In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Eh, it wasn’t nearly as great of an economic policy as most of his canonizers would have you believe. But it also wasn’t anywhere close to as bad most of his detractors would argue, either.
Unemployment dropped slightly; homeless people increased
Raised taxes and the debt ceiling several times; # of Americans below the poverty level remained stagnant
Inflation rate was cut in half; public debt more than doubled
Spending proportionate to the GDP went up; tax revenues also went up
In before “Reagan killed the steel industry!”
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS
You fool! The USSR was a utopian society and to say otherwise is simply blasphemy. Just ask Dr Matt.
In b4 pitbull
Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act(Kemp-Roth) cutting individual federal income tax brackets by 25% indexed against inflation and a 10% Investment Tax Credit. By removing barriers to investment and creating incentives the results of this legislation were quickly evident - inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1 percent in 1988. Interest rates on a thirty-year fixed mortage dropped from 18% in 1981 to 8% in 1987 and unemployment dropped from 10% in the recession of 81-82 to 5.5% in 1989.
He also passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialised nation in the world. During Reagan’s terms, growth in government spending dropped from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. In a 2006 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Reagan’s ambitous tax cuts and investment incentives are credited with the creation of over 43 million jobs and $30 trillion in wealth over 25 years. The Kemp-Roth tax cuts and the Tax Reform Act had a measurable effect on the economy and vindicated supply side economics/Laffer curve - “voodoo” economics or Reagonomics. Kemp later ran VP to Bob Dole in 1996 to boost his fiscal cred.
'Kemp was also fortunate to have as his chief of staff a lawyer with a background in taxation named Randal Teague. Randy had been executive director of Young Americans for Freedom - a conservative youth group founded by Bill Buckley.
Randy got the idea for a tax bill that would have built-in lobbyist support. He told me that he contacted various business groups and asked them what their No. 1 favorite tax cut would be and Randy simply packaged them together into a big tax bill.
…it was Jude Wanniski, then an editorial writer for TheWall Street Journal, who explained to Kemp that all taxes are ultimately paid for by people; taxes on corporations are simply passed through to the shareholders. Therefore, cutting tax rates on individuals was just as good for the economy as tax cuts for businesses.
Wanniski brought Kemp into contact with University of Chicago economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. They encouraged Kemp to focus tax cuts on individuals and–most importantly–to concentrate on reducing marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is that on the last dollar earned and the rate that primarily affects economic incentives. Other tax cuts were essentially worthless, Mundell and Laffer said.
Wanniski also told Kemp about the historical experience with tax cuts that he learned from Herb Stein’s Fiscal Revolution in America.’ - Forbes
[quote]
Embarrassed Republicans Admit They’ve Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They’ve Been Praising Reagan
WASHINGTON?At a press conference Monday, visibly embarrassed leaders of the Republican National Committee acknowledged that their nonstop, effusive praise of Ronald Reagan has been wholly unintentional, admitting they somehow managed to confuse him with Dwight D. Eisenhower for years.
The GOP’s humiliating blunder was discovered last weekend by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who realized his party had been extolling “completely the wrong guy” after he watched the History Channel special Eisenhower: An American Portrait.
“When I heard about Eisenhower’s presidential accomplishments?holding down the national debt, keeping inflation in check, and fighting for balanced budgets?it hit me that we’d clearly gotten their names mixed up at some point,” Priebus told reporters. “I couldn’t believe we’d been associating terms like ‘visionary,’ ‘principled,’ and ‘bold’ with President Reagan. That wasn’t him at all?that was Ike.”
“We deeply regret misattributing such a distinguished and patriotic legacy to Mr. Reagan,” Priebus added. “We really screwed up.”
Following his discovery, Priebus directed RNC staffers to inform top Republicans of the error and explain that it was Eisenhower, not Reagan, who carefully managed the nation’s prosperity, warned citizens of the military-industrial complex’s growing influence, and led the country with a mix of firm resolve and humble compassion.
“Wait, you’re telling me Reagan advocated that trickle-down nonsense that was debunked years ago? That was Reagan?” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said upon hearing of the mistake. “I can’t believe I’ve been calling for a return to Reagan’s America. I feel like an asshole.”
According to sources, millions of younger Republicans have spent most of their lives viewing Reagan a stalwart of conservative principles, and many were “horrified” to learn that the former president illegally sold weapons to Iran, declared amnesty for 2.9 million illegal immigrants, costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee, funneled aid to Islamic militants in Afghanistan, and suffered from severe mental problems.
In the wake of the GOP’s revelation, Congress has passed bills to rename Reagan National Airport and the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier in honor of Eisenhower. A number of potential 2012 Republican presidential contenders have also rushed to reframe their agendas in terms of “Eisenhower ideals” while distancing themselves from Reagan.
“It’s absolutely mortifying to suddenly realize that the man you had long credited as a champion of fiscal conservatism actually tripled the national debt and signed the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, adding that he was ashamed to learn that the man he once called his hero stood by silently while the AIDS epidemic exploded. “Frankly, I can’t even believe that fucker had the balls to call himself a conservative.”
“But we must move beyond this mess and look ahead toward our country’s future, a future much like the one envisioned by the great Ronald Reagan,” Gingrich added. “Oh, sorry?force of habit.”
The misplaced adulation of Reagan has reportedly affected more than just Republican rhetoric, and seems to have had an impact on policy. Former president George W. Bush told reporters he “honestly thought” everyone wanted him to follow in Reagan’s footsteps, which led him to emulate the 40th president’s out-of-control deficit spending, fealty to the super-rich, and illegal wars.
While the GOP’s error has gone largely unnoticed by the American public, a number of citizens admitted to having been puzzled by Republicans’ slavish celebration of Reagan during recent years.
“I never understood why everyone elevated him to the level of a party icon,” said 89-year-old Nancy Reagan. “Ronnie was certainly sweet and I loved him very much, but let’s face it, he was a terrible president.”[/quote]
Ditto on the job creation and what-not. However, there’s still one thing that my teacher kept stressing and that was the declining standard of living and the increase in the gap between rich and poor (typical Liberal politics). Can anyone justify this?
I know that the standard of living is NOT the biggest indicator of the health of an economy nor is the gap between rich and poor, so shouldn’t that be irrelevant?
I think I answered my own question.
CS
MattyG35 said TheOnion said[quote]
…costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee
[/quote]
Yes, Ronald Reagan was in a 1951 film called Bedtime for Bozo…is that bad?
It was Jimmy Carter who began funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. There were no “military” operations in Latin America - therefore no requirement for Congressional acts under Reagan’s tenure. Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Yep he also helped facilitate a pattern of deregulation, along with Alan Greenspan and all those other criminals, whose continuation led us to where we find ourselves now. Granted, it wasn’t all him. IMO, that fucker should’ve been investigated from the get-go. Iran contras anyone?* B-list shithead actor who gradually assumed stances of progressively more severe conservatism. Shit, just ask Gore Vidal for sources. He’ll tell ya.
B-B-But he’s a liberal!
*Nope never heard of it… Ah, conspiracy theories…
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
Ditto on the job creation and what-not. However, there’s still one thing that my teacher kept stressing and that was the declining standard of living and the increase in the gap between rich and poor (typical Liberal politics). Can anyone justify this?
I know that the standard of living is NOT the biggest indicator of the health of an economy nor is the gap between rich and poor, so shouldn’t that be irrelevant?
I think I answered my own question.
CS[/quote]
First off your teacher should probably be fired for not presenting both viewpoints, and then the real one. But it’s public school right?
Please don’t say shit like that. “Typical liberal politics”. You’re pretty much my age and this is one of the reasons we’re so screwed. We fall into the belief of a dichotomy with alternative choices, we’re fucked both ways.
Should the health of an economy be the biggest indicator of the success of a nation? Gee, look where we are now. Gaps continue to widen, economically OUR CORPORATIONS make shitloads. How’re the rest of us doing? BUT WE GOTS LOTS OF MONEY!! And I drive a Cadillac.
Meanwhile, arguments for hydrofracking, war with countries who represent no legitimate threat to us, all based on the premise of MORE PROFIT are supported under the basis of “economic success” and “patriotic stances towards (inter?)national defense”. Forget Reaganomics, you should read Julius Caesar.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Oliver North was a hero and the only breaches of the constitution were committed by the prosecutors and investigators who went after him.[/quote]
People have a funny way of looking at things.
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Yep he also helped facilitate a pattern of deregulation, along with Alan Greenspan and all those other criminals, whose continuation led us to where we find ourselves now. Granted, it wasn’t all him. IMO, that fucker should’ve been investigated from the get-go. Iran contras anyone?* B-list shithead actor who gradually assumed stances of progressively more severe conservatism. Shit, just ask Gore Vidal for sources. He’ll tell ya.
B-B-But he’s a liberal!
*Nope never heard of it… Ah, conspiracy theories…[/quote]
inb4 Zeb insults you for your age
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Haha, I’m in high school, but thanks anyways. People also like to forget that his military spending helped defeat the Soviet Union.
CS[/quote]
That is simply one more plus to the Reagan Presidency. I didn’t bring that up because I thought we were addressing the economic success that he brought forward only.
I think it very unfair to blame Carter for the economy Reagan inherited, he should be praised for it.
Carter not only did a lot in the realm of deregulation, he also had the guts to appoint Volcker who intentionally dipped the US into the recession it desperately needed after decades of inflation in no small part to finance the Vietnam war.
Reagan ran against him on this topic and won, but the truth is the American people should have given Carter a second term for this.
Had he had one he would most likely be hated by Pitbull, because he might have let the steel collapse industry too, but he would also have been able to reap the fruits of what he let Volcker do.
His spending as far as GDP percentage goes was a tad lower than Reagans and Reagan used the very momentum Carter had build to deregulate even further.
Summary: Reagan did nothing that Carter would not have done economically speaking, he profited from the very courageous decision to appoint Volcker (which since this day has not been repeated) and as far as tax revenue goes your professor should look into what actually came in monwywise instead of the nominal tax rate.
[quote]Thomasm122 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
In my history class, we were discussing the 1980s and the topic of Reaganomics came up. My teacher (who’s a bleeding-heart Liberal) was saying that Reaganomics was a failure and ruined the American economy. So, for those of you who are old enough, what is your opinion on the subject matter?
CS[/quote]
Your history professor, like many who teach at liberal Universities, is totally wrong. Ronald Reagan ushered in one of the biggest economic boon’s of all time. creating an economic climate where almost 20 million new jobs were created. Low unemployment and low interest rates as well. And like Obama he inherited a lousy economy from a previous President (Jimmy Carter). Unlike Obama Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate to its lowest in decades and created a great economy especially for entrepreneurs.
Liberals love to rewrite history. They hated him when he ran and they still hate him even though he’s been dead for several years. It just tears them up inside that supply side economics worked. The only thing that I wish is that he had control of both houses of congress if that were the case spending would have been driven down as well. But as long as there are democrats in power spending will never go down. But yes, there is no question that Reaganomics worked. In fact it worked so well he won the biggest electoral landslide in history in defeating Walter Mondale in 1984.
I was there - I worked on his campaign (at a low level), I prospered from the results and it is all true.
Tell your Professor for me that he’s full of shit!
Thank you,
Zeb[/quote]
Yep he also helped facilitate a pattern of deregulation, along with Alan Greenspan and all those other criminals, whose continuation led us to where we find ourselves now. Granted, it wasn’t all him. IMO, that fucker should’ve been investigated from the get-go. Iran contras anyone?* B-list shithead actor who gradually assumed stances of progressively more severe conservatism. Shit, just ask Gore Vidal for sources. He’ll tell ya.
B-B-But he’s a liberal!
*Nope never heard of it… Ah, conspiracy theories…[/quote]
When I was 16 I wasn’t allowed to use that kind of language. Do Mommy and Daddy know that you use that kind of language on their computer?
Run along junior…