I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. Reagan made a big deal of how decreasing tax rates would INCREASE tax revenue. Hard to find an economist who agreed with him. And tax revenue decreased drastically. By a year after the great tax decrease, reagan was increasing taxes and borrowing like crazy. If I am wrong, lets see your proof. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. Nice to know you believe you know more than I do about the reagan administration. I think I know more. So, guess it is a tie. But, I can prove what I am saying, quite easily. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage. He used Keynsian economic theory. You know, raise money and deficit spend
ge. Sorry, oldstyle, that is true bs. He had an improving economy with 7% unemployment. He took it to 10.8% in a period of 17 months. And congress did not block his efforts to fix the problem, with tax increases, borrowing and spending. Nothing like this group of repub congressmen.
Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? Oldtime, you are not telling the truth somewhere along the line. He is trying to do what reagan did after he had messed up his own economy with Supply Side Economics. Apparently you do not know much about the reagan economy. I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back tol brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?
Well, obviously you have thrown out Keynsian economic theory. So, you think Reagan raising taxes, borrowing enough to tripple the national debt, and useing deficit spending to get unemployment down was a mistake???
You are totally unable to argue my points, because they are true. Must be frustrating, eh, oldstyle.
You are a typical con dogma slinger. Lower income taxes. That will take care of the problem, you say. Can not show that it ever has, but believe me when I say it will work. Get rid of regulations. That will do it, you say. Show me when either has ever worked to help a bad economy, oldstyle, me boy. You just can not do it, but you will continue to sling the con dogma. Just stay in the tea party world. Watch fox. That keeps you comfortable. But never get in to a war of wits about your economic points. Because you are way too low on ammunition. Just keep slinging the vacuous con dogma.
You should check these links out. They may help you understand your issues.
OpEdNews - Quicklink Missing
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
If lower income taxes doesn't stimulate the economy then would you care to explain why both JFK and Reagan used them quite effectively to do just that?
I said during a bad economy, high unemployment. There is nothing at all wrong with lowering taxes in a good economy, which Kennedy had. Reagan, however, had a 7.4% unemployment rate when he launched his major tax decrease. And as I keep saying, unemployment started upwards and went to almost 11% And if that is what you call helping the economy, then I guess we have a great one now. So, you make it sound as if lowering tax rates helped, which it did not. I remember the time well. All of the promises of great economic performance as a result of the reduction did not occur. Instead, gov jobs were cut to try to stem the offset the lowering of revenues that resulted. What happened is exactly what you would expect when you lower taxes greatly. Public jobs are lost, demand goes down, and private jobs are lost as demand decreases. That is exactly what happened to reagan. The deficit grew, and the results were that the administration used stimulus spending to get the economy moving. They financed the stimulus by borrowing, and by increasing taxes. if getting rid of bad regulations doesn't stimulate the economy then perhaps you'd like to explain how Reagan's getting rid of the price controls on oil imposed by Jimmy Carter DIDN'T stimulate growth?
Again, I have nothing at all with reducing unuseful regulation. But I have seen no evidence of any kind that it has anything to do with stimulating economic growth. You see, it has nothing at all to do with increasing demand. You haven't given me a single example yet but you accuse "me" of slinging "vacuous con dogma"? The truth is...the person slinging it on here at the moment, is you. I'm not asking you to just "believe me"...I'm asking you to actually learn economic theory and apply it.
I am simply stating facts. nothing more or less. and, oldstyle me boy, I do understand economics. I have a degree in economics, and taught economics at a 4 year school for a year. What I am explaining to you is basic Keynsian theory, which, if you understand economics as you say you do, you should recognize. But you do not seem to.
Are you saying that reagan did not raise taxes 11 times?? Are you saying he did not triple the national debt, borrowing more than all presidents before him combined. If you agree that he did these things, then why did he do them??? You do not answer those simple questions. And again, you have failed to show where lowering taxes have helped in a bad economy. Only, in reagans case, where it HURT the economy.
Reagan inherited an economy that was in full stagflation mode. He had to deal with both nasty unemployment AND rampant inflation. The REASON the unemployment level went to over 10% is that Reagan chose to first tackle inflation...tightening up the money supply. Doing so caused unemployment to rise (making Reagan's approval numbers plummet a year into his first term) but it was very effective in solving the inflation problem, cutting the rate of inflation in half within a two year period. You see, unlike Barry...Ronald Reagan did the nasty work that makes you unpopular but fixes the problems you have. Unlike Barry, Ronald Reagan had an economic plan and he stuck to it despite having to take a political hit.
First of all, anyone who can not call a sitting president by his actual name, be he repub or dem, is an adolescent asshole.
So, relative to reagans plan, it was well known and documented. Feagan planned to lower taxes and decrease the us gov. He stated clearly that in doing so, he would increase gov revenues and lower unemployment as a result of greatly increased business activity. But, you see, that did not happen. Revenue went way down, he actually increased the size of the gov, and unemployment jumped to almost 11%. Great plan.
By the way...the REASON that Reagan had a working relationship with the Democratically controlled Congress was that he treated his opposition with respect and worked WITH them. He and Tip O'Neal couldn't have been further apart ideologically but they were friends. Now contrast that with how Barry treated the people across the aisle during HIS first term. Or have ywayou forgotten his "Elections have consequences...I won." speech to Eric Cantor? Republicans HAVE tried to block major parts of the Obama agenda but even a blinders wearing partisan like yourself has to admit that during his first year in office the Republicans COULDN'T block that agenda because Barry had super majorities in both the House and the Senate.
It is well known that obama tried to work with repubs. I am sure you believe he did not. But what he got was a record number of filibusters. And a leader of the repubs who stated that their major goal was to make obama a one turn pres. Ya think maybe helping the population by making unemoloyment less should not have been a higher priority???The people that blocked Obama during THAT period of time were moderate Democrats.
there was no real filibuster proof majority because of a group of blue dog dems, repubs with a d behind their name, fully owned by corporate interests
You really want to argue economic policy with me? I'm still waiting to hear you explain to me what Barack Obama's economic policy "is". Care to take a stab at that?
