Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

[Picaro]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

 

[S.J.]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

 

[Moonglow]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

 

[S.J.]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

Not everything happens overnight.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com

 

[Moonglow]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

Not everything happens overnight.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com

No it doesn't, the change came about because the Russian people and the leaders wanted it to be changed...

 

[S.J.]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

Not everything happens overnight.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com

No it doesn't, the change came about because the Russian people and the leaders wanted it to be changed...

OMG, you're so clueless. The Russian people had no say whatsever in their country and most of the leaders were hard core communists who were former KGB thugs (like Gorbachev). And Gorbachev had NO interest in any kind of verifiable arms treaties until Reagan won the biggest landslide reelection in American history. Their economy was on the verge of collapse when Reagan won reelection in the biggest landslide in American history. They had no choice, Reagan broke their fucking back.

 

[Moonglow]

"A new moral atmosphere is taking shape in the country," Gorbachev told the Central Committee at the January 1987 meeting where he declared glasnost — openness — and democratization to be the foundation of his perestroika, or restructuring, of Soviet society. "A reappraisal of values and their creative rethinking is under way." Later, recalling his feeling that "we couldn’t go on like that any longer, and we had to change life radically, break away from the past malpractices," he called it his "moral position."
Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong

 

[Picaro]

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

Well, Reagan wasn't quite as wimpy as as Simmons is, but yes, he was a milksop and easily led around by his nose. His turning tail and running from Lebanon is the beginning of the Islamo-Vermin losing their fear of the U.S. and its willingness to back up it allies and is directly responsible for the vastly increased levels of terrorism and the rise of Iran's abilities to create and fund proxies like Hezbollah and others.

It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan,

Reagan didn't have any 'greatness', he merely stood aside and let Wall Street rape the economy and a bunch of gamblers got rich for producing nothing., which is what the 'right' really means when they go on and on about 'The Economy'; they don't mean the real economy, just the one where they all get rich gambling on watered stock and junk bonds.
...

the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Ah, the old 'Reagan toppled the Soviets' myth is still being peddled? That's hilarious. They went bankrupt in 1973, as result of mainly their spending on propping up North Vietnam for years against the U.S. backed South VN, along with their Middle East allies and their African disasters. they lost major credibility with their client states, especially after the U.S. backed Israelis defeated the Soviet backed Arabs in the 1973 war, and the oil crisis and global food shortage finished them off as a world power and left them discredited. They were kept from a total collapse by the U.S. and western Europe until their soft landing under Gorbachev's reform policies. Reagan's only contribution was running his mouth and trying to pretend he did it all. He didn't do squat, except make it harder for Gorbie to get his reforms through quickly by his babbling helping the remaining Commie hard-liners stall and delay. The entire premise that he was responsible is completely ridiculous gibberish. It's all pure PR fantasies.

 

[S.J.]

"A new moral atmosphere is taking shape in the country," Gorbachev told the Central Committee at the January 1987 meeting where he declared glasnost — openness — and democratization to be the foundation of his perestroika, or restructuring, of Soviet society. "A reappraisal of values and their creative rethinking is under way." Later, recalling his feeling that "we couldn’t go on like that any longer, and we had to change life radically, break away from the past malpractices," he called it his "moral position."
Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong

Popups in your link make it impossible to read but it talks about Gorbachev accepting the inevitable in 1987. That's about right. Like I just said, he had no choice. After trying to compete in an arms race with the U.S. (whose economy was booming), the Soviet Union was suffering. In fact, it was hemorrhaging. Carter and Mondale were both appeasers. Carter and Brezhnev signed the Salt ll Treaty, which did NOT require on site verification. That gave the Russians a green light to cheat, and to cheat at their own pace. Reagan said "Fuck that, they cheat on all their treaties", then called for a "verifiable" treaty. Gorbachev said "Niet". Reagan said "Ok, we'll just come up with a missile defense system then". Here, watch a REAL president in action:

Then the propaganda began to stop Reagan in 1984, and the Democrats gladly teamed up with the U.S.S.R. to stop him. It didn't work. THEN Gorbachev (seeing the writing on the wall) realized he could not sustain a "defensive weapons" arms race, agreed to a VERIFIABLE treaty, and S.T.A.R.T. was born. It was signed in 1991.

 

[S.J.]

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

Well, Reagan wasn't quite as wimpy as as Simmons is, but yes, he was a milksop and easily led around by his nose. His turning tail and running from Lebanon is the beginning of the Islamo-Vermin losing their fear of the U.S. and its willingness to back up it allies and is directly responsible for the vastly increased levels of terrorism and the rise of Iran's abilities to create and fund proxies like Hezbollah and others.

It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan,

Reagan didn't have any 'greatness', he merely stood aside and let Wall Street rape the economy and a bunch of gamblers got rich for producing nothing., which is what the 'right' really means when they go on and on about 'The Economy'; they don't mean the real economy, just the one where they all get rich gambling on watered stock and junk bonds.
...

the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Ah, the old 'Reagan toppled the Soviets' myth is still being peddled? That's hilarious. They went bankrupt in 1973, as result of mainly their spending on propping up North Vietnam for years against the U.S. backed South VN, along with their Middle East allies and their African disasters. they lost major credibility with their client states, especially after the U.S. backed Israelis defeated the Soviet backed Arabs in the 1973 war, and the oil crisis and global food shortage finished them off as a world power and left them discredited. They were kept from a total collapse by the U.S. and western Europe until their soft landing under Gorbachev's reform policies. Reagan's only contribution was running his mouth and trying to pretend he did it all. He didn't do squat, except make it harder for Gorbie to get his reforms through quickly by his babbling helping the remaining Commie hard-liners stall and delay. The entire premise that he was responsible is completely ridiculous gibberish. It's all pure PR fantasies.

Another "full of shit" liberal who can't handle the truth. Read a history book.

 

[Picaro]

Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

Not everything happens overnight.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com

No it doesn't, the change came about because the Russian people and the leaders wanted it to be changed...

They 'changed' because they had to; western wheat was needed to keep them from famine, and refined petroleum imports were needed to keep their transportation and industries operating. They were essentially a western client state, where the West kept them from total chaos until they could regroup and hopefully keep their nukes from being looted and carried off by bandits and worse.

 

[Picaro]

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

Well, Reagan wasn't quite as wimpy as as Simmons is, but yes, he was a milksop and easily led around by his nose. His turning tail and running from Lebanon is the beginning of the Islamo-Vermin losing their fear of the U.S. and its willingness to back up it allies and is directly responsible for the vastly increased levels of terrorism and the rise of Iran's abilities to create and fund proxies like Hezbollah and others.

It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan,

Reagan didn't have any 'greatness', he merely stood aside and let Wall Street rape the economy and a bunch of gamblers got rich for producing nothing., which is what the 'right' really means when they go on and on about 'The Economy'; they don't mean the real economy, just the one where they all get rich gambling on watered stock and junk bonds.
...

the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Ah, the old 'Reagan toppled the Soviets' myth is still being peddled? That's hilarious. They went bankrupt in 1973, as result of mainly their spending on propping up North Vietnam for years against the U.S. backed South VN, along with their Middle East allies and their African disasters. they lost major credibility with their client states, especially after the U.S. backed Israelis defeated the Soviet backed Arabs in the 1973 war, and the oil crisis and global food shortage finished them off as a world power and left them discredited. They were kept from a total collapse by the U.S. and western Europe until their soft landing under Gorbachev's reform policies. Reagan's only contribution was running his mouth and trying to pretend he did it all. He didn't do squat, except make it harder for Gorbie to get his reforms through quickly by his babbling helping the remaining Commie hard-liners stall and delay. The entire premise that he was responsible is completely ridiculous gibberish. It's all pure PR fantasies.

Another "full of shit" liberal who can't handle the truth. Read a history book.

Already have read most of them, but thanks anyway. You should try it yourself. It might at least improve your quality of spins and hubris, anyway. I made some nice change on wheat futures in those days.

 

[S.J.]

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

Not everything happens overnight.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com

No it doesn't, the change came about because the Russian people and the leaders wanted it to be changed...

They 'changed' because they had to; western wheat was needed to keep them from famine, and refined petroleum imports were needed to keep their transportation and industries operating.

YOU'RE RIGHT! You've swerved uncontrollably into the truth. They changed because THEY HAD TO. They spent everything they had on the arms race and they were still losing. Their economy was teetering and like I said, THEY HAD NO FUCKING CHOICE because Reagan bankrupted them! I'm glad you are finally catching on. Now, if you can just swallow your liberal pride enough to admit that the Soviet Empire didn't fall, it was PUSHED, you'll be making a huge step toward enlightenment.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, Reagan had little to do with that, it was Paul Volcker's policies, not Reagan's, that were responsible for the lop-side 'recovery'; I guess we can pretend he deserves credit for merely getting out of Volcker's way when his own crank theories crashed within a mere few months. Most of the popular 'policies' were merely a continuation of Carter's, anyway, capital gains cuts, the 600 ship Navy plan and increases in military spending, etc., home mortgage interest tax deductions, etc. For all the noise about Reagan, he did very little in real terms. Great public speaker and front man, though.

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan, the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Yet the USSR did not fall until 1991..

Not everything happens overnight.
Ronald Reagan - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com

No it doesn't, the change came about because the Russian people and the leaders wanted it to be changed...

OMG, you're so clueless. The Russian people had no say whatsever in their country and most of the leaders were hard core communists who were former KGB thugs (like Gorbachev). And Gorbachev had NO interest in any kind of verifiable arms treaties until Reagan won the biggest landslide reelection in American history. Their economy was on the verge of collapse when Reagan won reelection in the biggest landslide in American history. They had no choice, Reagan broke their fucking back.
Every president since 1959 caused the soviets to fold. We simply cost them too much to be able to go on. And RR was there as they folded. Which is why you can not find any source that suggests that reagan ended the soviets. Way to naive, me boy. And does not give credit to the many americans, and others, who ate their communist lunch over a lot of years. Reagan was a joke to the Russians. And the russians needed a way out. And he gave them one. Not what they wanted, but what they needed.
Really, you need to stop calling people clueless. Go look in the mirror.

 

[Rshermr]

Comparing Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Richard Simmons to Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

Well, Reagan wasn't quite as wimpy as as Simmons is, but yes, he was a milksop and easily led around by his nose. His turning tail and running from Lebanon is the beginning of the Islamo-Vermin losing their fear of the U.S. and its willingness to back up it allies and is directly responsible for the vastly increased levels of terrorism and the rise of Iran's abilities to create and fund proxies like Hezbollah and others.

It amazes me how much the left still struggles to prop up the inbred peanut farmer and struggles to diminish the greatness of Sir Ronald Reagan,

Reagan didn't have any 'greatness', he merely stood aside and let Wall Street rape the economy and a bunch of gamblers got rich for producing nothing., which is what the 'right' really means when they go on and on about 'The Economy'; they don't mean the real economy, just the one where they all get rich gambling on watered stock and junk bonds.
...

the man responsible for toppling the Soviet Empire. It truly is an exercise in stupidity.

Ah, the old 'Reagan toppled the Soviets' myth is still being peddled? That's hilarious. They went bankrupt in 1973, as result of mainly their spending on propping up North Vietnam for years against the U.S. backed South VN, along with their Middle East allies and their African disasters. they lost major credibility with their client states, especially after the U.S. backed Israelis defeated the Soviet backed Arabs in the 1973 war, and the oil crisis and global food shortage finished them off as a world power and left them discredited. They were kept from a total collapse by the U.S. and western Europe until their soft landing under Gorbachev's reform policies. Reagan's only contribution was running his mouth and trying to pretend he did it all. He didn't do squat, except make it harder for Gorbie to get his reforms through quickly by his babbling helping the remaining Commie hard-liners stall and delay. The entire premise that he was responsible is completely ridiculous gibberish. It's all pure PR fantasies.

Another "full of shit" liberal who can't handle the truth. Read a history book.

Already have read most of them, but thanks anyway. You should try it yourself. It might at least improve your quality of spins and hubris, anyway. I made some nice change on wheat futures in those days.

Actually, the poor boy can not read. He gets audio cd's of con talking points and thinks he is smart.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This country was already headed in recession when he took over. Says who? Got a link?

Yeah, I do. Says history, dipshit.

The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

The worst recession?

That's why he enacted the tax cut and future ones as well. Sorry, there was no recession coming until months after his tax cut.

Liar

Investments in fixed income (both bonds held by Wall Street and pensions paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable in real terms, and on March 14, 1980, President Carter announced the first credit control measures since World War II.[77]

The policy, as well as record interest rates, would lead to a sharp recession in the spring of 1980.[78] The sudden fall in GDP during the second quarter caused unemployment to jump from 6% to 7.5% by May, with output in the auto and housing sectors falling by over 20% and to their weakest level since the 1975 recession.[61] Carter phased out credit controls in May, and by July, the prime rate had fallen to 11%,[75] with inflation breaking the earlier trend and easing to under 13% for the remainder of 1980.[79] The V-shaped recession coincided with Carter's re-election campaign, however, and contributed to his unexpectedly severe loss.[71]

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revenues declined. Which is why you can not, again, provide a link.

Of course I can. Unlike you I don't spout shit I don't know or understand.

US Government 20th Century Revenue History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentrevenue.com briefing

The chart clearly indicates the rise in federal revenues in the years following Kennedy's, Reagan's, and Bush's income tax cuts.

I do not disapprove of tax cuts, or of raising taxes. And they generally do no harm.. And they generally help a little in economic good times. So my study of the subject would say. What often happens when the economy is weak is that tax cuts cause the gov to cancel programs, putting people out of work

The government doesn't put people to work. It pulls money out of the economy that could be used for expansion or innovation. It is a net negative in the long term.

Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger.

The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Both Hoover and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald Ford and George W. Bush and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism also failed in Japan during the 1990s.

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, Ronald Reagan has been out of the presidency for over 25 years. But every day I here new changes to the history I lived through. And studied. So, what are the truths of Reagan, as opposed to the untrue stories made up to make him look good?
For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?
Did anyone notice that his 10.9% unemployment was the second worst recession in the history of the US?
Did anyone notice that he tripled the national debt?
Did anyone notice that Reagan spent more than all presidents before him combined?

Did anyone notice that he greatly increased the size of the federal government?
Did anyone notice that his response to the economy he created by early 1982 was combatted by his team with stimulus spending, in a really big way?

I am not knocking Reagan. I actually voted for him in his first term, but not in his second. And his response to his recession was not a bad thing at all. Stimulus tends to end recessions. Tax cuts do not.

For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?

I have noticed you lying about the link between the tax cut and the recession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit. The recession was a result of Carter's 17% inflation rate BEFORE Reagan was elected. The tax cuts helped END the recession. Fact is, the inflation rate was never 17%, and in truth never was even 12% before or after the presidency was taken over by Reagan. You should at some point look at facts instead of con talking points.
Fact is, the tax cuts created the recession, and spending ended it. The fact that the unemployment rate went up like a rocket after the tax cuts should tell you something. Again, stop relying on con talking points.
Can you then explain why Reagan raised taxes and spent like a drunken sailor after the Recession started? Those, me boy, were not supply side ideas at all.

Fact is, the tax cuts created the recession, and spending ended it.

How did tax cuts cause a recession?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This country was already headed in recession when he took over. Says who? Got a link?

Yeah, I do. Says history, dipshit.

The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982.

As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.

The worst recession?

That's why he enacted the tax cut and future ones as well. Sorry, there was no recession coming until months after his tax cut.

Liar

Investments in fixed income (both bonds held by Wall Street and pensions paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable in real terms, and on March 14, 1980, President Carter announced the first credit control measures since World War II.[77]

The policy, as well as record interest rates, would lead to a sharp recession in the spring of 1980.[78] The sudden fall in GDP during the second quarter caused unemployment to jump from 6% to 7.5% by May, with output in the auto and housing sectors falling by over 20% and to their weakest level since the 1975 recession.[61] Carter phased out credit controls in May, and by July, the prime rate had fallen to 11%,[75] with inflation breaking the earlier trend and easing to under 13% for the remainder of 1980.[79] The V-shaped recession coincided with Carter's re-election campaign, however, and contributed to his unexpectedly severe loss.[71]

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revenues declined. Which is why you can not, again, provide a link.

Of course I can. Unlike you I don't spout shit I don't know or understand.

US Government 20th Century Revenue History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentrevenue.com briefing

The chart clearly indicates the rise in federal revenues in the years following Kennedy's, Reagan's, and Bush's income tax cuts.

I do not disapprove of tax cuts, or of raising taxes. And they generally do no harm.. And they generally help a little in economic good times. So my study of the subject would say. What often happens when the economy is weak is that tax cuts cause the gov to cancel programs, putting people out of work

The government doesn't put people to work. It pulls money out of the economy that could be used for expansion or innovation. It is a net negative in the long term.

Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger.

The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Both Hoover and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald Ford and George W. Bush and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism also failed in Japan during the 1990s.

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003.

Or, Q1 1981.

 

[regent]

Will Reagan at 22nd best, be out-rated by Obama? It may be close.