Reagan = 1.6 TRILLION Stimulus bill?

[240 is Back]

Ronald Reagan injected a massive $750billion stimulus package to deal with the recession on the early 80's.

From 82-89 the U.S. had the largest economic boom in this nation's history.

$1,673,339,378,238.34 in the year 2008 has the same "purchase power" as $750,000,000,000 in the year 1982.

That's 1.67 TRILLION dollars of Stim $ that Reagan injected into the economy, by today's dollars.  Is this true?  I hadn't heard of it.  Shocking.  Thoughts?

[MB_722]

stimulate all you want ...

sooner or later it'll all go KA-BOOM!

[Hugo Chavez]

stimulate all you want ...

sooner or later it'll all go KA-BOOM!

regardless, if this is accuarate, it's going to be a D'OH! moment for the Reagan fans bashing Obama.

[MB_722]

regardless, if this is accuarate, it's going to be a D'OH! moment for the Reagan fans bashing Obama.

true

[Parker]

$1,673,339,378,238.34 in the year 2008 has the same "purchase power" as $750,000,000,000 in the year 1982.

That's 1.67 TRILLION dollars of Stim $ that Reagan injected into the economy, by today's dollars.  Is this true?  I hadn't heard of it.  Shocking.  Thoughts?

Funny, by the early 90's we were in a recession---that was when all these glamous high profile supercars came out, and then boom...people still talk about it today, because today's high end carmakers remember it well.

[GigantorX]

$1,673,339,378,238.34 in the year 2008 has the same "purchase power" as $750,000,000,000 in the year 1982.

That's 1.67 TRILLION dollars of Stim $ that Reagan injected into the economy, by today's dollars.  Is this true?  I hadn't heard of it.  Shocking.  Thoughts?

Is that all you are going to provide us with, a quote with some numbers?

As far as I can tell, the Reagan "Stimulus" as you are calling it is from the massive tax cuts he enacted. No where have I read that Reagan passed anything like the Porkulous Bill. The numbers and "proof" you cite are vague and unclear. Again, as far as I know, Reagan never signed over any Fiscal Stimulus like Obama did. The numbers are probably relating from the Kemp/Roth Tax Cuts from that period.

Seriously, get some stronger proof, do the research and come back with something a bit more fleshed out. I have no clue what you are trying to do with this thread other than troll.

[240 is Back]

I dont know anything about this Stim bill.  I know Clinton had one in 93 (?) and it helped things a lot.

I'd like to learn more about Reagan's Stim bill - was it a good thing?  I used the number translator to convert the 82 dollars to today's amount.  it's similar to Obama's in terms of the numbers.

[Hedgehog]

Is that all you are going to provide us with, a quote with some numbers?

As far as I can tell, the Reagan "Stimulus" as you are calling it is from the massive tax cuts he enacted. No where have I read that Reagan passed anything like the Porkulous Bill. The numbers and "proof" you cite are vague and unclear. Again, as far as I know, Reagan never signed over any Fiscal Stimulus like Obama did. The numbers are probably relating from the Kemp/Roth Tax Cuts from that period.

Seriously, get some stronger proof, do the research and come back with something a bit more fleshed out. I have no clue what you are trying to do with this thread other than troll.

I won't comment on the number posted, since I don't know if it's true.

But as far as Reagan goes – the man was simply economically irresponsible.

Reagan ran a budget deficit even when the economy was booming.

[Alex23]

From 82-89 the U.S. had the largest economic boom in this nation's history.

Largest? Based on fucking what??

The largest boom based on unemployment rates, wages increase ans GDP was from 1997-2000. Much short period bigger numbers.

Help me out here.. is this tool another cock dependent "Bindare-dundat-forskin"?

[HDPhysiques]

But as far as Reagan goes – the man was simply economically irresponsible.

QFT.   100% True.

[Hugo Chavez]

Largest? Based on fucking what??

The largest boom based on unemployment rates, wages increase ans GDP was from 1997-2000. Much short period bigger numbers.

Help me out here.. is this tool another cock dependent "Bindare-dundat-forskin"?

I've never looked into the largest boom in American History thing.  According to The Heritage Foundation Reagan had the largest "peace time" economic boom.  I don't remember it as a huge boom but I was young so maybe I remember wrong.  97 to 2000 was peacetime too and that was a pretty huge boom. 

[Hedgehog]

I've never looked into the largest boom in American History thing.  According to The Heritage Foundation Reagan had the largest "peace time" economic boom.  I don't remember it as a huge boom but I was young so maybe I remember wrong.  97 to 2000 was peacetime too and that was a pretty huge boom. 

I doubt Reagan did.

Look at the 50's and early 60's in the USA. Now that's economic boom for you.

Basically, USA is still living on what the good ol' folks in the 50's and 60's did.

Back then, the educational system was perhaps the finest in world, the crime rates were low, and everything was fcuking swell.

All you had to worry about was the "Commies".

[Alex23]

I doubt Reagan did.

Look at the 50's and early 60's in the USA. Now that's economic boom for you.

Basically, USA is still living on what the good ol' folks in the 50's and 60's did.

Back then, the educational system was perhaps the finest in world, the crime rates were low, and everything was fcuking swell.

All you had to worry about was the "Commies".

Where do you live Hedgehog and where are your parents and grand-parents from?

[Hedgehog]

Where do you live Hedgehog and where are your parents and grand-parents from?

Why you ask?

[GigantorX]

I believe the reason why no-one can quote any real numbers from Reagan's "Stimulus Bill" is because there wasn't one. A Stimulus Bill doesn't necessarily have to be like Obama's or Bushes which is all govt. spending and refunds.

Also, the period from about 1982 to 1989 isn't called "The Great Expansion" for nothing. The growth from 1997-2000 was from a giant speculative bubble that eventually burst.

I really don't think comparing the 2 periods really jives if you look at the previous decades. 1970 to 1980 and 1980-2000.

[MM2K]

But as far as Reagan goes – the man was simply economically irresponsible.

Reagan ran a budget deficit even when the economy was booming.

Reagan was anything but economically irresposbible. He allowed Paul Voelker to raise interest rates as needed to kill inflation, with the economy going into recession as a result. He continued to allow him to do it even as his popularity decreased. Few other presidents would have had the guts to do this. But it was those rising interest rates and the killing of stagflation that caused the greatest and largest period of economic prosperity in world history.

People point to his deficits, but deficits dont mean jack shit when your assets are increasing WAY MORE, and when your interest rates stay low.  You want both low taxes and low spending, but you first have to decrease taxes before you decrease spending. If you try to decrease speding first, there will be no decrease in either spending or taxes. The best way to decrease speding in the long run is to first decrease taxes.

[GigantorX]

Reagan was anything but economically irresposbible. He allowed Paul Voelker to raise interest rates as needed to kill inflation, with the economy going into recession as a result. He continued to allow him to do it even as his popularity decreased. Few other presidents would have had the guts to do this. But it was those rising interest rates and the killing of stagflation that caused the greatest and largest period of economic prosperity in world history.

People point to his deficits, but deficits dont mean jack shit when your assets are increasing WAY MORE, and when your interest rates stay low.  You want both low taxes and low spending, but you first have to decrease taxes before you decrease spending. If you try to decrease speding first, there will be no decrease in either spending or taxes. The best way to decrease speding in the long run is to first decrease taxes.

Well said. Plus, most of the debt was domestically owned, about 80%+, we had a strong dollar and our assets to debt was somewhere north of 15 to 1, while during the last 9 or so years it was actually  1 to 4 or for every dollar spent you got 4 dollars of debt. There is no comparison, fiscally, between Obama and Reagan. None.

[Hedgehog]

People point to his deficits, but deficits dont mean jack shit when your assets are increasing WAY MORE, and when your interest rates stay low.  You want both low taxes and low spending, but you first have to decrease taxes before you decrease spending. If you try to decrease speding first, there will be no decrease in either spending or taxes. The best way to decrease speding in the long run is to first decrease taxes.


Reagan ran a budget deficit even though the economy was booming.

And what's this shit about assets increasing way more?

Really?

But when is the debt going to be paid off then?

Let's just fcuking run budget deficits indefinitely, because "our assets are increasing way more".


Good thinking.
 


My point is that Reagan was correct in running a deficit for a few years in order to get the economy rolling.

But then, once it was going fine, Reagan kept lowering taxes - WITHOUT FINANCING THOSE TAX CUTS.


Think what you will about what Reagan did his first years and how he could've or should've spent the extra money from the deficit.

Tax cuts or more investments in infrastructure or similar. That's all debateble.

What's not debateable, is that Reagan failed to turn off the spending tap once the need for it was over.

[Alex23]

Why you ask?

because it affects your views.

[GigantorX]

But then, once it was going fine, Reagan kept lowering taxes - WITHOUT FINANCING THOSE TAX CUTS.

Not quite right. He massively lowered taxes upon entering office and upon seeing the economy improve he also saw the tax revenue rising but not enough to cover the ballooning deficits. A bit down the line Reagan actually had to repeal some of those initial tax cuts to close the revenue gap.

I get your point though.

[Hedgehog]

Not quite right. He massively lowered taxes upon entering office and upon seeing the economy improve he also saw the tax revenue rising but not enough to cover the ballooning deficits. A bit down the line Reagan actually had to repeal some of those initial tax cuts to close the revenue gap.

I get your point though.

I stand corrected.

[Soul Crusher]

$1,673,339,378,238.34 in the year 2008 has the same "purchase power" as $750,000,000,000 in the year 1982.

That's 1.67 TRILLION dollars of Stim $ that Reagan injected into the economy, by today's dollars.  Is this true?  I hadn't heard of it.  Shocking.  Thoughts?

JUST FOR YOU CLOWNS WHO SUPPORT THE STIM BILL. 

[GigantorX]

I stand corrected.

Your argument holds some water though, he did keep running some seizable deficits even when times got really really good. Whats different is the debt vs GDP and debt vs assets. But Bush I actually got told by Greenspan that to get interest rates lowered he would have to close the revenue gap, hence his "Read My Lips" broken promise. Which I'm okay with b/c I think a true Republican should be about fiscal responsibility even if it means raising some taxes if those taxes are raised and the govt. gets cut and it's absolutely necessary.