Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Hard, Harsh Truths About the Cult of Reaganomics ("It's the GOV's Money; Not YOURS!")
The Seattle Times ^ | 6/10/04 | Froma Harrop

Posted on 06/10/2004 10:01:06 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Ronald Reagan did some fine things, but the economic theory that bears his name was not one of them. Reaganomics made the world safe for today's reckless tax-cutting. And the public hardly understands the social upheaval these policies will soon unleash.

Reaganomics held that cutting taxes and reducing the size of government would let loose the nation's entrepreneurial juices and lead to economic growth. Note that the theory comes in two parts. The fun part is cutting taxes. The not-so-fun part is reducing government. Do the first part without the second, and you end up with budget deficits and an exploding national debt.

That's what happened. And far from cutting government, Reagan expanded it, mainly through increased defense spending. The debt tripled.

To his credit, Reagan raised taxes when the deficits got out of hand. Not to his credit, his tax increases mostly targeted working people. We refer to the infamous 1983 hike in Social Security taxes.

Social Security is supposed to be a pay-as-you-go program. That is, today's workers pay Social Security taxes to support today's retirees. The program had been running a small deficit. Rather than fix it with a small increase in Social Security taxes, Reagan pushed through a big hike, thus giving birth to the Social Security surplus.

The idea was that Americans should start paying more Social Security taxes to prepare for decades hence, when the enormous baby-boom generation retires. But not a cent was ever set aside for that purpose. The Social Security surplus was simply spent. Overtaxing for Social Security reduces pressure on the income tax, which hits upper-income Americans the hardest. Many workers with low or moderate incomes saw their total tax bills actually rise under Reagan.

Reagan also raised a bunch of excise taxes, which he liked to call "revenue enhancements." One of them, a 5-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline, was not bad energy policy, but it was a tax that affected the rich and poor equally.

But what about all that economic growth in the Reagan years? How can we call that dumb luck? Easily.

When Reagan took over, the American economy was in bad shape. No doubt about it. But it was already on the launching pad for takeoff. It didn't matter who was president.

Jimmy Carter's new Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, had just killed the inflation monster, but at the price of a deep recession. OPEC was collapsing at that time, along with energy costs. So what greeted the new President Reagan? An economy ready for an upturn, with falling gas prices and inflation gone. You didn't need a rocket scientist to get that baby off the ground.

Economic growth can run largely on debt for a while, but eventually the markets get nervous, which they did in October 1987, when they crashed. Adding to the excitement, Reagan had deregulated the savings-and-loan industry, leaving the taxpayers to guarantee the S&Ls' junk-bond investments. The game eventually ended, and the first President Bush had to clean up the mess.

Like Reagan, the current President Bush is a big spender. Unlike Reagan, Bush has done nothing to slow the snowballing deficits.

And there's another difference. When Reagan took office, the baby boomers were approaching the peak of their earning power. Thus, the nation was better able to pay down its debt. But the boomers will soon start to retire. They will drain tax dollars, not contribute them.

So only simpletons will insist that as a percentage of gross domestic product, Bush's deficits are lower than Reagan's and therefore of no consequence. This totally ignores the "implied" debts to the baby-boom generation, which make for terrifying numbers.

Imagine a childless two-income couple that earns $80,000, borrows $20,000 and has no savings. Now think of another couple with the same finances but that plans to send triplets to college next year. They're not at all in the same financial boat.

The awful thing about Reaganomics wasn't so much Reagan's actual economic policy, even though it got mighty sloppy. It is the cult of Reaganomics: the idea that cutting taxes is a free lunch, and never mind spending or future obligations. In a very few years, when tomorrow's retirees find themselves at war with younger taxpayers, everyone will wish they had never heard the word.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: accordingtoability; accordingtoneeds; allpropertyistheft; cheeseandwhine; dairyproducts; dnctalkingpoints; godblessronaldreagan; governmentcheese; itsnotyourmoney; ityourmoney; liberalcheese; liberalmediabias; marxism; marxistmaxim; raisingtaxes; reaganomics; ronaldwilsonreagan; socialist; tacdollarsatwork; taxcuts; taxes; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; youpayforthis

1 posted on 06/10/2004 10:01:08 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I am sorry but what policy did Carter enact that lead to the recovery?


2 posted on 06/10/2004 10:04:50 AM PDT by KJacob (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The not-so-fun part is reducing government.

Huh??? That's the most fun part!

3 posted on 06/10/2004 10:05:25 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
And the public hardly understands the social upheaval these policies will soon unleash.

I didn't need to read beyond this line. Typical liberal condescension


4 posted on 06/10/2004 10:06:57 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I knew there was a reason I don't read the Seattle Times. Thanks for reminding me.


5 posted on 06/10/2004 10:08:06 AM PDT by SandyInSeattle (You need tons click "co-ordinating")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Tough to spend something that you don't have. Though liberals and some Republicans do try.


6 posted on 06/10/2004 10:08:49 AM PDT by doggieboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Isn't it interesting how Liberals always are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Maybe that's why they never reach the right conclusions about historical data.


7 posted on 06/10/2004 10:08:50 AM PDT by doc11355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Why does no one remember that the DemocRATS in contravention of a specific deal made by them to limit spending broke every and I mean EVERY spending limitation proposed by both Reagan and George H.W. Bush?

I hope that people on this board remember the smirking and sneering of Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Commieland) on television as he was quizzed about another lie and broken promise made to the President?

And as far as Rep. Rostenkowski ("Don't be too tough on Rosti" - David Broder) he was a common thief and crook.......as well as head of the Ways and Means Committee.

Lies lies and damn lies from the Left as always.

Regards,

8 posted on 06/10/2004 10:10:19 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
Why he gave away OUR canal....or was it the "stabilizing" Cuban force in Angola, which turned our enonomy around?
9 posted on 06/10/2004 10:11:52 AM PDT by doggieboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KJacob
I am sorry but what policy did Carter enact that lead to the recovery?

He turned down the White House thermostat and put on a sweater. He put on a sweater, man!

No, wait, that's what he did for the energy crisis.

10 posted on 06/10/2004 10:14:31 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Teach a Democrat to fish and he will curse you for not just giving him the fish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
" Rather than fix it with a small increase in Social Security taxes, Reagan pushed through a big hike, thus giving birth to the Social Security surplus."

Right, he did it all by his lonesome. I mean it's not like he had the complicity of a Democratically controlled House & Senate.
11 posted on 06/10/2004 10:14:40 AM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
reckless tax-cutting

This one ranks with "risky scheme" as a flag with the words "I'm an idiot" emblazoned on it. Reagan's tax cuts resulted in increased revenues, clearly, unequivocally, and immediately. This should have been good news for the social spenders, but in fact, they've never forgiven him for it.

12 posted on 06/10/2004 10:15:35 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine

Back in 1993 or 1994 there was an editorial in the WSJ (likely written by Bartley) called "Hillary Rodham Laffer?"

It states that she had the Rose Law Firm pay her a large chunk of her 1993 income in December of 1992 (or was it 94 and 93?) to ensure that less of HER money would be subject to her husband's tax increase of the following year.

She single-handedly proved the Laffer Curve and supply-side.

Economic ignorants like the writer of this editorial want to cling to the "static analysis" of the effect of tax cuts. But it requires only common sense -- NOT a degree in economics -- to figure out that changes in tax policy/law will change the financial behavior of those subject to said tax policies and laws.

It also helps if you don't have so much of your ego invested in APPEARING to care about the downtrodden that you are actually willing to HURT said downtrodden in order to maintain that APPEARANCE...


13 posted on 06/10/2004 10:19:28 AM PDT by Zhangliqun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Was President Reagan the only person in the Federal government during the 80's? Did he suspend the Congress?

One man, even a man like Reagan, can only do so much to herd the Democrat controlled legislature onto the path of righteousness.
14 posted on 06/10/2004 10:21:27 AM PDT by Incorrigible (immanentizing the eschaton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

When Reagan came into office, the top marginal income tax rate stood at around 70%. When he left office, there were only two income tax rates of 15% and 28%. Somebody explain to me how that constitutes a tax increase.


