Anyone read Stockman's Book on the failure of the Reagan Administration?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

No, I just don't need to hold up the myth of some politician to justify my political beliefs. Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he grew government. Plain and simple.

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)

Income tax rates in the upper brackets have come down. But the odious bipartisan "loophole closing" of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – an act engineered by our Jacobin egalitarian "free market" economists in the name of "fairness" – raised instead of lowered the income tax paid by most upper-income people. Again: what one hand of government giveth, the other taketh away, and then some. Thus, President-elect Bush has just abandoned his worthy plan to cut the capital gains tax in half, because it would violate the beloved tax fairness instituted by the bipartisan Reganite 1986 "reform."

The bottom line is that tax revenues have gone up an enormous amount under the eight years of Reagan; the only positive thing we can say for them is that revenues as percentage of the gross national product are up only slightly since 1980. The result: the monstrous deficit, now apparently permanently fixed somewhere around $200 billion, and the accompanying tripling of the total federal debt in the eight blessed years of the Reagan Era. Is that what the highly touted "Reagan Revolution" amounts to, then? A tripling of the national debt?

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

Reagan was greatest small government, pro-freedon president since Jefferson for sure but a president needs to be seen for what he wanted to do, not what he was able to do in a democracy wherein power is divided into many many parts. Nevertheless, Reagan was able to start the Great Moderation, end the cold war, defeat communism, free about 2 billion people, and start the Star Wars program which is rapidly becoming our only means of defense given the liberal's cowardly inability to launch an offensive war

You'll have to say that at least one more time for it to become true.

 

[Dot Com]

Reagan raised taxes.

Reagan talked about supporting free enterprise, then increased government spending dramatically.

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

No, I just don't need to hold up the myth of some politician to justify my political beliefs. Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he grew government. Plain and simple.

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)

Income tax rates in the upper brackets have come down. But the odious bipartisan "loophole closing" of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – an act engineered by our Jacobin egalitarian "free market" economists in the name of "fairness" – raised instead of lowered the income tax paid by most upper-income people. Again: what one hand of government giveth, the other taketh away, and then some. Thus, President-elect Bush has just abandoned his worthy plan to cut the capital gains tax in half, because it would violate the beloved tax fairness instituted by the bipartisan Reganite 1986 "reform."

The bottom line is that tax revenues have gone up an enormous amount under the eight years of Reagan; the only positive thing we can say for them is that revenues as percentage of the gross national product are up only slightly since 1980. The result: the monstrous deficit, now apparently permanently fixed somewhere around $200 billion, and the accompanying tripling of the total federal debt in the eight blessed years of the Reagan Era. Is that what the highly touted "Reagan Revolution" amounts to, then? A tripling of the national debt?

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan cut tax rates and raised tax revenues

You either confused about who "Reagan" is or what the word "increased" means

No, I just don't need to hold up the myth of some politician to justify my political beliefs. Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he grew government. Plain and simple.

The much-heralded 1981 tax cut was more than offset by two tax increases that year. One was "bracket creep," by which just inflation wafted people into higher tax brackets, so that with the same real income (in terms of purchasing power) people found themselves paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes, even though the official tax rate went down. The other was the usual whopping increase in Social Security taxes which, however, don’t count, in the perverse semantics of our time, as "taxes"; they are only "insurance premiums." In the ensuing years the Reagan Administration has constantly raised taxes – to punish us for the fake tax cut of 1981 – beginning in 1982 with the largest single tax increase in American history, costing taxpayers $100 billion.

Creative semantics is the way in which Ronnie was able to keep his pledge never to raise taxes while raising them all the time. Reagan’s handlers, as we have seen, annoyed by the stubborn old coot’s sticking to "no new taxes," finessed the old boy by simply calling the phenomenon by a different name. If the Gipper was addled enough to fall for this trick, so did the American masses – and a large chuck of libertarians and self-proclaimed free-market economists as well! "Let’s close another loophole, Mr. President." "We-e-ell, OK, then, so long as we’re not raising taxes." (Definition of loophole: Any and all money the other guy has earned and that hasn’t been taxed away yet. Your money, of course, has been fairly earned, and shouldn’t be taxed further.)

Income tax rates in the upper brackets have come down. But the odious bipartisan "loophole closing" of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – an act engineered by our Jacobin egalitarian "free market" economists in the name of "fairness" – raised instead of lowered the income tax paid by most upper-income people. Again: what one hand of government giveth, the other taketh away, and then some. Thus, President-elect Bush has just abandoned his worthy plan to cut the capital gains tax in half, because it would violate the beloved tax fairness instituted by the bipartisan Reganite 1986 "reform."

The bottom line is that tax revenues have gone up an enormous amount under the eight years of Reagan; the only positive thing we can say for them is that revenues as percentage of the gross national product are up only slightly since 1980. The result: the monstrous deficit, now apparently permanently fixed somewhere around $200 billion, and the accompanying tripling of the total federal debt in the eight blessed years of the Reagan Era. Is that what the highly touted "Reagan Revolution" amounts to, then? A tripling of the national debt?

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

Reagan and Christ are famous more for what they wanted to do, rather than what they did in the face of huge liberal opposition!! Reagan spent a lot to defeat communism and free 2 billion people. That alone makes him nearly as saintly as Christ.

 

[Dot Com]

Reagan was greatest small government, pro-freedon president since Jefferson for sure but a president needs to be seen for what he wanted to do, not what he was able to do in a democracy wherein power is divided into many many parts. Nevertheless, Reagan was able to start the Great Moderation, end the cold war, defeat communism, free about 2 billion people, and start the Star Wars program which is rapidly becoming our only means of defense given the liberal's cowardly inability to launch an offensive war

ummm.....no. We like having REAL/justifiable reasons for going to war AND having a way to pay for them/NOT cutting taxes during wars.

Wonder what the final tab $$$ for the cost of VA surgeries/services to vets will be for Vietraq?

BTW- whats your IQ again?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan was greatest small government, pro-freedon president since Jefferson for sure but a president needs to be seen for what he wanted to do, not what he was able to do in a democracy wherein power is divided into many many parts. Nevertheless, Reagan was able to start the Great Moderation, end the cold war, defeat communism, free about 2 billion people, and start the Star Wars program which is rapidly becoming our only means of defense given the liberal's cowardly inability to launch an offensive war

ummm.....no. We like having REAL/justifiable reasons for going to war AND having a way to pay for them/NOT cutting taxes during wars.

Wonder what the final tab $$$ for the cost of VA surgeries/services to vets will be for Vietraq?

Liberals gave Stalin the bomb while conservatives like Reagan built a huge military that won the cold war and freed 2 billion people!!

 

[Dot Com]

Reagan was greatest small government, pro-freedon president since Jefferson for sure but a president needs to be seen for what he wanted to do, not what he was able to do in a democracy wherein power is divided into many many parts. Nevertheless, Reagan was able to start the Great Moderation, end the cold war, defeat communism, free about 2 billion people, and start the Star Wars program which is rapidly becoming our only means of defense given the liberal's cowardly inability to launch an offensive war

ummm.....no. We like having REAL/justifiable reasons for going to war AND having a way to pay for them/NOT cutting taxes during wars.

Wonder what the final tab $$$ for the cost of VA surgeries/services to vets will be for Vietraq?

Liberals gave Stalin the bomb while conservatives like Reagan built a huge military that won the cold war and freed 2 billion people!!

I know. I was in the military during the Cold War. Did his budget balance/did he add to the debt?

 

[MikeK]

More accurately, Republicans always fail to reduce government because Democrats always oppose our Founders idea of freedom from big liberal government!

Liberals lack the IQ to understand how freedom works so must rely on the idea of a magical government solution for every problem.

I suspect, EB, that David Stockman is in a far better position to understand HIS OWN POLICIES than you are.

You do know who David Stockman is, right?

So......the following is pretty much what "failure" looks like?

1. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm


2. “As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury


3. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116


4. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



Heck....don't you wish Obama was that much of a "failure"?

Ronald Reagan's apparent economic successes were achieved by creating enormous debt. Carter could have done that but didn't. Clinton cleared up Reagan's debt and created a surplus. Bush's profligate spending transformed that surplus into another enormous debt -- which Obama is swimming in.

Reaganomics is at the root of today's economic disaster. He planted the seeds for what became today's poison fruit. What he called "trickle down" is actually siphon up, the ultimate objective of which is manifest in today's One Percent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I just don't need to hold up the myth of some politician to justify my political beliefs. Reagan talked a good game, but in the end he grew government. Plain and simple.



Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy by Murray N. Rothbard

Reagan and Christ are famous more for what they wanted to do, rather than what they did in the face of huge liberal opposition!! Reagan spent a lot to defeat communism and free 2 billion people. That alone makes him nearly as saintly as Christ.

I've heard of putting someone up on a pedestal, but good grief.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I suspect, EB, that David Stockman is in a far better position to understand HIS OWN POLICIES than you are.

You do know who David Stockman is, right?

So......the following is pretty much what "failure" looks like?

1. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm


2. “As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury


3. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116


4. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



Heck....don't you wish Obama was that much of a "failure"?

Ronald Reagan's apparent economic successes were achieved by creating enormous debt. Carter could have done that but didn't. Clinton cleared up Reagan's debt and created a surplus. Bush's profligate spending transformed that surplus into another enormous debt -- which Obama is swimming in.

Reaganomics is at the root of today's economic disaster. He planted the seeds for what became today's poison fruit. What he called "trickle down" is actually siphon up, the ultimate objective of which is manifest in today's One Percent.

"...apparent economic successes..."

Don't you know what 'apparent' means, Mikey?

ap·par·ent
/əˈparənt/
Adjective
Clearly visible or understood; obvious.
Seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.

While the former is the case....it seems that you are implying that the latter is the case.



If so, you are incorrect. For the world, his conquest of the Evil Empire was an unmitigated success.
For the American worker, every one of the items to which you have linked are true, and are the marks of success.


And...
"Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven 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."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html



As far as debt:

Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com



I await your reply, Mikey.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I suspect, EB, that David Stockman is in a far better position to understand HIS OWN POLICIES than you are.

You do know who David Stockman is, right?

So......the following is pretty much what "failure" looks like?

1. And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm


2. “As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury


3. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116


4. http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no
a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.



Heck....don't you wish Obama was that much of a "failure"?

Ronald Reagan's apparent economic successes were achieved by creating enormous debt. Carter could have done that but didn't. Clinton cleared up Reagan's debt and created a surplus. Bush's profligate spending transformed that surplus into another enormous debt -- which Obama is swimming in.

Reaganomics is at the root of today's economic disaster. He planted the seeds for what became today's poison fruit. What he called "trickle down" is actually siphon up, the ultimate objective of which is manifest in today's One Percent.

"Clinton cleared up Reagan's debt and created a surplus."

Wrong again, Mikey.


Under Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.


Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did you inspect the data carefully to see over which year the debt decreased?

That's right......there were no decreases.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush's profligate spending transformed that surplus into another enormous debt -- which Obama is swimming in.

too completely stupid!! Obama has been in office for 5 years and his own debt projections call for $500 billion yearly deficits 10 years from now!!!!!!!

Slow???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan and Christ are famous more for what they wanted to do, rather than what they did in the face of huge liberal opposition!! Reagan spent a lot to defeat communism and so freed 2 billion people. That alone makes him nearly as saintly as Christ.[/quote]

I've heard of putting someone up on a pedestal, but good grief.

did someone else end the very real threat of nuclear anniliation, free 2billion people, announce that welfare was a form of slavery, start Star Wars, and create the foundation for the Great Moderation?????????????????????????????

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

did someone else end the very real threat of nuclear anniliation, free 2billion people, announce that welfare was a form of slavery, start Star Wars, and create the foundation for the Great Moderation?????????????????????????????

Wait, was that Jesus or Reagan? I can't seem to keep them straight.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

did someone else end the very real threat of nuclear anniliation, free 2billion people, announce that welfare was a form of slavery, start Star Wars, and create the foundation for the Great Moderation?????????????????????????????

Wait, was that Jesus or Reagan? I can't seem to keep them straight.

with your liberal IQ who would be surprised?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

did someone else end the very real threat of nuclear anniliation, free 2billion people, announce that welfare was a form of slavery, start Star Wars, and create the foundation for the Great Moderation?????????????????????????????

Wait, was that Jesus or Reagan? I can't seem to keep them straight.

with your liberal IQ who would be surprised?

This is funny, but I don't think you know why.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is funny, but I don't think you know why.

did someone other than Reagan end the very real threat of nuclear anniliation, free 2 billion people, announce that welfare was a form of slavery, start Star Wars, and create the foundation for the Great Moderation?

If as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand the above why be here at all??

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is funny, but I don't think you know why.

did someone other than Reagan end the very real threat of nuclear anniliation, free 2 billion people, announce that welfare was a form of slavery, start Star Wars, and create the foundation for the Great Moderation?

If as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand the above why be here at all??

Don't worship at the feet of false idols.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So the Democrats controlled Congress during all 8 years of Reagan's Presidency, and somehow stopped him from vetoing all the spending?

The answer is no.

Reagan needed Congress to pass ERTA, he was a smart negotiator, not a Dictator

Yup, cutting some taxes, raising others, increasing spending, increasing the deficit, doesn't sound very conservative to me.

Really? It sounds exactly like conservatism to me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How can both libertarianism and conservatism be without mistakes when they hold completely differing views on many issues?

dear any two people let along any two parties will have disagreements but most libertarians are Republicans, not Democrats, because Republicans have the IQ to understand that government is not magical and so should be very limited as our founders intended!!

Liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb becuase they lack the IQ to see government as anything but magical.

See why we say slow!

Also, please tell the other idiot liberal that if one party holds the majority in our government it cant enact its own agenda without losing the next election thanks to flip floping independents who prefer the center.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How can both libertarianism and conservatism be without mistakes when they hold completely differing views on many issues?

dear any two people let along any two parties will have disagreements but most libertarians are Republicans, not Democrats, because Republicans have the IQ to understand that government is not magical and so should be very limited as our founders intended!!

Liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb becuase they lack the IQ to see government as anything but magical.

See why we say slow!

Also, please tell the other idiot liberal that if one party holds the majority in our government it cant enact its own agenda without losing the next election thanks to flip floping independents who prefer the center.

Actually I'd be willing to bet most libertarians are either unaffiliated with any political party or members of the Libertarian Party. Yet your explanation here has nothing to do with the question I asked. The question was not which major party boasts more libertarians, but how can libertarians and conservatives, who hold opposing views on several issues, both be without mistakes in their ideologies as you implied.