It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Well Reagan raised the debt ceiling 150% during his presidency... He created more debt than ALL the presidents previous. It is often overlooked but a good deal of the Trillions owed today are actually a result of the interest accrued from his presidency and then compounded.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Following the 1986 tax reform bill, inflation dropped from 6% the previous year to 1.9% but then rose back towards 4.8% by the end of Mr Reagan’s term and 5.6% into Bush seniors first term but I guess you forgot to add that part in.
You know the Bush tax cuts? It's little to no different to Reagan’s tax system. how is that going?
Overall, Aside from minor rises in taxes from Clinton and Obama, the vast majority of policies on taxes have remained in the same as Reagans for the last 30 years. Taxes have continued to remain well below the 40% mark, and what has this done for us exactly?
Under Kennedy the tax rate averaged around 50% however debt was decreased and inflation averaged no more than 1.4%. Clinton’s average inflation rate was far lower than Reagan’s as well despite him actually raising taxes from 31% to 34% (inflation rate was 2.7% against Reagans 4.0% average), and Clinton created more jobs and barely raised any debt (many economists actually argue that he lowered it).
Well you know what a drug addict goes through right? A short period of fantasy before dropping face flat back to reality and debt.
Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast...
The exemption of millions of low-wage earners from income taxes through the EITC and other reforms in 1986 added a significant measure of progressivity to the tax code. As evidence of its popularity with liberals, Clinton dramatically expanded the EITC in 1993.
After a defense buildup that pushed the Soviets to the verge of economic collapse, this shift, augmented by a reduction in U.S. military spending in the latter years of his presidency, strengthened Gorbachev's ability to proceed with reform in the Soviet Union, and set the stage for George H.W. Bush to oversee a peaceful end to the Cold War.
But, as Reagan himself liked to cite from John Adams, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is that Reagan, whether out of wisdom or because he was forced, made significant compromises with the left. Had he not saved Social Security, relented on his tax cut, and negotiated with the Soviets, he'd have been a less popular, and lesser, president. An honest portrait of Reagan's presidency would not diminish his memory, but enlarge it.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Some of Reagan's folk/corruption
Originally posted by WTFover
No I didn't. Go back and read my statement,
Stagflation happened to reach its peak on Carter's watch, spurred on by the 1979 oil shock. How Carter can be blamed for a trend that began a decade and a half earlier is a mystery -- and a testimony as to how presidential candidates often exploit the public's economic ignorance for their own political gain.
However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system.
The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him.
In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years.
As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.
Minus, of course, the closing of enormous loopholes.
I fully suspect it is intended to conceal ever increasing loopholes, understood by and known only to those who have written them, and of course their "friends" and benefactors.
So, you believe it's only Republican Presidents whose policies can have negative effects of future generations?
You won't acknowledge and give credit to Reagan for bringing inflation down from over 13% to under 2%, but laud Kennedy and Clinton for maintaining inflation rates that were already low, when they took office.
So, those who would continue to ridicule Reagan's presidency as a complete failure and financial boondoggle, must be advocating higher tax rates for everyone,