This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Mildly AdultPositive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Miraculous Reagan Economy of the 80s. Greatest of all time

Yeah, this is an old argument. The Forum RETARD tried to say Reagan ruined the economy of the Seventies
Let's see.
Reagan inherited a MISERY INDEX. (Kind of what we're going through right now, with the Unelected Pedophile's policies)

Inflation was through the roof. Gasoline prices TRIPLED. Because of GOVERNMENT SPENDING which cause inflation, interest rates were crippling the economy. And there was a very dangerous Soviet Union about to take over the world.

Only a RETARD would look at that decade as anything but the WORST. (Although the Unelected Joe years are competing rather nicely in the economic disaster field.)

Here's the TRUTH.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy

President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12


And to be fair, I'll use other diverse sources. (Heritage may be several grades above the mentality of the blue state school dropout idiots here.)

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/supply-side-tax-cuts-truth-about-reagan-economic-record#

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.


This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
windinhishair · 70-79, M
Reagan had the worst recession since the Great Depression caused by his economic policies. His unhinged tax cuts led to huge budget deficits. In fact, Reagan's smallest budget deficit was larger than Carter's largest deficit, yet to this day Republicans continue to talk about how thrifty he was in controlling spending. He didn't. He did exactly the opposite, and Republicans ate it up. It was a good time if you were a wealthy person, but not for most Americans.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@windinhishair That is a LIE. He INHERITED the MISERY INDEX caused by Carter's incompetent leadership.

The tax cuts BROUGHT IN AN ADDITION TRILLION DOLLARS IN EXTRA REVENUE, by 1990. The deficits were mostly DEMOCRAT ENTITLEMENTS, better known as the WELFARE STATE.

Reagan also had to deal with a hostile Democrat Congress, who did nothing but expand spending.
Reagan expanded the economy.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I provided truthful and reliable links. Find someone with an education to read them and idiot 'splain them to you.
windinhishair · 70-79, M
@Reason10 The facts are easily checked. The national debt skyrocketed under Ronnie and we had record deficits resulting from his tax cuts and horrible recession. But he has liars such as yourself to continue the charade that his financial performance was a good one, when the facts are otherwise.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@windinhishair That is a LIE. He INHERITED a recession from Jimmy Carter. The tax cuts SAVED this country's economy.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12


No Democrat in history had as good an economy as the Reagan miracle.
windinhishair · 70-79, M
@Reason10 No president had as good a record until Clinton.

Thank you for posting that federal revenues declined and federal spending stayed about the same indexed to the economy size, while defense spending skyrocketed. When you cut through your cherry-picked bullshit, that is the bottom line. Deficit spending went way up and is one reason we have a $32 trillion national debt today. Republicans blow the budget up until Democrats come in to try to fix the problem. It has happened with Reagan/Bush and every Republican president since.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@windinhishair @windinhishair KKKlinton gave us the Sub Prime Mortgage housing crisis.
https://reason.com/2012/10/14/clintons-legacy-the-financial-and-housin/

Clinton, however, sowed the seeds of the Great Recession by helping to inflate the housing bubble, a key part of the financial debacle of 2007. But this wasn't because he (not George W. Bush) signed two financial deregulation bills. Although Clinton legalized interstate banking in 1994 and commercial/investment banking combinations in 1999, that had nothing to do with the meltdown.The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled "too-big-to-fail" financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

The housing boom could last for a while, but the bust was inevitable. When the Fed raised interest rates, things went kaboom. The Great Recession was on; we're still suffering its effects. Without these government housing and monetary policies, the crisis would never have occurred.


From the experts.
You have LOST this argument.
windinhishair · 70-79, M
@Reason10 Clinton presided over the only Administration since the 1960s to achieve a budget surplus--the largest in history. George W. Bush turned it into the largest deficit in history in only two years. Game, set, match to me. You lose. Again.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@windinhishair That is a LIE. Borrowing continued under KKKlinton, so he did NOT achieve a budget surplus.
The LAST time the federal budget was balanced was in 1969, when Richard Nixon was president and defense was the LARGEST item on the budget. (Probably because of the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam War.)
windinhishair · 70-79, M
@Reason10 1969 did have a modest surplus, but you are wrong (I.e. lying) about Clinton:

presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays

Republican apologists don't like facts, but facts don't care whether you like them or not.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Vin53 · M
windinhishair · 70-79, M
@Vin53 Will Milwaukee 2024 next week be this century's equivalent of Nuremberg 1933?
Vin53 · M
@windinhishair Lets ask our Nazi IMax projector Reason 10 if he's going...if he is then yes.