Reaganomics

[OddTrader]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Debt and government expenditures

Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981, so the first fiscal year he budgeted was 1982 and the final year was 1989.

* During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[22] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[23] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[24]

* The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 3.8% of GDP in fiscal year 1982 to a peak of 5.9% of GDP in 1983, then fell to 2.7% GDP in 1989.[60]

* The federal government spent an average of 21.6% GDP from 1982–89, versus the 1974–1981 average of 20.3% GDP.

* Federal revenues averaged 17.5% GDP from 1982–89, versus the 1974–81 average of 17.8% GDP.

* Federal income tax revenues fell from 9.1% GDP in 1981 to a trough of 7.5% GDP in 1984, then rose to 8.0% GDP in 1989.[61]

 

[OddTrader]

https://mises.org/about-mises/what-is-the-mises-Institute

The Free Market


The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan


10/01/1988
Sheldon L. Richman

https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

 

[OddTrader]

Saturday, Apr 19, 2014

Reaganomics killed America’s middle class

This country's fate was sealed when our government slashed taxes on the rich back in 1980

Thom Hartmann, AlterNet

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/

We now have a choice in this country. We can either continue going down the road to oligarchy, the road we’ve been on since the Reagan years, or we can choose to go on the road to a more pluralistic society with working class people able to make it into the middle class. We can’t have both.

And if we want to go down the road to letting working people back into the middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich.

The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan tax cuts.

 

[OddTrader]

Loughlin says Reagan's 1981 tax cuts led to exponential economic growth

By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Sunday, September 5th, 2010

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...in-says-reagans-1981-tax-cuts-led-exponentia/

Wendy Schiller, a professor of political science and public policy at Brown University, said Reagan's tax policies and their impacts were complicated.

"He definitely raised taxes. He had to. But they were far more targeted taxes" after the big 1981 cut, she said. "When they talk about taxes, they also talk about the Medicare premium. They talk about the Social Security contribution and the income limit for Social Security contributions. All of those things would be considered taxes."

Even when Reagan lowered the tax rate again in 1986, it didn't help the middle class, she said.

"In '81 they kept deductions for things like credit card interest and student loan interest, so if your parents paid your student loan they could take the deduction. In '86 they got rid of all that," said Schiller. "So their overall tax load went up. He didn't yank up the tax rates by a third. He just took away a lot of the really good deductions for them, which ended up really raising the taxes [for] a lot of people who had benefited from the [1981] cuts."

 

[OddTrader]

* John Moore: Reagan was a great man. But he still made mistakes ...
http://news.nationalpost.com/.../john-moore-reagan-was-a-great-man-but-he-still-made-mist...
Feb 7, 2011 - The president called on Michael Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall” in ... Reagan said the debt was his “greatest disappointment,” which is a bit ...

* Reaganomics Did it Work? | Joseph Cummins | Pulse | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reaganomics-did-work-joseph-cummins
Feb 12, 2016 - During Reagan's presidency the annual deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP[4] ... the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

* Congress, Presidents, and American Politics: Fifty Years of Writings ...
https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0253020972
Lee H. Hamilton - 2016 - ‎History
THE BUDGET LEGACY OF THE REAGAN YEARS Although President ... and Reagan himself described the new debt as the “greatest disappointment” of his ...

* Bankruptcy of Our Nation: 12 Key Strategies For Protecting Your ...
https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1614580340
Jerry Robinson - 2009 - ‎Business & Economics
Put simply, deficit spending is an economic term for spending more than you earn ... Reagan later described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his ...

* Bankruptcy of Our Nation (Revised and Expanded): Your Financial ...
https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1614582602
Jerry Robinson - 2012 - ‎Business & Economics
Put simply, deficit spending is an economic term for spending more than you earn. ... In 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated President Jimmy Carter in the race for the ... the massive debt increase as the “greatest disappointment” of his presidency.

 

[volente_00]

But I thought republicans are conservative ?

 

[OddTrader]

But I thought republicans are conservative ?

It'd be not impossible that for a conservative party to spend more money overall while saying they saved much money, in the same way that a progressive party to spend less committed money overall while saying they used much money.

So that the superficial impression would be, the public cannot see well where the conservative party actually spent so much money, nor feel angry knowing the progressive party actually have never spent what they should have used.

Conspiracy theory - worth 2 cents! LOL

Political Axiom: Democrats exist to clean the mess Republicans make.

Think about that and adjust your expectations.

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...nt-to-pardon-himself-and-others.311493/page-4

 

[piezoe]

There is a litany of Reagan era economic initiatives that were very bad for the country in the long run. That's why he was at the same time one of the nations most charismatic presidents and one of the worst, although it now looks like Trump will easily surpass him in terms of damage done. Though any conclusion based on a sample size of two is shaky at best, perhaps there is a lesson here for us Americans. Let us not allow ourselves to be so mesmerized by the person that we become deaf to the insanity of their message.

One bad thing Reagan's administration did was to wring nearly all the progressiveness out of the U.S. income tax structure by the 1988 tax year , when the effective rates and brackets became 15/28% This represented a 3% rise in the rates for those formerly in the lowest bracket and a gargantuan decrease for those formerly in the top bracket. Like a bad hangover, the ill effects of this brief period of tax insanity are still with us today .

The 1986 tax Bill was quite sensible in calling for 11%/15%/28%/35%/38.5% brackets in tax year 1987, though one more bracket at the top of about 45% was needed. By 1988 the rates became 15/28/33%, but tax "magic" was worked so that the effective rate for incomes above a certain level worked out to 28% rather than 33%. Essentially we were down to just two brackets 15/28 with a total span of only 13 points. The 1988 rates were the genesis of the outsized wealth disparity we have in the U.S. today, a wealth disparity that is self-propagating at an ever increasing rate. (Another important factor is lower rates on unearned income. That was briefly undone, but has returned)

Of all the screwball economic theories experimented with during the Reagan era, supply-side, or what we not so affectionately call "Trickle Down" or "Voodoo Economics" was the worst, and overall it is ill-applied, supply-side economics that has done the most damage.

Trickle down economics is like a zombie that refuses to die. Republican politicians still spout this nonsense on "Meet the Press." The stay mum, however, about trickle down when on the stump. They know the haberdashers, barbers, and tradesmen that elect them are not going to believe that making Bill Gates richer is going to make them one iota less poor. Instead, they sell their minions on the need for more military spending to protect us from Kim Jong-un and the rapists streaming across our Southern borders to steal their jobs.

It's been said that truth is the first casualty of war, but I wonder if that's not every bit as true of politics as well.

 

[OddTrader]

It'd be not impossible that for a conservative party to spend more money overall while saying they saved much money, in the same way that a progressive party to spend less committed money overall while saying they used much money.

So that the superficial impression would be, the public cannot see well where the conservative party actually spent so much money, nor feel angry knowing the progressive party actually have never spent what they should have used.

Conspiracy theory - worth 2 cents! LOL


https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/...nt-to-pardon-himself-and-others.311493/page-4

???

Oops, Republicans Did It Again
The GOP predictably fails to deliver on their small government rhetoric.

Veronique de Rugy | August 3, 2017

http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/03/oops-republicans-did-it-again

Despite a mountain of historical evidence that the Republican Party doesn't seriously stand for smaller government and individual liberty, I maintained some hope that this time would be different. With the GOP's retaking control of Congress and the White House, I actually thought Obamacare could be repealed and maybe even replaced with free market health care reforms. But though the night is still young in terms of the GOP's latest return to power, Republicans have quickly demonstrated that I should have trusted my usual pessimism, because it's clear that they're not guided by any principled support for limited government.

Trump Budget Full of Spending Increases
Proponents of government spending warned of a budget full of cuts, but that's not what happened.

John Stossel | August 2, 2017

http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/02/trump-budget-full-of-spending-increases

Most of what the department does is corporate welfare. America's richest corn and grain farmers collect most of the money.

Politicians eagerly give money to people who visit their offices and pour out tales of need.

Corn and grain farmers visit and whine because they have millions of dollars at stake.

You don't visit because each subsidy costs you just a few bucks.

So the corporate welfare continues.

 

[piezoe]

I want to add one more observation. The 1988 Reagan era tax rates provide costly evidence of how a Steve Forbes "flat tax" could transition the United States at light speed from respected member of the community of enlightened nations to Banana Republic. We never quite got to totally flat in 1988, but we came too close with a spread of only 13 points from top to bottom bracket. The horrible effects of this brief period of tax insanity still haunt us today. When the Reagan administration experimented with tax rate compression the wealth distribution in the U.S. was still reasonable. Considering however the after effects of that brief period of tax craziness, just imagine what going all the way to "flat" would do with our present, lopsided wealth distribution already in place!

Steve Forbes continues to push a flat tax to this day. There is no question that for those fortunate few with inherited family wealth a flat tax would work pleasant miracles. But there is also no question that Steve Forbes' "flat tax" would be a disaster for 90% of the population. Were we to adopt Forbes' idea, the wealthy would continue to officially reside in the United States but spend their time in Monaco to escape U.S. squalor. Apparently sucking on a silver spoon does not impart wisdom.