Skip to comments.
Reaganomics was great for America (debunking lib professors Alert!)
Technician (North Carolina State U) ^
| 3/21/02
| Darren O`Connor
Posted on 03/23/2002 7:17:36 AM PST by NorCoGOP
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
According to the Cato Institute's Steve Moore, "In the 1980s, incomes, employment, investment, wealth, consumer confidence, the stock market and tax-payments rose. Interest rates, inflation and bankruptcies plummeted." Does this sound like a disastrous policy to you?For Libs, YES - it means we didn't NEED the government's help to become successful...Lib's think the only way to do it is with MASSIVE government....
1
posted on
03/23/2002 7:17:36 AM PST
by
NorCoGOP
To: NorCoGOP
BUMP
2
posted on
03/23/2002 7:19:11 AM PST
by
weikel
To: NorCoGOP
Of course, the primary cause of that was the military build-up that basically bankrupted the Soviet Union and helped us win the Cold War. That, and the deregulation induced financial crisis which cause bank failures out the whazoo. Papa Bush's bailout of the S&Ls added a whopping TRILLION dollars to our national debt. And the weasel bankers have no intention of paying back the taxpayers like Iaccoca and Chrysler did. I bet SOB's (son of bush) bailout of the airlines isn't going to be paid back either.) Gotta hand it to Ronald Reagan! At least the industries he bailed out had the good ethics to pay-back the taxpayers when their business conditions improved! Bush family cronies just take the money and run.
To: NorCoGOP
Good job! I hope more people read this. BTTT!
4
posted on
03/23/2002 7:34:44 AM PST
by
folklore
To: NorCoGOP
the economy of the 80's was strong. revenue to the government doubled, spending went up way too much, and you know that Congress writes the budget, right?
5
posted on
03/23/2002 7:39:33 AM PST
by
GeronL
To: Willie Green
the Congresses of the 80's caused the deficit, they write the budget. Reagan never got the spending cuts he asked for. Revenue doubled after the tax cuts.
6
posted on
03/23/2002 7:40:55 AM PST
by
GeronL
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: SentryoverAmerica
You can not have a "horrible economy" for eight years with corporate profits generating a terrific stock market. That prof, like most profs, does not know jack about the economy.
The stock market IS NOT the same thing as the economy.
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: SentryoverAmerica
Through downsizing, layoffs, conolidations, etc., it is quite feasible for corporate profits and the stock market to remain vibrant while the nation's economy is sour. Your statement to the contrary proves that you do not understand this and mistakingly equate Wall Street with the economy.
Your adolescent rant and personal attacks do nothing to prove otherwise.
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: NorCoGOP
Imagine where we would be today if Regan's trickle down economics had not been put into effect?
I wish GW BUSH and congress would not have pushed our tax cuts out four years. We need more tax cuts and we need them right now.
To: SentryoverAmerica
Repeating your adolescent rant and personal attack still does not disprove my assertion.
To: Willie Green
Looking at the post WWII recessions, the US Stock Market usually turns up six to nine months before the recession has ended.
14
posted on
03/23/2002 9:27:58 AM PST
by
AdvisorB
To: Willie Green
Through downsizing, layoffs, conolidations, etc., it is quite feasible for corporate profits and the stock market to remain vibrant while the nation's economy is sour. How in the world do you measure the economy? Let me guess, by the number of new train systems being built that will have to be taxpayer subsidized in perpetuity.
To: NorCoGOP
The most bizarre charge of all is that Reagan's tax cuts resulted in decreased taxes for the rich and more for the poor. I can only assume these people were accidentally transported here from an alternate universe since the 1980s saw the percentage of federal taxes paid by the rich increase while the percentage paid by the bottom 50 percent decreased. The top one percent of Americans went from bearing 18 percent of the federal tax burden in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The top five percent saw their share of the income tax rise from 35 percent to 44 percent. And the bottom 50 percent of American taxpayers? Their share of taxes actually decreased from 7 to 6 percent -- not a huge decrease, but it clearly disproves the argument that the rich got favorable treatment from Reagan while the poor got the shaft. Well, this can be tricky. One has to exclude first the possibility that the reason of the shift in the tax burden was not caused by the shift of wealth. The maharajas always will pay more taxes than the poorest peasants for a simple reason that poorest are not able to support the state apparatus.
I would rather see how much tax burden is located on the top 1%, top 5% and top 50% of wealth. If one percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth "bearing 25 percent of the federal tax burden" maybe is TOO LITTLE! Do not forget also that such tax like Social Security is regressive (and being used to pay for other budget items including those subsidising lucrative government contracts).
16
posted on
03/23/2002 9:40:02 AM PST
by
A. Pole
To: A. Pole
I would rather see how much tax burden is located on the top 1%, top 5% and top 50% of wealth. If one percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth "bearing 25 percent of the federal tax burden" maybe is TOO LITTLE! Do not forget also that such tax like Social Security is regressive (and being used to pay for other budget items including those subsidising lucrative government contracts). Your position seems to supported by nothing more than Marxist class warfare. The best tax system is one that maximizes tax revenue while minimizing taxes as a percentage of GDP.
To: Moonman62
How in the world do you measure the economy?The economy is complex and is best measured by a multitude of factors, NOT a simple-minded fixation on the DJIA or NASDAQ indices. There are more revealing indicators such as the unemployment rate, rising wages and standard of living, low interest rates and inflation, housing starts, expenditures on durable goods, etc. etc. etc.
Let me guess, by the number of new train systems being built that will have to be taxpayer subsidized in perpetuity.
Why does anybody ever respond to your seriously?
To: NorCoGOP
Let's not lump all "professors" together. If you look at my book, "The Entrepreneurial Adventure: A History of Business in the United States" (Harcourt, 2000) I get Reagan AND the Great Depression quite right. (plug)
19
posted on
03/23/2002 9:50:59 AM PST
by
LS
To: Moonman62
Your position seems to supported by nothing more than Marxist class warfare.
The best tax system is one that maximizes tax revenue while minimizing taxes as a percentage of GDP. Could you address my arguments? Well, I know, probably you cannot. "Class warfare" is not a Marxist invention, the societies were divided into slaves and slave owners, aristocracy and serfs, maharajas and peasants and this generated a lot of conflicts or "class warfare".
The one question is if a tiny group owning most of the wealth should pay a smaller part of the taxes than the rest while benefiting from the state?
The second question is if the increase in the stratification of wealth is good for the society as a whole and if so under what conditions?
20
posted on
03/23/2002 9:55:06 AM PST
by
A. Pole
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson