Reaganomics

[Jagger]

Did Reaganomics lead to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?

[PostmodernProphet]

Did Reaganomics lead to 86 months of continuous economic expansion?

no, Clinton fucked it up by raising taxes....

[DannyR]

no, Clinton fucked it up by raising taxes....You mean "read my lips" Bush. Clinton years were also prosperous.

[PostmodernProphet]

You mean "read my lips" Bush. Clinton years were also prosperous.

ah, so the Enron fiaso was prosperity?.....also, the dot.com failure didn't start in the Bush years.....yes, readmylips Bush also raised taxes....which is why he wasn't re-elected....then Clinton raised them again....it takes a while for tax law changes to have an impact on the economy, but I don't think anyone disagrees that raising taxes is bad for the economy, lowering them is good for the economy.....even Obama acknowledges that....it's just that he doesn't mind damaging the economy if he thinks it's strong enough to survive it.....

[DannyR]

ah, so the Enron fiaso was prosperity?.....also, the dot.com failure didn't start in the Bush yearsEvery president has had some spectacular failures of big companies during their term. Reagan had the S&L crisis starting under his watch if you recall. Does that tarnish his whole Presidency?

Doesn't change the fact that generally the Clinton years were prosperous. I know I did quite well during them. Of course I've done quite well all the time except the past 2 years, but thats only in my retirement account and I expect in the end it will be seen as an optimal buying period of my life.

[PostmodernProphet]

irrespective of that, the issue is clear.....high taxes, bad for economy.....low taxes good for the economy.....

[Jagger]

Did Reaganomics lead to 86 months of continuous economic expansion? If so, how did it lead to the expansion?

[April15]

Did Reaganomics lead to 86 months of continuous economic expansion? If so, how did it lead to the expansion?You ask a question for which there is no positive answer. My answer is negative, NO! It lead to a system of the wealthy going up and the middle class getting the end results of trickle down, PEON.

[PostmodernProphet]

Did Reaganomics lead to 86 months of continuous economic expansion? If so, how did it lead to the expansion?

goodlord....I finally answered your stupid question and you didn't even bother to mention my response, you just repeated it.....you are the sorriest excuse for a debater I have ever seen......

[DannyR]

irrespective of that, the issue is clear.....high taxes, bad for economy.....low taxes good for the economy.....The question however is which is worse: Low taxes but high deficits, or high taxes and low or no deficits.

I'd rather have the latter myself, because deficits mean borrowed money, which means we're paying it back plus interest. Currently to the tune of $412 billion and climbing each year.

What might be good for the economy today could mean its death sentence years down the road. Short term thinking is killing us.

[April15]

1550

[Missileman]

The question however is which is worse: Low taxes but high deficits, or high taxes and low or no deficits.

You totally skip a factor that everyone in America who pays their bills knows and every politician forgets when they get to DC...it's called spending within one's means. So your question can also include the best answer which is low taxes AND low deficits acheived through less spending. The idiots in DC have proven themselves untrustworthy with money again and again, yet some people would throw them MORE money instead of grabbing them by the neck and forcing them to control spending.

[PostmodernProphet]

The question however is which is worse: Low taxes but high deficits, or high taxes and low or no deficits.


that presumes there are only two alternatives.....personally I like low taxes and low spending......I think that's the single alternative that nobody has tried yet......

[sgtdmski]

Reaganomics or supply-side economics was based on the theory that by lower the income tax and the capital gains tax and by allow more flexibility by reducing regulations the economy will stimulate itself creating more jobs resulting in more tax monies being collected.

So how did Reagan create 86 months of consecutive growth, first he lowered taxes accross the board. Reagan took the marginal tax rate from 16 separate categories in 1981 to 4 in 1989. He lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% ultimately down to 28% and by reducing the capital gains tax from 30% to 20%. On top of these tax cuts, Reagan also increased the deduction for married couples with 2 jobs to a $3,000 deduction and allowed all working members who contributed to retirement accounts deduct up to $2000 and $250 for spouses. And prevented the Death Tax (the estate tax for you liberals) from taxing the first $600,000 of estate given to family members.

By reducing the tax rates both the income and the capital gains, private enterprise was able to create some 17 million new jobs, and ultimately close to 19 million new jobs were created between 1981 and 1989.

Under Reagan the tax burden for the top 10% of wage earners increased from 45% to 58% while the burden for the lower 50% decreased from 7.5% to 5.9%. So not only did the rich pay more in taxes, but the poor actually paid less, and considering the fact that Reagan reinstated the EITC, they actually received more money from the government.

Thanks to the increase in defense spending, Reagan ultimately allowed the US to win the cold war against the Soviet Union, which allowed for less defense spending in latter adminstrations, and not to mention the ability for Clinton to reduce the size of the US military, reducing the ranks by nearly 35%.

Tax revenues under Reagan increase from $244 Billion in 1981 to $446 Billion in 1989, almost doubling. WOW imagine that, the tax rates decreased yet the tax revenues increased.

Did I mention that the corporate tax rate was reduced from 34% to 28% under Reagan. Not that corporations pay taxes, but this was significant.

The lower tax rates were able to collect more in tax monies because first, more people were working, second, the lower rates reduced the amount of people and businesses that were trying to avoid paying taxes, and finally more monies were being invested in R&D which created many new and innovative ideas during the 1980's. Thank God for the 80's, VCRs, Cable, Microwaves, Velcro, and CD's.

Under Reagan, the family median income rose by $4000, after Reagan under Bush I and Clinton, the median income fell by $1500. Furthermore, unemployment decreased from 7.0% to 5.4%. Inflation fell from 10.4% to 4.2%. And productivity rose from 2.8% to 3.8%.

So lets see not only were more people working, but their money was actually buying more during the Reagan years. During the Carter years the poverty rate increased 3 of the 4 years he was in office, ultimately reaching 13%. And yes in 1983, Reagan's second year in office, the rate rose to 15.3%, during the next 6 years it fell ultimate reaching 11%. So, it would seem that the poor got poorer under Carter, consider that 75% of his time the number of people living in poverty increased, whereas during 75% of the time Reagan was in office the number of people living in poverty decreased.

Let us also remember that the SS Tax was increased in 1978 when who was President??? Carter, and that raise did not take place until the Reagan years.

So lets see, more people were working, they were earning more, and they were paying less in taxes.

That was how Reagan accomplished 86 consecutive months of economic growth.

I suggest you review history in the future, so that I do not have to waste time reviewing what is unmolested fact, compared the bullshit rhetoric that is spouted by liberals who want government to do all, rather than allow individuals to succeed.

dmk

[Jagger]

Reaganomics or supply-side economics was based on the theory that by lowering the income tax and the capital gains...

Reagan signed off on the following tax increases:


Reducing accelerated depreciation deduction.
Increasing restrictions on safe harbor leasing
Reducing investment tax credit
Instituting 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
Increasing restrictions on completed contracts
increasing FUTA wage base and tax rate
Increasing gasoline excise tax
Increasing Social Security Payroll tax
Increasing taxes on Social Security benefits
Increasing self-employed OASDHI tax
Increasing Social Security taxes on non-profit and new federal employees
Increasing withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
Lowering net interest exclusion
Reducing benefits from income averaging
Reducing tax benefits for property leased by tax-exempt entities
Increasing telephone excise tax
Increasing depreciation life of real property
Increasing cigarette excise tax
Reducing capital gains exclusion
Reducing investment tax credit
Reducing deduction for non business interest
Abolishing second earner deduction
Increasing imitations on passive losses
Limiting use of IRAs for taxpayers covered by pensions
Increasing corporate minimum tax
Reducing sales tax deduction for individuals
Reducing ESOP estate tax deduction

[DannyR]

Reagan signed off on the following tax increasesProbably true. But on the whole, I believe Reagan cut taxes more than he increased them. Your trying to paint a picture of him as someone who increased taxes across the board is a rather bad argument.

[DannyR]

that presumes there are only two alternatives.....personally I like low taxes and low spending......I think that's the single alternative that nobody has tried yet......It would be interesting to see it tried. As I've said before, feel free to cut taxes as much as you want, so long as you don't run a deficit to do it and match spending with revenue.

[Jagger]

Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which was the biggest tax increase of the 1968-2009 period. Reagan loved raising taxes, because he was a Socialist.

[Jagger]

Reaganomics was based on the theory that by reducing regulations the economy. The deregulation movement started with Jimmy Carter. It stalled under Reagan and Bush I. It picked up again under Clinton. It is a Right Wing Myth that Reagan was a champion of deregulation.

[DannyR]

Reagan loved raising taxes, because he was a Socialist.:lol: You can't seriously expect anyone to believe you if you classify Reagan as a Socialist.

[Little-Acorn]

:lol: You can't seriously expect anyone to believe you if you classify Reagan as a Socialist.

Jagger has a long history here, of picking on minutiae while ignoring major influences, and hoping to find people ignorant enough to believe he's being even-handed.

Perhaps you've noticed that few people bother replying to him any more. :lame2:

[DannyR]

Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which was the biggest tax increase of the 1968-2009 period. Reagan loved raising taxes, because he was a Socialist.

Reagan cut taxes far more than he raised them:

Total tax cuts: 275.3 billion
Total tax increases: 132.7 billion

Net tax decrease of 142.6 billion.

[Little-Acorn]

Total tax cuts: 275.3 billion

Ironically, those tax rates he cut, resulted in far MORE tax money being collected by the Fed govt (and states and cities) that did the tax rates he raised. Several previous posts in this thread have identified why.

When you cut tax rates and the result is a tax increase, it's a sure sign that taxation was being done wrong before. Reagan straightened a lot of that out... and now Obama is trying his best to un-straighten it, with predictable results.

[Jagger]

Ignore what politicians say. Focus on their actions. Reagan raised taxes five times, expanded the welfare state, failed to deregulate any sector of the economy and stimulated economic growth with massive deficits. He was just another Liberal Socialist Welfare State Republican Con Artist.

[Silver]

Ignore what politicians say. Focus on their actions. Reagan raised taxes five times, expanded the welfare state, failed to deregulate any sector of the economy and stimulated economic growth with massive deficits. He was just another Liberal Socialist Welfare State Republican Con Artist.

Now that you're sucking one thumb and have the other up your ass...its time to switch.......fool

[PostmodernProphet]

Ignore what politicians say. Focus on their actions. Reagan raised taxes five times, expanded the welfare state, failed to deregulate any sector of the economy and stimulated economic growth with massive deficits. He was just another Liberal Socialist Welfare State Republican Con Artist.

yet you like Obama better....how odd.....

[Jagger]

Congress and President Reagan cut taxes with the 1981 tax act. The economy then went into a recession and it is well established that the 1981 act produced a major loss in government revenues. Taxes were raised in 1982 and 1983 and revenues increased.

[Little-Acorn]

You can't blame people like jagger for pretending that only immediate results count. Back in the 80s where these things were actually happening, there were a few such people with 20-minute attention spans, who acted surprised when, the day after Reagan was inagurated in January 1981, they woke up to find their wallets were no fuller than when they had gone to bed the previous night. Similarly, there were a few people who compared unemployment rates the day before Reagan signed his tax cuts into law, with the rates they day after, and screamed that the tax cuts hadn't helped.

Looks like at least one of those people has managed to stay just as silly to the present day. The idea that businesses needed to tool up, make plans, get financing, find customers, etc.... all in an economy still in recession... before they could finally start hiring and people could start paying off their accumulated debts and finally start prospering, goes completely over the head of people like jagger.

Or at least for the people that jagger hopes to find, and convince that his blinders-on "analysis" has any basis in reality. He has a heavy need for "useful idiots" who he can proselytize. People who can think, and who knew what actually happened, need not apply.

[sgtdmski]

The deregulation movement started with Jimmy Carter. It stalled under Reagan and Bush I. It picked up again under Clinton. It is a Right Wing Myth that Reagan was a champion of deregulation.

And yet the major complaint we hear about this current crisis, is that it occurred because of deregulation led by the Republicans, I guess you have just proved that this is just another in the many lies told by liberals and Democrats to gain power. But then when you tax the workers, and give benefits to those non-workers of course the non-workers will continue to vote you in office. God forbid that if there ever comes a time when the tax payers out number the non-tax payers, for if that were to occur, the Democrats and liberals would never see power again.

dmk

[sgtdmski]

Jagger has a long history here, of picking on minutiae while ignoring major influences, and hoping to find people ignorant enough to believe he's being even-handed.

