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....
posted on 03/23/2002 7:17:36 AM PST
posted on 03/23/2002 7:19:11 AM PST
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.
Good job! I hope more people read this. BTTT!
posted on 03/23/2002 7:34:44 AM PST
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?
posted on 03/23/2002 7:39:33 AM PST
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.
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).
posted on 03/23/2002 9:40:02 AM PST
by A. Pole
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)
posted on 03/23/2002 9:50:59 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson