Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: syntaxmachine on June 14, 2012, 06:32:19 AM
-
1. Reagan and the national debt
Year Debt Level
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Since budgets are submitted a year in advance (e.g., FY1981's budget was submitted in 1980), Reagan's budgets run from 1981-1989. As you can see, the national debt nearly tripled during this period, starting out at $997.9 billion and ending up at $2.8 trillion. The last tripling of the debt had taken 31 years.
2. Reagan and spending as a percentage of GDP
Year GDP Population Spending % of GDP
1981 3126.8 228.670 33.64 %
1982 3253.2 230.815 36.25 %
1983 3534.6 232.979 36.31 %
1984 3930.9 235.164 34.44 %
1985 4217.5 237.369 35.48 %
1986 4460.1 239.595 35.71 %
1987 4736.4 241.842 35.09 %
1988 5100.4 244.110 34.73 %
1989 5482.1 246.399 34.93 %
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP
These numbers are slightly different than my original post because this man in particular used interpolation. In any case, he derived the values from the appropriate governmental sources as far as I can tell; his findings are in line with what everybody else discovers: government spending as a percentage of GDP only went up under Reagan (by 3.7% according to these numbers and 2.8% according to my other post's numbers).
This guy is apparently a conservative author, tea party sympathizer, and climate skeptic.
3. Reagan's amnesty, in addition to his growth of the federal workforce, are commonplace news items and therefore I don't think I need to provide sources. You can easily find them in a moment's notice online in your free time.
4. Reagan's "tax cuts"
Reagan cut taxes early on, but all the while the overwhelming majority of the cuts were balanced out by the elimination and reduction of deductions, plus tax increases later on.
Year Receipts As Percentage of GDP
1981 599.3 19.6%
1982 617.8 19.2%
1983 600.6 17.5%
1984 666.4 17.3%
1985 734.0 17.7%
1986 769.2 17.2%
1987 854.3 18.4%
1988 909.2 18.2%
1989 991.1 18.4%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
The overwhelming majority of government revenue comes from taxes; as you can see, the government derived only a little less tax revenue from the American people under Reagan than when he first came into office (a little over 6% less by the end of the Reagan era). In other words, Reagan kept the percentage above the historical average of 18.1%, and never seriously considered pushing it below the average.
5. Finally, a favorite of liberal presidents, entitlement spending
Year Billions spent on SS and Medicare As % of GDP
1981 179.1 5.9%
1982 203.1 6.3%
1983 224.0 6.5%
1984 237.0 6.2%
1985 256.1 6.2%
1986 270.7 6.1%
1987 285.0 6.1%
1988 302.5 6.0%
1989 324.4 6.0%
Avg percentage of GDP: 6.14%
Avg percentage under Carter: 5.44%
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (Tables 15.4-15.5)
Reagan increased entitlement spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, doing so at a clip Carter would have been envious of (as evinced by the percentage of GDP values).
In short, your idol was a very "liberal" president, based on your own criteria of liberalism. The man went hog wild with governmental spending, increasing the share of GDP the government spent, tripling the deficit (the previous tripling had taken 31 years), expanding the federal workforce, granting amnesty to millions of illegals, pumping up entitlement spending in absolute and relative terms, and doing precisely nothing to decrease the amount of tax revenue the government siphons from the people below its historical average.
-
Some of the above post isn't relevant (e.g., "your idol") because it was posted in a ... "debate" (owning) of Coach.
1. When was the last time there was an actual conservative president? We all know Bush Jr. doesn't fit the bill and I think Sr. just continued the trends that developed under Reagan.
2. Why and how has Reagan been mythologized to such an extreme degree? All of the data posted above is publicly available; how could people be duped into this new image?
3. How was he perceived when he was president? The data indicate that on average (across both terms) nobody thought he was that special:
Saying a president whose average approval rating was 53% was "very well liked" seems like a stretch. That's a whopping +6% over Obama's current level.
(http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr040607i.gif)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx)
But I didn't exist for any of the years Reagan was president so maybe that avg number doesn't capture some qualitative aspect of his personality?
-
Most people who lived during that era can understand why is he still lauded the way he is.
That is why he won reelection 49-1 in the states.
-
Most people who lived during that era can understand why is he still lauded the way he is.
That is why he won reelection 49-1 in the states.
So you will be voting Obama? His politics resemble Reagans so?
-
So you will be voting Obama? His politics resemble Reagans so?
LOL.
Reagan was not a committed communist. Obama is.
-
Most people who lived during that era can understand why is he still lauded the way he is.
That is why he won reelection 49-1 in the states.
You spoke nothing at all about the policies just now... you did the sarah palin thing right now.. just say something general and involve zero specifics.
-
LOL.
Reagan was not a committed communist. Obama is.
Im not sure you should have commented on this thread without giving any numbers to counter the argument.
-
You spoke nothing at all about the policies just now... you did the sarah palin thing right now.. just say something general and involve zero specifics.
::) ::)
People felt a recovery in their lives and the nation had a sense of leadership. reagan actually had a demo congress most of his presidency and guess what? HE WORKED WITH THEM TO GET THINGS DONE!
Obama, being the arrogant ego manical c vnt he is, won't even work with his own damn party!
-
::) ::)
People felt a recovery in their lives and the nation had a sense of leadership. reagan actually had a demo congress most of his presidency and guess what? HE WORKED WITH THEM TO GET THINGS DONE!
Obama, being the arrogant ego manical c vnt he is, won't even work with his own damn party!
Sooooooooo no DATA huh...gotcha
-
Sooooooooo no DATA huh...gotcha
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx
-
That data only goes up to 2007....Obama didn't take office until January 2009
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx
And guess what? Obama can't fix it. Think of this you incompetent dope.
Let's say you go to a mechanic and he screws up your car. You take the car to a new mechanic who promises to fix it. After a few weeks the mechanic hands you a big bill, blames the last mechanic for screwing up. Asks for more time. You say fine, A few more weeks later mechanic hands you another fat bill and your car is still busted. Mechanic still blames last mechanic for the troubles.
would you keep your car in that garage? YES OR NO?
-
That data only goes up to 2007....Obama didn't take office until January 2009
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
-
So you will be voting Obama? His politics resemble Reagans so?
so will you NOT vote for Obama? do you think Reagan was a good president?
-
LOL.
Reagan was not a committed communist. Obama is.
i thought he was a socialist and a marxist.
are these things = communist?
-
i thought he was a socialist and a marxist.
are these things = communist?
Socialism = on the fast track to communism
-
Socialism = on the fast track to communism
I see. is obama giving all this $ to wall street part of socialism? I thought socialism was taking from the wealthy and giving to the welfare bums?
That's the prob - that's why your charge can't stick. Palin did it too. Said the only people getting paid under obama are those on wall streets - then calling hima socialist. You cant have it both ways lol
-
Most people who lived during that era can understand why is he still lauded the way he is. That is why he won reelection 49-1 in the states.
that bygone era was the 1980's and there was no shortage of legitimate criticism of his administration at that time
Reagan had more investigations, indictments, convictions of people in his administration than any other POTUS
-
that bygone era was the 1980's and there was no shortage of legitimate criticism of his administration at that time
Reagan had more investigations, indictments, convictions of people in his administration than any other POTUS
I do not recall that.
-
People felt a recovery in their lives and the nation had a sense of leadership.
Did they feel it the way Chris Matthews felt a chill? I'm a little too young to know how the nation felt under Reagan, but with 20/20 hindsight, I find it hard to believe that the leadership was all that great: beyond things like Iran-Contra, there's the fact that Reagan probably didn't have much more than 10 functioning neurons to rub together by the second half of his second term.
reagan actually had a demo congress most of his presidency and guess what? HE WORKED WITH THEM TO GET THINGS DONE!
Both parties must want to work to get things done. And right now, the politicos are so polarized that they probably couldn't pass a non-binding resolution that the sun rises due East and sets due West.
Obama, being the arrogant ego manical c vnt he is, won't even work with his own damn party!
Obama shoulders his share of the blame for the dysfunction and the deadlock. But he's not the only one to blame, which I'm sure comes as a surprise to you, seeing how you're obviously constrained by blinders that have his image painted on them, and prevent you from seeing anything else.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
Hey idiot , my graph started in 2007 moron.
-
Hey idiot , my graph started in 2007 moron.
That graph has nothing to do with Obama ... nothing at all
-
Did they feel it the way Chris Matthews felt a chill? I'm a little too young to know how the nation felt under Reagan, but with 20/20 hindsight, I find it hard to believe that the leadership was all that great: beyond things like Iran-Contra, there's the fact that Reagan probably didn't have much more than 10 functioning neurons to rub together by the second half of his second term.
Both parties must want to work to get things done. And right now, the politicos are so polarized that they probably couldn't pass a non-binding resolution that the sun rises due East and sets due West.
Obama shoulders his share of the blame for the dysfunction and the deadlock. But he's not the only one to blame, which I'm sure comes as a surprise to you, seeing how you're obviously constrained by blinders that have his image painted on them, and prevent you from seeing anything else.
Great post.
-
That graph has nothing to do with Obama ... nothing at all
LOL. Fucking pathetic. You clowns worship this joke for one reason and one reason only. .
-
Did they feel it the way Chris Matthews felt a chill? I'm a little too young to know how the nation felt under Reagan, but with 20/20 hindsight, I find it hard to believe that the leadership was all that great: beyond things like Iran-Contra, there's the fact that Reagan probably didn't have much more than 10 functioning neurons to rub together by the second half of his second term.
Both parties must want to work to get things done. And right now, the politicos are so polarized that they probably couldn't pass a non-binding resolution that the sun rises due East and sets due West.
Obama shoulders his share of the blame for the dysfunction and the deadlock. But he's not the only one to blame, which I'm sure comes as a surprise to you, seeing how you're obviously constrained by blinders that have his image painted on them, and prevent you from seeing anything else.
Why should the GOP work with obama?
would you work with someone who called you names, said you were basically a traitor every day etc?
Remember when obama told the gop "I won", "Grab a mop", "Get in the back of the bus", "Latinos need to punish their enemies", etc etc.
I would tell obama to fuck off too. He owns the dysfunction and has only himself to blame.
-
Why should the GOP work with obama?
would you work with someone who called you names, said you were basically a traitor every day etc?
Remember when obama told the gop "I won", "Grab a mop", "Get in the back of the bus", "Latinos need to punish their enemies", etc etc.
I would tell obama to fuck off too. He owns the dysfunction and has only himself to blame.
LMAO. No one should work with anyone if those are your qualifiers, "he talked bad at us!!!!!" tha fuck outta here... My gripe with Obama is trying to work with the Retarded GOP too much. Your argument is retarded... as usual... Jump from a bridge..
-
LMAO. No one should work with anyone if those are your qualifiers, "he talked bad at us!!!!!" tha fuck outta here... My gripe with Obama is trying to work with the Retarded GOP too much. Your argument is retarded... as usual... Jump from a bridge..
LOL - yeah he really tried that wth cap and trade, obamacare, stim bill etc.
Whatever. After the beating he took in the mid terms - he could have done what clinton did and moderated. But nnnnnoooooooo, he doubled down on his bullshit and now has only himself to blame for the mess he is in.
-
LOL - yeah he really tried that wth cap and trade, obamacare, stim bill etc.
Whatever. After the beating he took in the mid terms - he could have done what clinton did and moderated. But nnnnnoooooooo, he doubled down on his bullshit and now has only himself to blame for the mess he is in.
Tha fuck do you mean the "BEATING HE TOOK IN THE MIDTERMS" He didnt get beat in the midterms you idiot. He is still president, and that wasnt an election year, so the people who lost were the ones who took the beating... Dude get it together you dipshit
-
Tha fuck do you mean the "BEATING HE TOOK IN THE MIDTERMS" He didnt get beat in the midterms you idiot. He is still president, and that wasnt an election year, so the people who lost were the ones who took the beating... Dude get it together you dipshit
Jesus Christ are you ignorant
-
I don't agree with the deifying of Reagan but I do believe that he was a good President, probably the best man for the job at the time and given the circumstances.
All you have to do is look to his 2 (maybe 3?) terms as Governor of California. He wasn't some dogmatic ideologue or anything, he was a good leader and he actually governed well.
That's what is important.
-
LOL.
Reagan was not a committed communist. Obama is.
You're not doing real well in this thread.
Perhaps you should stick to copy and paste in the other nine thousand threads you started and update pathalogically.
-
You're not doing real well in this thread.
Perhaps you should stick to copy and paste in the other nine thousand threads you started and update pathalogically.
LOL. I posted another thread on Reagan v Obama record.
Anyone who remembers the 1980's can attest to why Reagan is well remembered by most.
-
LOL. I posted another thread on Reagan v Obama record.
Anyone who remembers the 1980's can attest to why Reagan is well remembered by most.
You are quite stupid arent you? My parents remember the 80s and they have a very different of Reagan as a President.
And before you say shit about "well they are black welfare people thats why" You can google both of my parents to view their success. They are very hard workers and extremely successful, but they know how Raegan was good for some people and bad for others.
-
You are quite stupid arent you? My parents remember the 80s and they have a very different of Reagan as a President.
And before you say shit about "well they are black welfare people thats why" You can google both of my parents to view their success. They are very hard workers and extremely successful, but they know how Raegan was good for some people and bad for others.
Blacks voted 88% for walter mondale, need I say more?
-
Blacks voted 88% for walter mondale, need I say more?
And they are Americans also, (as are my parents) and still they didnt like Reagans term.. so... you really didnt prove anything by that
-
And they are Americans also, (as are my parents) and still they didnt like Reagans term.. so... you really didnt prove anything by that
Do they like Obama's term? LOL.
Obama has never done a single fucking thing for black people.
-
Why should the GOP work with obama?
First of all, they should work together, not just "with Obama." And they should because they are our elected representatives - the people we sent up there to take care of the People's business, not to play games, try to score political points, bicker and throw invective. This applies to all our elected officials, not just Obama, or just the Republican members of the House, or the Democrats or the House, or the Republicans of the Senate or the Democrats of the Senate.
would you work with someone who called you names, said you were basically a traitor every day etc?
(Sidenote: I don't recall Obama calling anyone a traitor. Do you have a reference?)
To answer your question, if I were a politician, I would try to work with anyone who wanted to try and work with me - even if our political positions didn't necessarily agree. I would have a vigorous debate and lay out my positions on the table and argue why I thought they were better than other alternatives. But I would do it without attacking the person behind those ideas. And I would listen to what they had to say because don't claim to have a monopoly on truth; I would be confident in my positions, but I would remain open to being convinced using logic and rationality. In short, I would act according to the belief that we, as Americans, have much more than brings us together than we have pushing as apart as Democrats and Republicans, and that ultimately, and that we all love this country and want to it continue to prosper and succeed and be a shining beacon to the whole world.
Alas, we have flotsam and jetsam in positions of power, bickering, and trying to backstab each other with paper knives, all the while professing their great love for the country and the lengths they go to to save it... Yeah, we're convinced. ::)
Remember when obama told the gop "I won", "Grab a mop", "Get in the back of the bus", "Latinos need to punish their enemies", etc etc.
I don't remember all those quotes - but then again I don't follow Obama's statements as obsessively as you do - but my reaction is: "so what?" Politicians make dumb, polarizing statements all the time. While such statements are certainly divisive and don't help, they're hardly one-sided. The words may change, but the invective remains the same.
I would tell obama to fuck off too. He owns the dysfunction and has only himself to blame.
Frankly, your statements only reinforce the fact that you have blinders on and that you cannot see anything except what's on the blinders, and I doubt any amount of posting will serve to convince you. The fact of the matter is that no politician owns the mess we're in free and clear. Some own more of it, some own less, but nobody owns the dysfunction and no one person is to blame exclusively.
Ultimately you know who is to blame? People who are hyper-partisan and see everyone else as an enemy and equate politics to warfare. People like you.
-
Like you said - you don't pay attention to what obama says and oes as much as I do.
First of all, they should work together, not just "with Obama." And they should because they are our elected representatives - the people we sent up there to take care of the People's business, not to play games, try to score political points, bicker and throw invective. This applies to all our elected officials, not just Obama, or just the Republican members of the House, or the Democrats or the House, or the Republicans of the Senate or the Democrats of the Senate.
(Sidenote: I don't recall Obama calling anyone a traitor. Do you have a reference?)