Perhaps you've noticed that few people bother replying to him any more. :lame2:

But isn't that the typical action of liberals, lie, lie and lie until finally the lie is accepted as truth.

During the Reagan years, the rich got richer while the poor got poorer, but the truth of the matter is the family income increased under Reagan, the average increase was $4000. Yet under Bush and then CLinton, it fell by $1500. So the truth is the poor got poorer under Clinton, while the Rich were getting richer.

dmk

[sgtdmski]

Ironically, those tax rates he cut, resulted in far MORE tax money being collected by the Fed govt (and states and cities) that did the tax rates he raised. Several previous posts in this thread have identified why.

When you cut tax rates and the result is a tax increase, it's a sure sign that taxation was being done wrong before. Reagan straightened a lot of that out... and now Obama is trying his best to un-straighten it, with predictable results.

The biggest and greatest thing that Reagan did was eliminated 10 brackets of the tax rates. Before Reagan someone making as little as $5500 was paying 16% in taxes. Under Reagan someone making as little as $35000 was paying only 15%. If you were making that much prior to Reagan your tax burden was 37%, more than 1/3 of your income.

Hard numbers to refute. But then again when did facts ever get in the way of the rhetoric of the left?

dmk

[Truth Squad]

Reagan? Now THERE was a failed presidency! It was all about the rich and covert military diplomacy. Starting with his arms from hostages coup and his dealing to overthrow countries.
Reagan died during his second term, but no one ever knew about it. A horrible president if there ever was one.

[sgtdmski]

Ignore what politicians say. Focus on their actions. Reagan raised taxes five times, expanded the welfare state, failed to deregulate any sector of the economy and stimulated economic growth with massive deficits. He was just another Liberal Socialist Welfare State Republican Con Artist.

The top marginal rate under Reagan went fro 70% in 1981 to 28% in 1989. Hmmm, last time I checked 28 was lower than 70, that number and fact alone disproves your contention.

Reagan eliminated 10 different tax brackets, increasing the lower bracket to people making up to $35000 and having them only pay 15% in taxes whereas prior to Reagan someone making $35000 would have paid 37% in taxes. Hmmm again last time I checked 15 was less than 37. I guess another fact that disproves you once again.

Tell me don't you have anything better than spreading your lies???? But then again, when some people are so gullible to believe anything who has time to trouble themselves with facts, it is just easier to repeat the rhetoric and mimic what you hear.

dmk

[Jagger]

Reagan entered office as a right wing ideologue who promised a conservative revolution, vowing to slash the size of government, radically scale back entitlements, and deploy the powers of the presidency in pursuit of socially and culturally conservative goals. He failed in this mission, but that hasn't stopped partisan biographers from pretending otherwise.

[DannyR]

but the truth of the matter is the family income increased under Reagan, the average increase was $4000. Yet under Bush and then CLinton, it fell by $1500. So the truth is the poor got poorer under Clinton, while the Rich were getting richer.Link please? Because the info below contradicts you entirely:


Here's another census bureau statistic: from 1981 to 1993, the median household income increased only 5.9%, a rate of only 0.5% per year, after adjusting for inflation. (The median is the level of income that exactly half of all households are above and half are below.) Yet at the same time, the mean household income -- what you would get if you had an equal share of the total income of all households -- increased 17.6%, or 1.4% per year. John F. Kennedy once remarked of economic growth that "a rising tide lifts all boats", but in this case, a tide that rose 17.6 feet managed to lift the typical boat only 5.9 feet. Two thirds of the rise benefitted only a minority, not the broad population. How do the figures from Clinton's term compare? From 1993 to 2000, the mean household income rose 17.1%, or 2.3% per year, and the median household income went up 14.7%, or 2.0% per year. In this case, the tide really did lift all boats... not to mention that the entire tide went up faster.

http://www.paulkienitz.net/reagan-vs-clinton.html

In general, the nation as a whole got richer under Clinton than Reagan/Bush, or even just Reagan by himself if you want to leave Bush out of it. I certainly don't see anything suggesting income decreased during Clinton's term as you claim.

[Jagger]

Reagan said he would move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending. He and Congress cut marginal tax rates and began a massive defense buildup. To help compensate for the tax cut, his first budget called for slashing $41.4 billion from 83 federal programs. Reagan said he wanted to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, and to scale back the "closet socialism" of Social Security and Medicaid.

However, the deficit ballooned, the recession deepened and Reagan turned out to be a fraud. He forgot about the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised, Reagan the Socialist actually added a new cabinet-level department.

The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.

Reagan didn't cut back government. He expanded it.

Reagan was the liberal socialist. Clinton was the smaller government conservative.

[Yurt]

"i hate white people and will increase taxes solely on white people as a form of slavery reparations"

~ president obama

[Little-Acorn]

Aside from lowering taxes on everyone who paid them (and eliminating them on quite a few lower-income people), one of the best things Reagan did, was index tax brackets to inflation.

Hypothetical example: Used to be that, if you made $40,000/year, you paid maybe 15% in taxes. But when inflation increased your pay to $50,000 (and raised the prices of everything you bought by the same amount), you suddenly found yourself in a 20% tax bracket. Your tax bill went up MORE than inflation did, so you had a net loss of real buying power.

This happened hugely during the Jimmy Carter presidency, and resulted in effective tax increases on nearly everyone. And inflation was so high during Carter's term, that the tax increases were very significant, even though Carter never signed any tax increases as President.

Reagan stopped that practice cold. He also controlled inflation enough that it might not have been much of a problem even if he hadn't indexed taxes to inflation, bringing inflation from Carter's 12+% to around 3-4% and keeping it there.

[Jagger]

Reagan vastly expanded one of the largest federal domestic programs, Social Security when he signed off on a bailout early in his first term.

His signature dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. The tax wasn't indexed to inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it over time.

By expanding rather than scaling back entitlements, Reagan--and Newt Gingrich after him--demonstrated that conservatives were frauds who would not try to scale back Social Security, effectively conceding that these cherished Liberal Socialist New Deal programs were central features of the American Welfare State.

Reagan was a con man. A damn good one. He talked like a right winger, but his actions were those of a Liberal Socialist.

[Yurt]

Reagan vastly expanded one of the largest federal domestic programs, Social Security when he signed off on a bailout early in his first term.

His signature dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. The tax wasn't indexed to inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it over time.

By expanding rather than scaling back entitlements, Reagan--and Newt Gingrich after him--demonstrated that conservatives were frauds who would not try to scale back Social Security, effectively conceding that these cherished Liberal Socialist New Deal programs were central features of the American Welfare State.

Reagan was a con man. A damn good one. He talked like a right winger, but his actions were those of a Liberal Socialist.

"i hate white people and will increase taxes solely on white people as a form of slavery reparations"

~ president obama

[Jagger]

It's conservative lore that Reagan cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush raised them.

One year after his 1981 tax cuts, Reagan signed off on a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction.

Reagan the Socialist claimed that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--didn't count as raising taxes.

[Yurt]

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was."

Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction.

In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.

"i hate white people and will increase taxes solely on white people as a form of slavery reparations"

~ president obama

[Jagger]

"i hate white people and will increase taxes solely on white people as a form of slavery reparations"

~ president obama

Im the man on the mountain, come on up.
Im the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, Im fumbling and I know my car dont start.
Yes, Im stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

[Yurt]

Im the man on the mountain, come on up.
Im the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, Im fumbling and I know my car dont start.
Yes, Im stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

so why does obama hate white people and why do you want your taxes raised for slavery reparations?

[PostmodernProphet]

[SIZE="4"]
One year after his 1981 tax cuts, Reagan signed off on a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction.

well, I know I am better with words than I am with numbers, but even I can figure out that still left two thirds of the reductions.....

how does that make him a tax increaser?......

[Jagger]

well, I know I am better with words than I am with numbers, but even I can figure out that still left two thirds of the reductions.....

how does that make him a tax increaser?......

Have you noticed that everything has gone straight to hell since Sinatra played Juarez?

[PostmodernProphet]

Have you noticed that everything has gone straight to hell since Sinatra played Juarez?

I thought it began when you started posting here......

[Yurt]

Have you noticed that everything has gone straight to hell since Sinatra played Juarez?

why do you hate white people? because obama does?

[MtnBiker]

This thread has become pointless.