimulating the economy with borrowed money. The U.S. economy was like an athlete who trained using amphetamines and steroids. The rich got, and stayed, richer. The rest of the country did not benefit.
More jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan. The Carter recession of 1980 was much milder than the Reagan recession of 1982. Unemployment never got as high under Carter as it got under Reagan. Of course, Reagan's deficits were vastly higher than Carter's deficits. The inflation of 1979 - 1980, which declined after 1982 was due to fluctuations in the world price of petroleum over which neither president had much control over.
The enduring legacy of Reagan is to leave most Republicans with the delusion that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases.
I agree. But not a single one of his budgets were passed without the help of Tip O'Neil and other Democrats approving it. They took the pork and ran. Reagan wanted his defense build-up and O'Neil wanted pork for congressional districts. So they made a deal.I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.
Nevertheless, he did not seem to generate the hatred on the left that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama generated on the right.
During the Reagan years liberals were demoralized. We knew that the Great Society had been a failure, that the civil rights legislation had been a disappointment, but we were unwilling to do much thinking about why they had failed.
However, this thread is about Reagan's economic polices. The good economic numbers that happened during his administration were due exclusively to stimulating the economy with borrowed money. The U.S. economy was like an athlete who trained using amphetamines and steroids. The rich got, and stayed, richer. The rest of the country did not benefit.
More jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan. The Carter recession of 1980 was much milder than the Reagan recession of 1982. Unemployment never got as high under Carter as it got under Reagan. Of course, Reagan's deficits were vastly higher than Carter's deficits. The inflation of 1979 - 1980, which declined after 1982 was due to fluctuations in the world price of petroleum over which neither president had much control over.
The enduring legacy of Reagan is to leave most Republicans with the delusion that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases.
Reagan deregulated the private sector, cut government spending, lowered taxes, and the economy boomed. Very simple.
I don't know what country you lived in but there was no boom... there was a great loss of jobs ... loss of retirement plans.. under reagan with his deregulating of the saving and loans companies ... that cost the middle class billions of dollars and more lost jobs ... were you get this notion of economy boom is beyond me ... now if you want to talk about a ecomemy boom lets talk about the clinton years...
You mean those years when NAFTA and GATT sent millions of American jobs out of country?
NAFTA and GATT were passed with bi partisan support.
“[Reaganomics] did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
I voted against Reagan twice. I never liked the guy. My dislike was visceral. It was too easy for me to imagine him in one of his grade B movies, playing the role of a cavalry officer flashing his awe shucks grin after massacring an Indian village.
Nevertheless, he did not seem to generate the hatred on the left that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama generated on the right.
During the Reagan years liberals were demoralized. We knew that the Great Society had been a failure, that the civil rights legislation had been a disappointment, but we were unwilling to do much thinking about why they had failed.
However, this thread is about Reagan's economic polices. The good economic numbers that happened during his administration were due exclusively to stimulating the economy with borrowed money. The U.S. economy was like an athlete who trained using amphetamines and steroids. The rich got, and stayed, richer. The rest of the country did not benefit.
More jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan. The Carter recession of 1980 was much milder than the Reagan recession of 1982. Unemployment never got as high under Carter as it got under Reagan. Of course, Reagan's deficits were vastly higher than Carter's deficits. The inflation of 1979 - 1980, which declined after 1982 was due to fluctuations in the world price of petroleum over which neither president had much control over.
The enduring legacy of Reagan is to leave most Republicans with the delusion that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases.
Carter was thrown out in 1980 (his bid for a second term). Reagan won his with 49 states. But that means nothing (except that he apparently duped a lot of democrats too).
Reagan took over a disaster that was much worse than what Obama faced given the inflation rates of the times. Most of Reagan's early job losses were due to the contracting economy (thank you Jimmy).
Reagan's deficits mean nothing.
Had Bush not been such a fool, the trajectory Clinton put us on would have retired all debt (Thank you Ronnie). So Reagan's borrowing was meaningless.
Bush's borrowing was simply stupid.
The amazing thing is that 25 years later pathetic attempts to attack his legacy continue.
Now that's a fucking legacy!
'Reaganomics’ Failure
But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America’s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called “supply-side” by its admirers and “trickle-down” by its critics.
Reagan’s tax cuts brought a rapid ballooning of the federal debt, which was $934 billion in January 1981 when Reagan took office. When he departed in January 1989, the debt had jumped to $2.7 trillion, a three-fold increase. And the consequences of Reagan’s reckless tax-cutting continued to build under his successor, George H.W. Bush, who left office in January 1993 with a national debt of $4.2 trillion, more than a four-fold increase since the arrival of Republican-dominated governance in 1981.'
The Abject Failure of Reaganomics Consortiumnews
