Reaganomics

[Luddly Neddite]

Its easy to see that Reagan was very corrupt but I don't think it was that simple. He was desperate for approval, mostly from Nancy and her astrologer but also from his own people and the country. Additionally, he wasn't smart enough to cover his own tracks, or maybe he just thought he would get away with whatever he did.

As it happens, that is exactly what has happened. In spite of them knowing he was a crook, many RWs idolize him.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.

 

[Friends]

The most corrosive delusion to emerge from the Reagan administration is the belief that tax cuts generate increases in tax revenue.

There is enough truth to this to make it plausible to those who want to believe it. And who does not want to believe it? Wouldn't it be nice if we could lose weight by watching more television, while eating more potato chips with cheese spread?

During the Reagan administration the top tax rate declined from 70 to 28 percent. Income tax receipts increased by $196.3 billion in constant 2009 dollars. Hey, let's buy a big bag of chips, and ten pounds of Cheez Whiz!

Not so fast. During the Carter administration, the top tax rate remained at 70 percent. Income tax receipts increased by $161.1 billion.

Let us remember that Carter was in office for 4 years. Reagan was in office for 8 years. Thus income tax receipts in constant 2009 dollars grew by $40.275 billion under Carter. Under Reagan this declined to $24.5375.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

The complex truth behind the Republican delusion is that income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of economic growth. However, they increase more when taxes are not cut than when they are cut. They increase still more when taxes are raised.

So, just as there is no such thing as an eat all you want and take it easy method of losing weight, so it was never possible during the Reagan administration to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making cuts in domestic spending that the overwhelming majority of the voters would have opposed.

In other words, Reaganomics was fraudulent. It was a scam designed to make the rich richer. It certainly succeeded there.

 

[Friends]

Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.

During the Carter administration an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."

It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan. It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....

But it does nothing to discuss the idea of Supply Side Economics. Then you've got someone on the board who can't let go of Demand Side Economics.

There is NO ARGUING that things got worse under Reagan and then they got better.

Three is also NO ARGUING that our debt increased under Reagan.

Now, I say under Reagan. Even though R.R. had a degree in economics, my guess is that he wasn't up at night masterminding some kind of grand economic program. I could be wrong, but that is a guess. Just like I don't think Obama is masterminding his program either.

So, without the smoke screens of the garbage that goes on in the Political section, let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its easy to see that Reagan was very corrupt but I don't think it was that simple. He was desperate for approval, mostly from Nancy and her astrologer but also from his own people and the country. Additionally, he wasn't smart enough to cover his own tracks, or maybe he just thought he would get away with whatever he did.

As it happens, that is exactly what has happened. In spite of them knowing he was a crook, many RWs idolize him.

In truth, Ronald Reagan was among the single most morally innocent people to hold the office of the President of the United States, since the original GW and his predecessor, John Adams.

This without regard to fraudulent professions of those animated by evil, on this board, such as that quoted above.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.

Trickle Down Economics, is the circumstance wherein those with the power to do so, strip the product of labor from those who produced it, so as to bring it up to the lofty perch which they enjoy, use most of it to sustain their power and allow a very minor percentage to 'trickle-down' to subsidize those whose votes keep them in power.

It's a fool's errand at best.

 

[Friends]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

 

[Friends]

Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.

Trickle Down Economics, is the circumstance wherein those with the power to do so, strip the product of labor from those who produced it, so as to bring it up to the lofty perch which they enjoy, use most of it to sustain their power and allow a very minor percentage to 'trickle-down' to subsidize those whose votes keep them in power.

It's a fool's errand at best.

Since at least the inauguration of Warren G. Harding in 1021 there have usually been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents, the per capita gross domestic product has usually grown more, even the stock market has grown more.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Economic growth took care of itself until the 70's. Before then, capitalism was all about meeting the rising demands of a rapidly growing population. After that, the goal shifted more toward the cultivation of needs. Build it, market the ever living crap out of it, and they will buy it. Supply side economics. Pretty soon every garage in suburbia was cluttered with exercise machines, bread makers, moldy clothes, 4000 plastic toys made in China, and what have you.

Much of the hyper-consumerism was enabled by credit. Credit products were developed.

And that leads me to another aspect of the 80s. The percentage of the economy produced by finance increased dramatically. That trend continued into this century. The finance slice of the economy doesn't produce jobs like manufacturing and such. Trickle down doesn't work so well for job creation when it is far more profitable to start a hedge fund than open a widget factory.

I'm not a fan of Reagan. But, I tend to regard our presidents more as reflections of society than orchestrators.

 

[Listening]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

If you are gong to stand on David Stockman's shoulders, you better hope there isn't a rope around your balls.

 

[Friends]

If you are gong to stand on David Stockman's shoulders, you better hope there isn't a rope around your balls.

What is that supposed to mean? David Stockman had an inside view of the Reagan administration. Reagan's economic policy was intrinsically fraudulent. Stockman had the integrity to say so.

During the campaign of 1980 Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. That was a lie. Stockman said it was a lie.

Reagan was stupid enough that me may have thought that was possible. Jack Kemp probably thought it was possible. Arthur Laffer probably thought it was possible too.

More intelligent Republicans knew it was not possible. Their motive was nefarious. They wanted to bankrupt the government, so that the Democrats could not spend money helping their constituents. They knew that the Republican Party benefits when white blue collar workers think, "The Democrats never did anything to help me. At least the Republicans won't take my guns."

The Democrats let the tax issue get away from them. As long as most Americans got more from the government in benefits than they paid in taxes, the Democratic Party dominated the country.

 

[Picaro]

Lots of myths about both Carter and the Reagan years. Here is a nice and accurate piece on the Reagan Era and the Reagan Myth:

Carter ruined the economy Reagan saved it

RE capital gains cuts and the like:

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW
According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.

There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product:

...


To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead.

But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours:

...

Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods).

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.

Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:

Private investment (4)

1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4
So there is no evidence that the conservative revisionism is true.

The bolded is partly what is going on today. Lower gains taxes and off-shoring of cash and profits is sucking money out of the economy, not growing it.

 

[Picaro]

During the campaign of 1980 Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. That was a lie. Stockman said it was a lie.

Reagan was stupid enough that me may have thought that was possible. Jack Kemp probably thought it was possible. Arthur Laffer probably thought it was possible too.

There were several tax increases under Reagan; he signed off on them. The trouble was they were the kind of tax increases that sucked money out of the pockets of those who could least afford the taxes.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

Golly... If I had not just said that Reagan was forced into deficit spending because of the escalating Social Justice spending; known as 'the great society' legislation of the 1960s, THAT would be SUCH a great point.

This policy was passed by SOCIALISTS IN THE LEGISLATURE and that 'most US citizens lack the strength of character to reject monies confiscated from those who produced it by the abuse of government power, by socialists... doesn't change that.

If it helps... not a single of those people can be counted as "Americans". As Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define: America.

See how that works?

 

[Friends]

During the campaign of 1980 Reagan said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular middle class entitlements. That was a lie. Stockman said it was a lie.

Reagan was stupid enough that me may have thought that was possible. Jack Kemp probably thought it was possible. Arthur Laffer probably thought it was possible too.

There were several tax increases under Reagan; he signed off on them. The trouble was they were the kind of tax increases that sucked money out of the pockets of those who could least afford the taxes.

Reagan flattened the tax system. He raised taxes paid by working and middle class people. He cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28 percent.

 

[Friends]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

Golly... If I had not just said that Reagan was forced into deficit spending because of the escalating Social Justice spending; known as 'the great society' legislation of the 1960s, THAT would be SUCH a great point.

This policy was passed by SOCIALISTS IN THE LEGISLATURE and that 'most US citizens lack the strength of character to reject monies confiscated from those who produced it by the abuse of government power, by socialists... doesn't change that.

If it helps... not a single of those people can be counted as "Americans". As Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define: America.

See how that works?

If the increases in domestic spending under President Johnson was wrong, Reagan had the responsibility to say so. He had the responsibility to be very specific about which domestic spending programs he intended to reduce or eliminate.

He did not do that, because he knew most of the increases in non military spending under Johnson - like Medicare and environmental protection - were popular with the voters. Instead he made vague generalities saying, "We are going to put the government on a diet," and stuff like that. That left white voters with the delusion that the budget could be balanced by cutting welfare programs for blacks.

If it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980's it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for the increases.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

Golly... If I had not just said that Reagan was forced into deficit spending because of the escalating Social Justice spending; known as 'the great society' legislation of the 1960s, THAT would be SUCH a great point.

This policy was passed by SOCIALISTS IN THE LEGISLATURE and that 'most US citizens lack the strength of character to reject monies confiscated from those who produced it by the abuse of government power, by socialists... doesn't change that.

If it helps... not a single of those people can be counted as "Americans". As Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define: America.

See how that works?

If the increases in domestic spending under President Johnson was wrong, Reagan had the responsibility to say so. He had the responsibility to be very specific about which domestic spending programs he intended to reduce or eliminate.

He did not do that, because he knew most of the increases in non military spending under Johnson - like Medicare and environmental protection - were popular with the voters. Instead he made vague generalities saying, "We are going to put the government on a diet," and stuff like that. That left white voters with the delusion that the budget could be balanced by cutting welfare programs for blacks.

If it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980's it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for the increases.

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual to the government, the very responsibilities that sustain their individual rights.


And just in case ya missed it: THAT'S BAD!


Also, on this notion that a popular graft is a good graft, or that the evil that underlies the graft is justified because 'duh PEOPLES!' benefitting from such would be upset if an adult came along, recognized that they were responsible for their economic well being and not the illicit governance which was currently abusing its authority to confiscate the money that they were receiving, from those who produced it, as means to give it to them, so as to promote the interests of those who infected the government with the foreign ideas hostile to American principles, insuring, to the degree possible, the political power of that foreign insurgency, is NONSENSE!

Reagan did everything he could reasonably do to get the socialists in the house to roll back the legislation or to modify it to preclude the on-going massive increases in federal liabilities, but at the end of each day he still had the responsibilities set upon him by the US Constitution, without regard to the economic treachery which had been and was at the time (and which has today grown to fatal levels) and merely went about doing what he was otherwise obligated to do, trusting that Nature (God) would work it all out in his own way. Which was brilliant, because God is working it out and it appears that he has just decided that we will be subjected the predictable and sadly: catastrophic consequences of natural law, which speak to the inviable nature of giving children and fools a voice in governance.

Sadly, the laws of cause and effect do not leave Reagan responsible for law which he vehemently opposed and which he was legally obligated to work within... or morally obligated to work around, such as was the case in the Contra thing.

Now you and I may feel that what he should have done is to go on national television, state the case, wherein he defines socialism, explains how such is antithetical to the principles on which America rests, professing the certainty that McCarthy was right and communists were replete throughout the US Culture, media, academia, industry and government ... that they were working to undermine the viability of the United States and that such was a clear and present threat to the security of same and that just prior to coming before them, he had signed orders in recognition of the state of war which has long existed between the two competing ideas; good and evil... had directed the US Military to seize control of the United States, under his just powers to declare martial law... and that the members of the opposition party were at that moment being rounded up for trails which were being held at that moment in the basement of the K-mart down on L street and '... wait, I've just received word that the Judge and jury had found that the evidence born in the record of their public professions and policy advocacies had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Democrat Party is in fact a formal insurgency of Foreign Ideas which are in fact hostile to the principles upon which our nation was founded and which sustain her..." and that as a result each had been summarily executed... and that actions around the nation are being held in every state, city, town and burgh, to ferret out lesser Democrats... and unaffiliated socialists, even as the trials for these tens of thousands of enemy insurgents are under way. "Convictions for most have already been determined... adjudication pends only their being located." But within the law, such an option was not available to him.

In hindsight, would it have been the right thing to do? Would it have prevented 9-11? Yes... of course.

Would it have prevented the collapse of the financial markets due to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy in 08? Absolutely... .

Would it have prevented the abuse of power, election fraud and treachery common to the cult of obama, including the infection of the US Culture with Ebola? You bet... .

But it is not valid reasoning to judge Reagan on evidence of the carnage which, sure... he should have 'known' intellectually and we can rest assured he did, as such was inevitable, but he did not have the advantage of witnessing it.

So... it's like the old saw that 'if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, would that be the right thing to do? The answer for us, on the other side the equation is a resounding YES!... but, the instant one entered the dimension of the reality common to the 1930s... the act would have been little more than murder of a well loved, exceedingly popular, highly successful head of state. And YOU would become: the anathema which you were sent to kill.

Twisted ain't it...?

 

[Moonglow]

Trickle down will be producing jobs just any day now.

It already did, it allowed a washed up unionized actor to play the hero while being a zero...

 

[Moonglow]

Of course the debt was increased under Reagan. This is due to "The Great Society" legislation of the mid to late 60s, which set escalating spending designed to enslave the intellectually less fortunate, as a voting block to sustain the means of evil as a presence in US politics.


These escalating spending liabilities left all future Chief Executives with two choices... Spend within a balanced account and allow the mandates set upon the Chief Executive to suffer or spend beyond a balanced account and tend to their constitutional duties.

Reagan opted to set aside the balance of the budget and bear his POTUS responsibilities, trying his best to persuade the socialists in the Legislature to bind their limitless appetite for illicit schemes to bilk the citizens of the product of their labor, so as to transfer that ill-gotten property to the non-producers who sustained their power. This representing the greatest act of graft in world history, prior to the cult of obama, who took the practice into what had only been possible in theory prior to the manifest evil that they represent coming to power.

In his book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, David Stockman, who was Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, said it was never possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without making deep cuts in domestic spending that the vast majority of Americans, and probably most Republican voters, would have opposed.

Now you can blame "the socialists in the Legislature" if you want. The real problem facing those of your persuasion is that most Americans want the government to help them get through life.

Prosperous Republicans have difficulty understanding this, but life feels differently to those who make less than $40,000 a year with little or nothing in the way of job benefits, and little job security. This is true even if those lower income Americans vote Republican.

Golly... If I had not just said that Reagan was forced into deficit spending because of the escalating Social Justice spending; known as 'the great society' legislation of the 1960s, THAT would be SUCH a great point.

This policy was passed by SOCIALISTS IN THE LEGISLATURE and that 'most US citizens lack the strength of character to reject monies confiscated from those who produced it by the abuse of government power, by socialists... doesn't change that.

If it helps... not a single of those people can be counted as "Americans". As Americans are those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define: America.

See how that works?

If the increases in domestic spending under President Johnson was wrong, Reagan had the responsibility to say so. He had the responsibility to be very specific about which domestic spending programs he intended to reduce or eliminate.

He did not do that, because he knew most of the increases in non military spending under Johnson - like Medicare and environmental protection - were popular with the voters. Instead he made vague generalities saying, "We are going to put the government on a diet," and stuff like that. That left white voters with the delusion that the budget could be balanced by cutting welfare programs for blacks.

If it was necessary to increase military spending during the 1980's it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for the increases.

Reagan DID say so... he said so in innumerable speeches at the time the bills were being debated, throughout his Presidency and after his Presidency... most notably, his comments were immortalized in his observation of the 'most feared words in the English Language': "Hello, I'm with the IS Federal Government and I'm here to help." He further noted his position in his just as immortalized observation: "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the PROBLEM." These comments speak directly to the irrational notion that the US Federal Government should ever attempt to take responsibility for the financial well being of any citizen, as to do so, transfers from the individual the very responsibilities that sustain their rights.


And just in case ya missed it: THAT'S BAD!

Why tell the working class what we already knew?
yet the responsibility of Reagan to reduce govt., the debt, reduce the budget was not what happened..
The only reason Reagan was a republican was because his penis was led into the party by Nancy...that nasty first lady that send out family breaking edicts from her lofty chamber...