15 posted on 06/10/2004 10:22:00 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Not to his credit, his tax increases mostly targeted working people.

And who was he going to increase taxes on, the non-working people?

What a moron.

16 posted on 06/10/2004 10:25:23 AM PDT by TBarnett34 (Pres. Ronald Reagan (1911-2004): Rest in Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Lowering inflation, interest rates and taxes is a bad thing?

Froma Harrop, call me if you ever escape la-la land.


17 posted on 06/10/2004 10:27:28 AM PDT by auboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Reaganomics defeats socialism at its source. It cuts off its money supply and lets it choke to death. That's the socialist author's hidden motive against it. Deficits and debt are no way to run a prosperous business, however these same tools are very cost effective for making an enterprise non-prosperous: the government.


18 posted on 06/10/2004 10:31:55 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Reckless tax cutting? What about reckless welfare statism and the endless teat of mama guv?


19 posted on 06/10/2004 10:35:20 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auboy
Froma Harrop

This article sounds more like it's coming Froma Moron...

20 posted on 06/10/2004 10:39:04 AM PDT by jscd3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Reaganomics made the world safe for today's reckless tax-cutting. And the public hardly understands the social upheaval these policies will soon unleash.
ROTFLMAO
21 posted on 06/10/2004 10:40:56 AM PDT by oh8eleven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I'm sure millions will want to attend Froma Harrop's funeral.
(Note to Moderator: I said "attend", not "cause". I was good...))
22 posted on 06/10/2004 10:43:36 AM PDT by talleyman (Michael Moore won the Al Quaeda Film Festival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

It's funny how liberals talk about two sides of their face. I know a liberal who complained about the tax cuts, and is now complaining about having to pay state taxes. (apparently, higher state taxes are the fault of the tax cuts. you'd think he'd be happy to contribute)


23 posted on 06/10/2004 10:43:43 AM PDT by HungarianGypsy (Rest in Peace, Mr. President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Spending is never reckless or irresponsible. Reducing spending always is.


24 posted on 06/10/2004 10:45:18 AM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
And far from cutting government, Reagan expanded it, mainly through increased defense spending.

The problem is, the liberals believe this. The budget increases came primarily from spending on social programs, not military ones, in order to get Congress' support for the military buildup. Reagan sacrificed that part of his economic program because he decided that the threat from the USSR was much more important to deal with first.

25 posted on 06/10/2004 10:47:27 AM PDT by kevkrom (Reagan lives on... as long as we stay true to his legacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Yeah those reckless !% tax cuts can really lay waste to the budget, expecially after spending growth has outstripped inflation for what, like 100 years running?


26 posted on 06/10/2004 10:49:54 AM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

So Carter was responsible for the boom of the 80's. I'm guessing that Clinton will still be responsible for the boom of the 90's though.


27 posted on 06/10/2004 10:50:55 AM PDT by Sapper26 (If anything I've written appears well thought out and reasoned, it's a fluke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
It's sweet of our condescending liberal media to explain to us all the stuff we're too dumb to 'figger out' ourselves....
28 posted on 06/10/2004 10:53:37 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Reagan was put on earth to do two things: kick butt and chew gum, and he ran out of gum around 1962)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KJacob

Losing the 1980 election...


29 posted on 06/10/2004 10:54:39 AM PDT by steve8714
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

"Reaganomics made the world safe for today's reckless tax-cutting. And the public hardly understands the social upheaval these policies will soon unleash."

Right...and that's why this country, which leads the world, has experienced its longest-running economic success since Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70%.

"Reaganomics held that cutting taxes and reducing the size of government would let loose the nation's entrepreneurial juices and lead to economic growth."

Absolutely! This country leads the world in technology as this boom was a result of freeing up capital to be spent in the free-market.

"Do the first part without the second, and you end up with budget deficits and an exploding national debt.
That's what happened."

No. Do the first, while actually increasing spending, is what happened. The Democrats increased all but one of Reagan's proposed economic budgets and that is why we ended up with this huge debt.

"And far from cutting government, Reagan expanded it, mainly through increased defense spending. The debt tripled."

Defense spending only increased through his first term and returned to normal by his second term. Comparatively speaking, Reagan's defense spending was still lower than that of WWII or Vietnam...and did nothing more than bring it back from where it once was. A small price to pay when you consider its results. as we would be spending much more if the Soviet Union hadn't collpased.

Funny how Democrats are all for goverment spending except when it comes to the one area that government (military) is constitutionally mandated to provide. The Preamble says: "PROVIDE for the common defense and SUPPORT the general welfare." Liberals have obviously mixed these ups.


30 posted on 06/10/2004 11:05:53 AM PDT by cwb (If it weren't for Republicans, liberals would have no real enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

The kind of America Ronald Reagan built was the kind that the world's citizens
beg, borrow and steal to get to from their respective commie paradises


31 posted on 06/10/2004 11:15:35 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

More leftwing delusionism. He left out the part about how Carter was really responsible for the release of the hostages. The fact that it happened on inauguration day was just a coincidence. Reagan's policies accomplished 2 things that no one thought possible. The first was simultaneous low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. No Democrat ever imagined such an economy. The second was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan predicted it, actively worked toward it and got it done. The man was a giant.


32 posted on 06/10/2004 11:15:43 AM PDT by BadAndy (Specializing in unnecessarily harsh comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Reaganomics held that cutting taxes and reducing the size of government would let loose the nation's entrepreneurial juices and lead to economic growth. Note that the theory comes in two parts. The fun part is cutting taxes. The not-so-fun part is reducing government. Do the first part without the second, and you end up with budget deficits and an exploding national debt.

Duh...though the last time I checked, spending bills originated in the House of Representatives. Who was running Congress? I think they share in the blame.

Social Security is supposed to be a pay-as-you-go program. That is, today's workers pay Social Security taxes to support today's retirees. The program had been running a small deficit. Rather than fix it with a small increase in Social Security taxes, Reagan pushed through a big hike, thus giving birth to the Social Security surplus.

Weren't Democrats bragging about the surplus in 2000?

The idea was that Americans should start paying more Social Security taxes to prepare for decades hence, when the enormous baby-boom generation retires. But not a cent was ever set aside for that purpose. The Social Security surplus was simply spent.

Duh, again. That's what happens when you put the "surplus" in Treasury bonds. It is the rough equivalent of moving your wallet from your left pocket to your right pocket, only the government calls it a loan and makes the people pay the interest at gunpoint. And they accused Enron of creative accounting...

Overtaxing for Social Security reduces pressure on the income tax, which hits upper-income Americans the hardest. Many workers with low or moderate incomes saw their total tax bills actually rise under Reagan.

Since when did the rich stop paying Social Security taxes?

Reagan also raised a bunch of excise taxes, which he liked to call "revenue enhancements." One of them, a 5-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline, was not bad energy policy, but it was a tax that affected the rich and poor equally.

Equal taxation is a bad thing? There was a time when it was mandated by the Constitution.

But what about all that economic growth in the Reagan years? How can we call that dumb luck? Easily.

And what was the prior decade? Bad luck?

Adding to the excitement, Reagan had deregulated the savings-and-loan industry, leaving the taxpayers to guarantee the S&Ls' junk-bond investments. The game eventually ended, and the first President Bush had to clean up the mess.

How is it deregulation when taxpayers are forced to guarantee private investments? This guy must have been in charge of California's energy deregulation.

Like Reagan, the current President Bush is a big spender. Unlike Reagan, Bush has done nothing to slow the snowballing deficits.

The only smart thing he's written in this whole article.

And there's another difference. When Reagan took office, the baby boomers were approaching the peak of their earning power. Thus, the nation was better able to pay down its debt.

So why is this "debt-paying" nation $6 trillion+ in debt?

But the boomers will soon start to retire. They will drain tax dollars, not contribute them.

Baby boomers won't drain tax dollars if we reform/privatize entitlement programs and replace the income tax with a consumption tax.

So only simpletons will insist that as a percentage of gross domestic product, Bush's deficits are lower than Reagan's and therefore of no consequence. This totally ignores the "implied" debts to the baby-boom generation, which make for terrifying numbers.

Only simpletons would pay this guy to write for them. Bush's deficits are lower than Reagan's as a percent of GDP. Whether they are of any consequence is a separate issue. What are these "implied" debts, and are they comparable to the "implied" debts of their entitlements to my generation?

Imagine a childless two-income couple that earns $80,000, borrows $20,000 and has no savings. Now think of another couple with the same finances but that plans to send triplets to college next year. They're not at all in the same financial boat.

If I earned $80,000 a year, I wouldn't be racking up another $20,000 in debt. If people run 25% deficits in their personal budgets because it makes them feel good, it is no surprise that they would elect representatives that would do likewise with tax dollars.

The awful thing about Reaganomics wasn't so much Reagan's actual economic policy, even though it got mighty sloppy. It is the cult of Reaganomics: the idea that cutting taxes is a free lunch, and never mind spending or future obligations. In a very few years, when tomorrow's retirees find themselves at war with younger taxpayers, everyone will wish they had never heard the word.

Those who think the government should fix all of the society's problems are the ones looking for the free lunch. They want to get rid of poverty, crime, etc., but don't want to do any of the work required to get it done. So, they send the government after the wealth of the "greedy rich" and brag about how compassionate they are.

33 posted on 06/10/2004 11:17:01 AM PDT by David75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Oh, I'm already starting to hear screeches about the evil W. Boooosh cutting "essential" services. Soon they'll be all over him for both spending AND cutting.


34 posted on 06/10/2004 11:23:30 AM PDT by johnb838 (When I hear "Allahu Akhbar" it means somebody is about to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

>>And the public hardly understands the social upheaval these policies will soon unleash.<<

The collapse of the welfare state... the end of idle-poor criminality and drug abuse... the end of the surge of broken homes... the pubic turning against the practice, if not the legality of abortion...


35 posted on 06/10/2004 11:24:47 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
She lost me at reckless tax-cutting, it's good to see her out herself so early on in the article.
36 posted on 06/10/2004 11:28:15 AM PDT by Flashman_at_the_charge (A proud member of the self-preservation society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas_Jarhead

See, if he hadn't created the SS surplus, the rats wouldn't have been able to spend it.


37 posted on 06/10/2004 11:28:50 AM PDT by johnb838 (When I hear "Allahu Akhbar" it means somebody is about to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HungarianGypsy
YEah, and a bunch of states who gleefully (through crocodile tears) raised taxes in the last few years are now running large surplusses. Of course, they don't want to give it back. That must be why the Toon allowed a surplus to develop during the millenial bubble. People don't complain about expanding spending when there is a surplus. THERE'S your "free money".

And I've concluded that the mantra "Tax Cuts for the Rich" means "Not Soaking The Rich Middle Class Enough"
38 posted on 06/10/2004 11:42:32 AM PDT by johnb838 (When I hear "Allahu Akhbar" it means somebody is about to die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The awful thing about Reaganomics wasn't so much Reagan's actual economic policy, even though it got mighty sloppy. It is the cult of Reaganomics: the idea that cutting taxes is a free lunch, and never mind spending or future obligations. In a very few years, when tomorrow's retirees find themselves at war with younger taxpayers, everyone will wish they had never heard the word.

Neat trick here - trying to put the blame for the Ponzi scheme aka Social Security on RR. Any unfunded pension scheme or 'pay as you go' will go bankrupt sooner or later unless the population increases exponentially for ever.

Revenues from Income and Corporation taxes increased during the Reagan Years faster than the economy grew - so Reagan in fact increased taxes by cutting rates.

Another journalist who flunked Economics 101 in school.

39 posted on 06/10/2004 11:51:46 AM PDT by Timocrat (I Emanate on your Auras and Penumbras Mr Blackmun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
the pubic (sic) turning against the practice, if not the legality of abortion...

Ahem... Freudian Slip?

40 posted on 06/10/2004 11:55:09 AM PDT by Timocrat (I Emanate on your Auras and Penumbras Mr Blackmun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

No one is to blame for the ballooning defecits of the 80's except for the dem controlled congress. Almost everyone of Reagan's initial budget requests were less than the approved budgets and were refused by the dems.


41 posted on 06/10/2004 12:03:13 PM PDT by mrbillxx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson