Despite these clearly opposite results I guarantee you both would say that they accomplished what they set out to do and that the results represent a success.
Link to article
It wasn't 'expansion' it was recovery after what Carter did to it.Wasn't much of Reagan's economic growth spurred by massive military expansion?
I think you folks need to make up your minds which excuse you're going to use.Wasn't much of Reagan's economic growth spurred by massive military expansion?
Oliver Stone claims this happened under Eisenhower. I saw "JFK" and it's real!!!Massive expansion that exploded the deficit and put the military industrial complex in the king's chair.
You also need to remember it was Reagan's folks who DISCOVERED AND REPORTED this stuff - as he pointed out in the second debate with Mondale in 1984.The ONLY benefit was that it hastened the demise of the USSR (which would have happened anyway). I remember the $300 (or was it $600) dollar toilet seats.
While the top end tax cuts may have had an effect, I doubt that the impact was nearly as significant as the military expansion--which created middle class jobs directly, not via trickle down.I'm guessing it had nothing to do with the rich folks having their taxes cut from 70% to 35% and thus investing in things that made them (and thus others) more money. (This is also why the GOP idiots nowadays who think a cut from 39% to 36% is going to bring back Reagan Era prosperity are dolts - since there's no comparison of the two in the real world).
We had the money to buy them then, the first 18,000 of our income was not taxed and PC'S went for $2000 and up with 5K of memory. The PC was a beneficiary of the economy but not a driving force.While the top end tax cuts may have had an effect, I doubt that the impact was nearly as significant as the military expansion--which created middle class jobs directly, not via trickle down.
ETA: You also probably can't overstate the importance of factors outside the scope of Reagan's policies as well. For instance, how much of the economic expansion was driven--directly or indirectly-by the emergence of the personal computer?
That's also true along with the breaking up of AT&T and the massive proliferation of cable channels and the communications industry.While the top end tax cuts may have had an effect, I doubt that the impact was nearly as significant as the military expansion--which created middle class jobs directly, not via trickle down.
ETA: You also probably can't overstate the importance of factors outside the scope of Reagan's policies as well. For instance, how much of the economic expansion was driven--directly or indirectly-by the emergence of the personal computer?
This libtard says that compared to Carter, Reagan was a breath of fresh air. Selma these kind of comparisons may not be helpful but they are fun!I worked in a manufacturing machine shop at this time. It was not government spending that was growing as much as it was in the private sector. We went from about to close the doors to the company in 1981 to having more work then we could do at the beginning of 1983. Our shop expanded in buying new machines and hiring a lot of skilled people.
Actually, he didn't. He UNDID tax cuts that were SUPPOSED to happen, which liberals ought to be overjoyed at. Liberals AND conservatives amuse me with their Reagan views. Chris Mathews likes to say Reagan did the "courageous thing" and raised taxes. Fine - then you can't say ANYTHING about trickle down economics causing the budget deficit of the 80s. Furthermore, if Reagan's tax cuts were weighted towards the wealthy then.....guess who didn't get those tax cuts?Does anyone dispute that Reagan signed the biggest tax hike in American history?
Ok, so Reagan was a New Dealer. Kinda makes me wonder why liberals hate him so much then.That rather than making government smaller he made it bigger?
I know, and I wasn't attacking you so much as the left-wing narrative. To be fair, you did not invoke that so my response wasn't at you. That's okay; the right-wing narrative is just as ridiculous.Selma, I called Reagan "a breath of fresh air".
Not really; who in their right minds wanted a second-term Jimmy Carter or Carter's VP? Remember - Reagan carried MASSACHUSETTS in 1984. 1980 doesn't really count because Reagan only carried it because John Anderson split the liberal vote (just as Clinton only carried Ohio in 1992 because Perot split the GOP vote; however, Clinton carried going away in 1996).I voted for the man twice. I must be a conservative.
I'd have to look but the cases are different in one immediate sense: Reagan undid HIS OWN tax cut as guided by James Baker, David Gergen, Richard Darman, and Bob Dole among others. Reagan raised taxes after he had lowered them and he also tried to simplify the tax code later in his Presidency (1986 Tax Reform Act). Obama already undid Bush and will need more for his health care long-term.Did Obama raise taxes(on the wealthy) by not renewing the Bush era cuts? Or did he un-do them?
You ruined my supper with the visual.As usual Selma I find your posts enlightening. Thanks. We need your help on the Warren/Sanders ticket in 2016.