Reagan's legacy

[Socrates]

Reagan had his virtues: he made us all feel like he was our daddy and was going to take care of everything. And he was fun to listen to- lots of charisma.

But, unfortunately, his legacy is mainly the outrageous debt that he left for us, future generations, to pay off. Reganomics was a failure. He predicted that if he cut taxes massively on the wealthy (from 63% to 31%), the increases in productivity would allow the goverment to actually collect the same amount in taxes or more. This was obviously false since he never came remotely close to balancing a budget.

I'm sad to see Ron go; he was a strong leader and contributed to the US a lot. But his failed economic vision remains for us to pay even today.

 

[Annie]

Alas, Socrates asked questions, didn't pontificate. Searched for the truth, didn't believe he was the source of it.

If the debt was so 'enormous', it could not have been wiped out through Clinton's term. Again we have deficits, again caused by 9/11 war expenditures and the recession that began in 3/99.

The deficit will be dealt with.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Socrates
Reagan had his virtues: he made us all feel like he was our daddy and was going to take care of everything. And he was fun to listen to- lots of charisma.

But, unfortunately, his legacy is mainly the outrageous debt that he left for us, future generations, to pay off. Reganomics was a failure. He predicted that if he cut taxes massively on the wealthy (from 63% to 31%), the increases in productivity would allow the goverment to actually collect the same amount in taxes or more. This was obviously false since he never came remotely close to balancing a budget.

I'm sad to see Ron go; he was a strong leader and contributed to the US a lot. But his failed economic vision remains for us to pay even today.

Revisionist historian are you? Read this.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Bye bye Socrates with your "Wisdom". Try not to let your head explode on the facts.

 

[MtnBiker]

The best way to view a thread topic such as this is to approach it in a Reaganesc way.

"See there, there they go again (shrug), oh well"

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
The best way to view a thread topic such as this is to approach it in a Reaganesc way.

"See there, there they go again (shrug), oh well"

 

[Avatar4321]

Um the government did collect more tax revenues cutting taxes. The problem is congress didnt stop spending. Deficits are caused by out of control spending not low taxes.

And I understand that the key to wisdom is knowing that you know nothing, but that doesnt mean you have to prove it to everyone.

 

[Socrates]

Kath said:
"If the debt was so 'enormous', it could not have been wiped out through Clinton's term."

Response:
The national debt was NOT wiped out through Clinton's term.


Clinton managed to pay off SOME of it by raising taxes on the rich and by stimulating the economy. But even his extremely prosperous term in office couldn't clean up the mess Reagan and Bush (41) had left.

George W Bush claimed he could give a big tax cut and still pay off some more of Reagan's huge debt, but alas, he did the opposite. He made it bigger. Much Much Bigger.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Socrates
Kath said:
"If the debt was so 'enormous', it could not have been wiped out through Clinton's term."

Response:
The national debt was NOT wiped out through Clinton's term.


Clinton managed to pay off SOME of it by raising taxes on the rich and by stimulating the economy. But even his extremely prosperous term in office couldn't clean up the mess Reagan and Bush (41) had left.

George W Bush claimed he could give a big tax cut and still pay off some more of Reagan's huge debt, but alas, he did the opposite. He made it bigger. Much Much Bigger.

You are correct, I must have been confused because of all the noise from the left about GW spending the surplus. A little checking, you were correct:

http://www.catoinstitute.com/dailys/11-06-00.html

November 6, 2000

Who gave us the surplus?
by Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn is a Cato Institute adjunct fellow, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, Chairman of Novecon Financial Ltd., and the author of "The End of Money and the Struggle for Financial Privacy."

"Since you get blamed for a lot of bad things you didn't do, you might as well take credit for some of the good things you didn't do," is sage political advice. I do not know how much President Clinton and Al Gore were blamed for things they did not do, but their own numbers show they are taking credit for a budget surplus they "didn't do" and that totally surprised them.

In 1993, shortly after the Clinton/ Gore administration took office, they made their first five-year budget projection. This projection was based on the tax and spending programs the administration was proposing. They told the American people the Clinton-Gore policies would likely result in a budget deficit of $202 billion in 1998. In 1995, they made their last projection before the congressional Republicans took at least partial control of the budget process. They were still projecting yearly budget deficits of approximately $200 billion through fiscal 2000, even though they had obtained their tax increase in 1993.

This past week, Mr. Clinton announced they now expect the budget surplus for fiscal 2000, which just ended, to be $230 billion. Now that is a swing of more than $400 billion, or more than 20 percent of the federal budget.

Politically smart Republicans running for the House or Senate are claiming these figures prove the budget surplus was their doing. Given that expenditures for fiscal 2000 were a bit more than $100 billion less than the earlier Clinton-Gore projections, the Republicans can justifiably take credit for a substantial portion of the budget surplus.

The remaining part of the budget surplus, about $300 billion over the earlier Clinton-Gore estimates, came from an unexpected increase in tax revenues. These unexpected tax revenues came primarily from increased payroll receipts, a surge in tax receipts from the elderly withdrawing money from their IRAs, and an approximately fivefold increase in capital gains tax receipts, despite (and in truth, because of) a drop in the capital gains tax rate which the Republicans had pushed.

What these errors clearly demonstrate is that the Clinton-Gore administration did not understand what was happening in the American economy or why. In part, they may have started to believe their own rhetoric, and that may have muddled their thinking. Mr. Gore and some of his parrots in the news media keep talking about the "deep recession" they inherited. Such statements are no more factual than the cost of his dog's and mother-in-law's pills. The real fact is the U.S. economy has had real growth every year since 1982, with the exception of a tiny 1.2 percent dip in 1991, by far the longest growth run in American history. There were three down quarters, the last two quarters of 1990, and first-quarter 1991. When Clinton-Gore took office, the mild recession had been over for almost two years.

Clearly something happened eighteen years ago that fundamentally altered the U.S. economy for the better and, to this day, is providing dividends. That change was a sharp reduction in the cost of labor and capital, primarily because of the steep cut in marginal tax rates and improved depreciation allowances, coupled with the end of high rates of inflation. These policies and the reductions in capital gains taxes unleashed the shackles that had bound entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.

The high-risk investments of the entrepreneurial class are now providing the surge in productivity that is resulting in both rapidly rising living standards for most Americans and the surge in government revenue. Could the computer, information, communications revolutions have made the same progress under the old policies? Clearly, no.

The big deficits of the 1980s were primarily a result of the collapse in inflation and the necessary increase in defense spending which, in part, ended the Cold War. Reviving incentives to work, save and invest, ending inflation and the Cold War, by any measure, were well worth a temporary and non-destructive deficit. We now are enjoying and benefiting from these policies of the Reagan administration. Remember all those who laughed when Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and their allies said we would "outgrow the deficit"? Where are the apologies?

The irony is that Al Gore is claiming credit for the results of, and is the beneficiary of, policies that he opposed — he voted against the Reagan tax cut in 1982, which reduced the maximum tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent — and still does not seem to understand. The amount of any future surplus is highly dependent upon future economic growth rates. We know the economy is more likely to grow faster when the high marginal tax rates on work, saving and investment are reduced. The Bush tax plan reduces these tax disincentives, while the Gore plan, relying primarily on targeted tax credits, does not. The Clinton-Gore administration forecasting errors primarily came from the fact they treated variables (i.e., the relationship between tax rates and the incentive to work, save, invest and take economic risks) as constants, a conceptual mistake that continues to characterize the new Gore tax and spending plan.

Perhaps the voters would be better off listening to those economists who largely got it right for the past couple of decades, such as the supply-siders, including former Reagan budget official Larry Kudlow and the Cato Institute's Steve Moore, who both had been predicting the surplus in their columns.

In reality, it was the American entrepreneurs, investors, and workers who were able to perform the economic miracle that resulted in the budget surplus, once the foot of government was slightly raised from their windpipes.

 

[Socrates]

Of course Republicans try to take credit for every upturn in the economy as do the Democrats.

But it's hard to interpret these facts in favor of Reagan. He was able to pass his tax cuts, his ecomomic policies, his budgets, for 8 years, and he was followed by much the same policies for 4 more. At the end of the 12 year term of radically right ecomomic policies, the US was in a recession and was strapped with a crushing national debt that we're still paying for today.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich, notwithstanding Republicans predicting that it would cripple our economy, and it got us out of the recession and by the end of his 8 years in office we had a booming ecomony and had paid off a chunk of Reagan's debt.

Bush II is back to the old failed policies of Reagan, and- surprise- we're back into massive deficit spending.

Those are the facts. It's hard to interpret them in a favorable way if you're Republican; but I'm sure you'll try.

 

[Xenimus]

You people are SO mean. Hes new, givem a break.

 

[Socrates]

Xen,

People resort to "meanness" (name-calling, jokes, etc.) when they can't win the argument based on evidence and rationality. Hence, I don't mind when people are mean to me. I know the reason.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Socrates
Xen,

People resort to "meanness" (name-calling, jokes, etc.) when they can't win the argument based on evidence and rationality. Hence, I don't mind when people are mean to me. I know the reason.

I just read through this tread. I didn't see any name calling. Jokes, you mean on 'Socrates'? That was just a fact.

You are both free to post comments that lead to discussion. Nearly always someone will come and agree or disagree with you. After all, you found each other.

 

[Xenimus]

Ya I do notice that with majority of comments that include jokes, and name calling, there is no argument to go along with it.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Ya I do notice that with majority of comments that include jokes, and name calling, there is no argument to go along with it.

Yup that is what happens with pontification rather than substance.

 

[Xenimus]

Cons and intimidation go together like shells and cheese. I get threatened to be banned everyday, can't help but be myself....oh ya, cons dont like individuality either.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Socrates
Of course Republicans try to take credit for every upturn in the economy as do the Democrats.

But it's hard to interpret these facts in favor of Reagan. He was able to pass his tax cuts, his ecomomic policies, his budgets, for 8 years, and he was followed by much the same policies for 4 more. At the end of the 12 year term of radically right ecomomic policies, the US was in a recession and was strapped with a crushing national debt that we're still paying for today.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich, notwithstanding Republicans predicting that it would cripple our economy, and it got us out of the recession and by the end of his 8 years in office we had a booming ecomony and had paid off a chunk of Reagan's debt.

Bush II is back to the old failed policies of Reagan, and- surprise- we're back into massive deficit spending.

Those are the facts. It's hard to interpret them in a favorable way if you're Republican; but I'm sure you'll try.

Trying to rewrite history again?

Clinton inherited a growing economy. He left a failing economy.

Reagan inherited the Carter Economy. Turned it completely around dropped interest rates. inceased revenues. Gave us the greatest economic expansion in American history. it dipped late in Bush's Presidency after he raised taxes. and Clinton killed the economy Bush recovered with his tax cuts. nice try to rewrite things.

 

[Xenimus]

Resorting to lies wont get you anywhere, oh wait, thats what Cons do.

Its really saddening that you are saying WE are rewriting history when your leaders are positively guilty of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Xenimus
Resorting to lies wont get you anywhere, oh wait, thats what Cons do.

Its really saddening that you are saying WE are rewriting history when your leaders are positively guilty of it.

Typical liberal response. Cant deal with the facts so you call your opponents liars or say they are stupid.

 

[Xenimus]

Im sorry, I should resort to lows liket hat..but look into it, there is a conservative push to rewrite history. Just like with whats happening with Reagan. I believe he created this walmart america made in china.

 

[Socrates]

Kath said,
"I just read through this tread. I didn't see any name calling. Jokes"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resopnse:

Apparently you need to read a bit more closely, since almost every response in favor of Reagan includes name-calling and/or jokes at my expense.

You said I "pontificate". That's an attack, not a substantive response.

The next response called me a "revisionist historian". That's name-calling, not substance. Then he went on to crack a joke about my head exploding. This also lacks rational argumentation.

The third "response" wasn't a response at all. He just cracked a joke- "shrugged his shoulders"- and apparently thought that was enough to win an argument.

Here's a lesson in critical thinking skills: You can't refute what someone says by cracking a joke or calling them a name. You can amuse some people who aren't interested in rational argument, however.