Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
Yes, the Reagan recovery was caused by VolkerDid you speed read?You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.He gets the blame for all the spending?He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.
REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.
The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:
Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.
- 20 million new jobs were created
- Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
- Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
- Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
- Real gross national product rose 26%
- The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.
Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.
So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”
"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."
Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.
And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.
The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER
Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...
Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.
But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.
So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.
The overthrow of the Soviet Union came from the Pope.
Reagan was just a senile actor.
LOL! The Left is so desperate they say the stupidest things.
This guy was not from the "left"
The Myths of Reaganomics
Mises Daily: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 by Murray N. Rothbard
I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it.
Government Spending. How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures.
Sophisticated economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison, that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal spending to net private product, that is, production of the private sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration has brought us a substantial increase in government spending.
Also, the excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.
Deficits. The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.
This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history. It is true that the $50 billion deficits in World War II were a much higher percentage of the GNP; but the point is that that was a temporary, one-shot situation, the product of war finance. But the war was over in a few years; and the current federal deficits now seem to be a recent, but still permanent part of the American heritage.
One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
There has also been a fervent revival of the old left-Keynesian idea that "deficits don't matter, anyway." Deficits are stimulating, we can "grow ourselves out of deficits," etc. The most interesting, though predictable, twist was that of the supply-siders, who, led by Professor Arthur Laffer and his famous "curve," had promised that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist, and the only propounder of his famous curve.
The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily