T Nation

Ronald Reagan: the Truth

“Some say Reagan had nothing to do with the debt’s U turn
They say it was Congressional Democrats. Not true. Had things worked out just as Reagan proposed and predicted, the debt still would have gone up 85% as much. But even this is deceptive. The reason his predicted savings did not materialize was not Congress. The reason was that he predicted much more economic growth from supply-side magic than actually happened. So he counted on taxes that were never collected to help his budgets. In fact a study by the House found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed.”

" From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained
“The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan’s first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.” [emphasis added]

From “Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006.” Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf. Page 5."

http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Yeah, Reagan was a pretty awful president. He was the first real non-conservative “Conservative” to win, and changed the meaning of the word… invented the big gubberment conservative.

Reagan sucked big time, I would think the blow he struck to the north east it self would have undermined any progress he would have made on the National Debt.

Ronald Reagan truly the greatest modern day President.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ronald Reagan truly the greatest modern day President.[/quote]

We disagree

Reagan lowering the tax rates caused the greatest job increases in out modern history. The rates were still in place until Bush raised them very slightly in 1991. They were still lower than before under the worst president in modern history, Jimmy Carter.

The lowering of the deficit was directly related to the increased revenue from 20 million more tax paying jobs.

And he was the best President this past century.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Reagan lowering the tax rates caused the greatest job increases in out modern history. The rates were still in place until Bush raised them very slightly in 1991. They were still lower than before under the worst president in modern history, Jimmy Carter.

The lowering of the deficit was directly related to the increased revenue from 20 million more tax paying jobs.

And he was the best President this past century.[/quote]

If you pay for tax cuts by taking the country into a pattern of massive deficits, then that’s a formula for disaster, not greatness. Look at the chart – prosperity at the price of our future. Early version of Cash for Clunkers???

I use to listen to Stern everyday and when Reagen died and was on tour stern sent out Bobo the clown to interview all the nuts who waited in line to see Reagens casket.

Well Bobo was rude as shit and was just rying to get a rise out of people, so he was interviewing this one guy and the guy was going off about how much he loved Reagen and that Reagen was the best president ever.Bobo paused for a second and said, well dont you dig him up and suck his dick then.

I laugh everytime I think of that.

Ronald Reagan was the worst President of the 20th century… accept for all of the other ones.

(Not letting me edit)

*except. Ahem.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Ronald Reagan was the worst President of the 20th century… accept for all of the other ones.[/quote]

Says the guy who does not know the difference between except and accept. the first isthe exception, the last one is to accept or receive.

Works like this lads. Tax cuts caused the largest peace time expansion of out economy ever. Revenues were greatly increased, even with, gasp, lower tax rates. We spent much needed money on our military after that fool of a peanut farmer.

We did not control spending. Both rich and poor people go broke. See M.C Hammer for example. Spend to much. Ramsey on TV and the radio will first get you to control spending to achieve financial freedom.

Spending on worthless things like welfare. we have spent trillions on this and have done nothing to reduce poverty Because poverty is caused by people being lazy and stupid.

Then there was the Department of Education, another fool thing started by Carter. I personally think people are dumber now then ever and lookie here, a federal cabinet now to make education better. You know, i don’t see any thing in that PITA Constitution thing about education. Maybe it was supposed to be , I don’t know, a local thing?

In 1982 Ronald Reagan started the Grace Commission which found over 2000 ways to reduce government spending, none were put in place. Here’s the report : http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

I know this was years before fools like Beowolf were born, but give a little learning a chance. Like there was a Democratic Congress that did nothing to stop the spending. Like there was no line item veto, and such.

Reagan’s tax cuts made u money for the Treasury. His military buildup helped to break the Soviets and made us strong. Funny how those hostages were on a plane the moment he was sworn in and that fool couldn’t do anything for 444 days.

And his recommendations to cut spending WERE NEVER FOLLOWED. By a primarily Democratic Congress.

I’m done guys, have at it.

I think was saying that given the pool of his peers Reagan was actually pretty good overall. If the midterm results of 94 could have happened in 82 Reagan could have gotten a lot more done no doubt, but we were already well into our second decade of the seeds of dependence sowed in the 60’s so who knows.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Ronald Reagan was the worst President of the 20th century… accept for all of the other ones.

Says the guy who does not know the difference between except and accept. the first isthe exception, the last one is to accept or receive.[/quote]

…See second post. Edit:And it was more of a metaphorical reference anyway.

Don’t overlook the massive difference between spending money to prevent nuclear war and spending money (while raising taxes) in the name of “economic justice”, fairness, or some other equally awful social program. If this difference isn’t understood, which it clearly isn’t for some of the poster’s here, then this conversation really isn’t even worth having.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Works like this lads. Tax cuts caused the largest peace time expansion of out economy ever. Revenues were greatly increased, even with, gasp, lower tax rates. We spent much needed money on our military after that fool of a peanut farmer.

We did not control spending. Both rich and poor people go broke. See M.C Hammer for example. Spend to much. Ramsey on TV and the radio will first get you to control spending to achieve financial freedom.

Spending on worthless things like welfare. we have spent trillions on this and have done nothing to reduce poverty Because poverty is caused by people being lazy and stupid.

Then there was the Department of Education, another fool thing started by Carter. I personally think people are dumber now then ever and lookie here, a federal cabinet now to make education better. You know, i don’t see any thing in that PITA Constitution thing about education. Maybe it was supposed to be , I don’t know, a local thing?

In 1982 Ronald Reagan started the Grace Commission which found over 2000 ways to reduce government spending, none were put in place. Here’s the report : http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

I know this was years before fools like Beowolf were born, but give a little learning a chance. Like there was a Democratic Congress that did nothing to stop the spending. Like there was no line item veto, and such.

Reagan’s tax cuts made u money for the Treasury. His military buildup helped to break the Soviets and made us strong. Funny how those hostages were on a plane the moment he was sworn in and that fool couldn’t do anything for 444 days.

And his recommendations to cut spending WERE NEVER FOLLOWED. By a primarily Democratic Congress.

I’m done guys, have at it.[/quote]

I think it is fair to say we cut taxes until the system fell apart,

As far as The Iranian situation, He worked the release out in advance, all it says is he was in bed with Iran,

Russia fell because they did what we have done, they over extended themselves financially although it did happen while Reagan was in office

Poverty is caused by many factors, lack of education is one, and lack of opportunity is another,

I think it is not that people are less educated; I think they have a better opportunity to tell everyone how dumb they are by using the internet

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Works like this lads. Tax cuts caused the largest peace time expansion of out economy ever. Revenues were greatly increased, even with, gasp, lower tax rates. We spent much needed money on our military after that fool of a peanut farmer.

We did not control spending. Both rich and poor people go broke. See M.C Hammer for example. Spend to much. Ramsey on TV and the radio will first get you to control spending to achieve financial freedom.

Spending on worthless things like welfare. we have spent trillions on this and have done nothing to reduce poverty Because poverty is caused by people being lazy and stupid.

Then there was the Department of Education, another fool thing started by Carter. I personally think people are dumber now then ever and lookie here, a federal cabinet now to make education better. You know, i don’t see any thing in that PITA Constitution thing about education. Maybe it was supposed to be , I don’t know, a local thing?

In 1982 Ronald Reagan started the Grace Commission which found over 2000 ways to reduce government spending, none were put in place. Here’s the report : http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

I know this was years before fools like Beowolf were born, but give a little learning a chance. Like there was a Democratic Congress that did nothing to stop the spending. Like there was no line item veto, and such.

Reagan’s tax cuts made u money for the Treasury. His military buildup helped to break the Soviets and made us strong. Funny how those hostages were on a plane the moment he was sworn in and that fool couldn’t do anything for 444 days.

And his recommendations to cut spending WERE NEVER FOLLOWED. By a primarily Democratic Congress.

I’m done guys, have at it.

I think it is fair to say we cut taxes until the system fell apart,

As far as The Iranian situation, He worked the release out in advance, all it says is he was in bed with Iran,

Russia fell because they did what we have done, they over extended themselves financially although it did happen while Reagan was in office

Poverty is caused by many factors, lack of education is one, and lack of opportunity is another,

I think it is not that people are less educated; I think they have a better opportunity to tell everyone how dumb they are by using the internet
[/quote]

The only people who (think they) lack opportunity in this country are the ones who believe and rely on the entitlement bullshit you and your ilk force feed them.

Reagan doubled the Social Security tax rate from 6% to 12%. Reagan gave blanket immunity to illegal aliens. Reagan negotiated with terrorists. Reagan exploded the national debt.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Works like this lads. Tax cuts caused the largest peace time expansion of out economy ever. [/quote]

Wrong – the largest economic expansion in American history happened under Bill Clinton. If Reagan’s tax cuts work so magically well, how come they didn’t continue to work under George H.W. Bush? (“ask yourself if you’re better off now, than you were 4 years ago” the line that Clinton used to defeat Bush1) When are the tax cuts from George W. Bush going to kick our economy into high gear? Trickle Down Economics are just a theory - a theory that has never been proven to work.

You’re certainly presenting a compelling case.

There’s still no line item veto. /duh. Where do you get off, lecturing people?

Look at the chart in the 1st post… Reagan dug a hole for the economy. It’s easy to make the economy seem great, when you are putting everything on credit.

Funny how Reagan is the only president that conservatives want to credit for this. Not Carter, not Johnson, not Kennedy, etc etc. Ronald Reagan shows up after 35 years of the Cold war, just in time to get all the credit. Neat trick.

Carter sent in a team of Special Forces whose helicopter went down in a sandstorm. Your glib comment is a little disrespectful seeing as how 8 servicemen lost their lives. Carter figured that the mood of the nation would not support a full-blown military commitment, so soon after the debacle in Vietnam.

Fixed.

It was Reagan’s tax policies that caused the greatest expansion in history. How anyone can deny this is mind blowing.

Reagan’s military programs are what caused the USSR to collapse that is why he gets the victory, history is your friend learn it.

The trickle down affect has been proven time and time again too work. The only thing better would be no taxes except a sales tax. Look what happens when you keep cooperate taxes to high, all the jobs leave.

Reagan did more for this country then any president in his century. Only the nut jobs on the extreme left can find a way to say he didn’t.

[quote]John S. wrote:
It was Reagan’s tax policies that caused the greatest expansion in history. How anyone can deny this is mind blowing.
[/quote]

Then why didn’t Reagan’s tax policies continue to work under George HW Bush? Do you think the economy can turn on a dime, just because tax rates are raised incrementally? Are you seriously going to claim that Reagan is responsible for the economy under Clinton, but not the bad economy under George HW Bush? All that great trickle down just jump-skipped over Poppy Bush’s four years, and then picked up again under Clinton? Your position doesn’t make any sense.

And if tax cuts are such a cure-all, when can we expect to see the great economic results from Dubya’s tax cuts? We had eight years of tax cuts, so the economy should be taking off like a skyrocket, any day now. I’m looking forward to that…

Post WW2 we had a MASSIVE economic expansion that lasted for basically two decades, yet tax rates on the wealthy were MUCH higher then, than they are now. Lets see you explain that… because that should basically be impossible, according to your ideology. According to you, high taxes strangle the economy. You simply cannot explain the post WW2 boom, and still have your tax philosophy hold water. And tax rates on the wealthy are at an absurdly all-time low level now, historically speaking. So how come our economy has been in decline for the past 10 years? The economy started stalling in the 70s, so this is nothing new.

Trickle-down simply does not stimulate the economy like you wish it would. It mainly shifts the tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class. The wealthy do not spend that money, they invest it, which creates a weak economic stimulus effect, at the very most. And please, no bullshit about how that money is theirs and ‘they earned it’… Wages are being taxed at a much higher rate than investments which is clearly unfair in my opinion. The tax system is heavily tilted to favor the wealthy.