It is a shame this thread has once again devolved into repeated political bashing myth. It is the great frustration of this medium that so few do so little to expand the understanding of their own history.
Please explore further the facts of the Reagan years - they were an undeniable success. Perfect? No, there is no political era where perfection was attained.
As to the specifics of the Reagan economy, it was the bottom income earners who saw the greatest growth in incomes under Reagan. Why do you think Reagan was able to score such a historically huge election victory in 1984? The middle class was thriving under Reagan - thus the emergence of the Reagan Democrats - middle class blue collar union members who bucked the voting request of their union leaders and supported Reagan at the ballot.
The bottom earners in America saw their inflation-adjusted incomes grow by 77% from the late 1970s to the mid 1980s.
The second lowest income bracket in America saw their incomes grow by 37% in the same time period.
The third lowest income bracket saw income growth of 20%.
What of the highest income bracket? Well, their income grew by just 5%.
The upward mobility of vast numbers of Americans during the 1980s was a testament to the Reagan economic record. Remove the constraints of government and allow citizens the opportunity for economic prosperity - and millions of Americans did just that - approximately 90% of working Americans moved into a higher income bracket from the start of the 1980s to the conclusion of the Reagan era.
As a point of comparison, is you take per person GDP figures of the Reagan era, we see a considerable annual growth of 3.2%. During the Clinton era - a time of economic prosperity as well, we see a far less impressive per person GDP growth rate of 2.3%. Solid, but far from spectacular. Job creation during the Reagan years was approximately 20 million. During the Clinton era, approximately 16 1/2 million. (Both good mind you - but the Reagan years were substantially better.)
Regarding tax policy, the media has made much over the fact that the top 1% of income earners in America saw their tax burden decrease by 30% under Reagan. This is quite true. What so often goes unreported is that the top 20% of income earners saw their tax burden decrease by 35%, and the middle and lowest income earners saw decreases of
64% and 264% respectively. (this was a result of Reagan raising the earned income credit by 300% and doubling the personal exemption rate)
As far as the issue of debt, it is simple fact that the national debt increased under Reagan, and the Democrat Congress. What is so often left out of the equation is that while defense spending increased 50% under Reagan, it was the far greater means tested entitlement spending increases of 102% that was the greatest contributor to the national debt. And it should be noted that at the conclusion of the Cold War, defense spending was then slashed by 15%, while non-security national spending continued to escalate. (And today - well, it has hit all time highs.) It was this 15% drop in defense spending that equated to the peace dividend enjoyed by Bush I and most notably, Clinton. Unfortunately, domestic spending soon outpaced the peace dividend gains, and then when combined with the ever greater spending of Bush II, well, we have now come to the Obama era which while quick to condemn Bush II's fiscal irresponsiblity, appears more than willing to take such irresponsibility even further...)
But getting back to Reagan, while federal revenues rose substantially as a result of his tax policies, so too did overall federal spending. A great deal of blame can be laid at the feet of the Democrat Congress, who repeatedly demanded increases in their proposed budgets if they were to include Reagan's requests for increased defense spending, each side willingly compromising for the furthering of their respective agendas.
That being said, the Reagan record must too be held accountable for these deficits, and history will note that accounting - though far more fairly and in proper historical context than the sadly slanted and misinformed anti-Reagan rants that a few in here ignorantly engage in.
So let the true record show that lower and middle class Americans - at least those choosing to take advantage of the opportunities presented them, thrived during the Reagan era, with nearly 90% substantially improving their incomes during Reagan's two terms.
Will Obama rise to the level of Reagan's success? Will he grow into the role of President so he can move with the same comfortable self-assurance and certainty of path that marked the Reagan years?
That remains to be seen. At present, like Reagan, Mr. Obama faces considerable economic challenges at the outset of his presidency. Unlike Reagan, Obama has chosen to expand the government as a means of growing opportunity. Reagan of course viewed government as a natural contradiction to individual opportunity.
History has proven Reagan right on his watch - it remains to be seen if history will be so kind to Obama on his.
"
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
-Ronald Reagan