To answer your question, if I were a politician, I would try to work with anyone who wanted to try and work with me - even if our political positions didn't necessarily agree. I would have a vigorous debate and lay out my positions on the table and argue why I thought they were better than other alternatives. But I would do it without attacking the person behind those ideas. And I would listen to what they had to say because don't claim to have a monopoly on truth; I would be confident in my positions, but I would remain open to being convinced using logic and rationality. In short, I would act according to the belief that we, as Americans, have much more than brings us together than we have pushing as apart as Democrats and Republicans, and that ultimately, and that we all love this country and want to it continue to prosper and succeed and be a shining beacon to the whole world.
Alas, we have flotsam and jetsam in positions of power, bickering, and trying to backstab each other with paper knives, all the while professing their great love for the country and the lengths they go to to save it... Yeah, we're convinced. ::)
I don't remember all those quotes - but then again I don't follow Obama's statements as obsessively as you do - but my reaction is: "so what?" Politicians make dumb, polarizing statements all the time. While such statements are certainly divisive and don't help, they're hardly one-sided. The words may change, but the invective remains the same.
Frankly, your statements only reinforce the fact that you have blinders on and that you cannot see anything except what's on the blinders, and I doubt any amount of posting will serve to convince you. The fact of the matter is that no politician owns the mess we're in free and clear. Some own more of it, some own less, but nobody owns the dysfunction and no one person is to blame exclusively.
Ultimately you know who is to blame? People who are hyper-partisan and see everyone else as an enemy and equate politics to warfare. People like you.
-
que the double rolley eyes from the guy...
3333 isnt equipped to argue this with you
-
que the double rolley eyes from the guy...
3333 isnt equipped to argue this with you
LOL.
Funny coming from delusional idiots like yourself who voted for obama and still don't grasp why he has failed so miserably and are prepared to vote for 4 more years of treason and chaos all for one reason which you won't admit. Pathetic.
-
LOL.
Funny coming from delusional idiots like yourself who voted for obama and still don't grasp why he has failed so miserably and are prepared to vote for 4 more years of treason and chaos all for one reason which you won't admit. Pathetic.
If what he did was Treason.. he would have been tried. Please point out his Treason, as that is a heavy accusation. And not in your opinion, instead, pull up the legal definition of the act and compare your specific instances where President Obama's are actions are consistant.
-
Like you said - you don't pay attention to what obama says and oes as much as I do.
Such an answer! I've been defeated! *generic monster dying sound*
-
If what he did was Treason.. he would have been tried. Please point out his Treason, as that is a heavy accusation. And not in your opinion, instead, pull up the legal definition of the act and compare your specific instances where President Obama's are actions are consistant.
Amensty for illegals via Exec Order today.
I love it too since blacks, who are the most hurt by this, wont say shit because they are slaves to Obama.
-
Amensty for illegals via Exec Order today.
I love it too since blacks, who are the most hurt by this, wont say shit because they are slaves to Obama.
Ok.. so then we should see him face the charge of Treason any time now?
-
Such an answer! I've been defeated! *generic monster dying sound*
He said that the republicans are putting "party before the country" in not adopting his programs. What does that tell you?
-
He said that the republicans are putting "party before the country" in not adopting his programs. What does that tell you?
Woah thats wattered down from your accusations in the begining of the thread.
-
Woah thats wattered down from your accusations in the begining of the thread.
What is the implication of that statement?
-
After President George W. Bush sent Congress an outline of his tax reform plan on February 8, some critics immediately began to attack it as a return to what they portray as the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Reagan Administration. According to these commentators, Congress should scale back--if not outright reject--President Bush's tax reform proposals because they are based on a period when the wealthy received excessive tax cuts and revenue was wasted on defense even though most Americans struggled in poverty. This is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the fact that President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture. Congress should embrace President Bush's tax reform plan as a responsible return to the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.
Chart 1
Even with the growing surplus, however, a small but vocal faction in Congress opposes any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts and that generally would shift power from the government to the people. This attempt to rewrite history should not be surprising. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.
history confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17
CONCLUSION
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
HOPE THIS HELPS!
-
Reagan was a mouthpiece who is revered for things he did not actually do. Like be a "fiscal conservative" Pity idiots can not see it.
-
I see the arrows in his knee are getting in the way of him typing out a logical reply that is relevant to his claims.
HAHAHAHAHA
-
After President George W. Bush sent Congress an outline of his tax reform plan on February 8, some critics immediately began to attack it as a return to what they portray as the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Reagan Administration. According to these commentators, Congress should scale back--if not outright reject--President Bush's tax reform proposals because they are based on a period when the wealthy received excessive tax cuts and revenue was wasted on defense even though most Americans struggled in poverty. This is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the fact that President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture. Congress should embrace President Bush's tax reform plan as a responsible return to the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.
Chart 1
Even with the growing surplus, however, a small but vocal faction in Congress opposes any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts and that generally would shift power from the government to the people. This attempt to rewrite history should not be surprising. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.
history confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17
CONCLUSION
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
HOPE THIS HELPS!
Factually inadequate articles don't gain credibility the more they're posted.
Hey Coach,
Thanks for the parting gift -- an item of propaganda that was rather easily refuted on my part. It was an instructive read in some sense, however, and so I appreciate it.
Let's briefly look at the blatant contradictions in the linked article by parsing what I shall here call the Magical Happy Reagan Was Amazing narrative from the actual data.
Here's the happytime narrative:
1. "...by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth."
--Ok, so Reagan had a cluster of policies that reduced taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation. Once in place, these policies propelled the economy to an "unprecedented" period of growth.
2. "From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990."
--Some details about this "unprecedented" panacea of economic growth.
3. The propaganda piece concludes, "No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility...."
--Advocates of big government oppose Reagan's great record of fiscal responsibility and wish to tarnish it as best as they are able, for fear of another such period under George W. Bush which will permanently shrink the size of government (lol).
-
Great, now here are the facts, pulled from the very same propaganda piece as the above narrative:
1a. Recall part 1 of the narrative, "...by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes [and] spending ... were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth."
Pieces of data mentioned in the very same article:
"Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent."
--Uh...ok.
"Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase."
--Great, so the government was deriving even more revenue from taxing citizens than it was before Reagan.
1. is not consistent with 1a., both of which are from the same article. Logic fail. Mind you, this is from an elite conservative think tank based in the capital of this country....
Regarding 2, the article admits the "unprecedented" growth really amounted to an average rate of 3.5% per year, which is below the average rate between 1950-1973. Also, given the statistics I've mentioned earlier, it's hard to see how Reagan's tax cuts could be causally responsible for this. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (money the government is siphoning from the productive economy) barely nudged downward. Did that stimulate the growth or are there better explanations rooted in secular economic trends? In any case, Reagan hagiographers (thanks avxo) simply act as if it's obvious and undeniable that it was the cuts that were causally efficacious without any argument.
3. The final component of the myth: Reagan was a fiscally responsible man. Again, from the same article:
"Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent" (already mentioned above).
Regarding fiscal responsibility, the author of the article somehow forgot to mention the increase in size of the federal workforce and the tripling of the national debt. How ironic, then, that he mentions in the conclusion that "His [Reagan's] efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending." If this article isn't a demonstration of a slew of cognitive disorders at work then I don't know what is. The guy isn't even capable of engaging in confirmation bias, or only showing the evidence that supports his ideas: he simply mentions the factual data and then ignores their logical incompatibility with his chosen narrative, LOL.
Hope THIS helps.
-
I don't agree with the deifying of Reagan but I do believe that he was a good President, probably the best man for the job at the time and given the circumstances.
All you have to do is look to his 2 (maybe 3?) terms as Governor of California. He wasn't some dogmatic ideologue or anything, he was a good leader and he actually governed well.
That's what is important.
All just post my comments again from earlier in the thread.
You can also add in the fact that he was able to work with a Democratic Congress for his 2nd term (correct me if I'm wrong) but at the very least he never had the Republicans in both houses.
He was a good president, was he a good conservative by actions? Yes and No. The numbers are there for everyone to see. To me, Reagan was a solid president, perfect for the time he lead in. Great at inspiring confidence, the best at communicating to the people.
I think a leader of his sort would be great right about now. Of course both parties have gone completely off their respective rockers so he probably would end up dead in ditch with Tim Pawlenty.
Oh well.
-
I think a leader of his sort would be great right about now. Of course both parties have gone completely off their respective rockers so he probably would end up dead in ditch with Tim Pawlenty.
I agree with most of what you wrote. But, the above... QFT.
-
I'm surprised no one accused Reagan of being a secret Muslim when he pulled forces from Lebanon after the US Marines were killed there.
If a Demcoratic president had done that, we would have at least heard the term "cut and run" and probably would have heard the term "treason".
-
I'm surprised no one accused Reagan of being a secret Muslim when he pulled forces from Lebanon after the US Marines were killed there.
If a Demcoratic president had done that, we would have at least heard the term "cut and run" and probably would have heard the term "treason".
Good point.
And what the hell were the Marines doing in Lebanon anyways? Stayed in their base the whole time and not allowed to perform combat operations. Talk about a bad decision.
-
::) ::)
People felt a recovery in their lives and the nation had a sense of leadership. reagan actually had a demo congress most of his presidency and guess what? HE WORKED WITH THEM TO GET THINGS DONE!
Obama, being the arrogant ego manical c vnt he is, won't even work with his own damn party!
Maybe because its actually possible to work with a DEM congress?
-
1. Reagan and the national debt
Year Debt Level
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Since budgets are submitted a year in advance (e.g., FY1981's budget was submitted in 1980), Reagan's budgets run from 1981-1989. As you can see, the national debt nearly tripled during this period, starting out at $997.9 billion and ending up at $2.8 trillion. The last tripling of the debt had taken 31 years.
2. Reagan and spending as a percentage of GDP
Year GDP Population Spending % of GDP
1981 3126.8 228.670 33.64 %
1982 3253.2 230.815 36.25 %
1983 3534.6 232.979 36.31 %
1984 3930.9 235.164 34.44 %
1985 4217.5 237.369 35.48 %
1986 4460.1 239.595 35.71 %
1987 4736.4 241.842 35.09 %
1988 5100.4 244.110 34.73 %
1989 5482.1 246.399 34.93 %
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP
These numbers are slightly different than my original post because this man in particular used interpolation. In any case, he derived the values from the appropriate governmental sources as far as I can tell; his findings are in line with what everybody else discovers: government spending as a percentage of GDP only went up under Reagan (by 3.7% according to these numbers and 2.8% according to my other post's numbers).
This guy is apparently a conservative author, tea party sympathizer, and climate skeptic.
3. Reagan's amnesty, in addition to his growth of the federal workforce, are commonplace news items and therefore I don't think I need to provide sources. You can easily find them in a moment's notice online in your free time.
4. Reagan's "tax cuts"
Reagan cut taxes early on, but all the while the overwhelming majority of the cuts were balanced out by the elimination and reduction of deductions, plus tax increases later on.
Year Receipts As Percentage of GDP
1981 599.3 19.6%
1982 617.8 19.2%
1983 600.6 17.5%
1984 666.4 17.3%
1985 734.0 17.7%
1986 769.2 17.2%
1987 854.3 18.4%
1988 909.2 18.2%
1989 991.1 18.4%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
The overwhelming majority of government revenue comes from taxes; as you can see, the government derived only a little less tax revenue from the American people under Reagan than when he first came into office (a little over 6% less by the end of the Reagan era). In other words, Reagan kept the percentage above the historical average of 18.1%, and never seriously considered pushing it below the average.
5. Finally, a favorite of liberal presidents, entitlement spending
Year Billions spent on SS and Medicare As % of GDP
1981 179.1 5.9%
1982 203.1 6.3%
1983 224.0 6.5%
1984 237.0 6.2%
1985 256.1 6.2%
1986 270.7 6.1%
1987 285.0 6.1%
1988 302.5 6.0%
1989 324.4 6.0%
Avg percentage of GDP: 6.14%
Avg percentage under Carter: 5.44%
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (Tables 15.4-15.5)
Reagan increased entitlement spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, doing so at a clip Carter would have been envious of (as evinced by the percentage of GDP values).
In short, your idol was a very "liberal" president, based on your own criteria of liberalism. The man went hog wild with governmental spending, increasing the share of GDP the government spent, tripling the deficit (the previous tripling had taken 31 years), expanding the federal workforce, granting amnesty to millions of illegals, pumping up entitlement spending in absolute and relative terms, and doing precisely nothing to decrease the amount of tax revenue the government siphons from the people below its historical average.