Mount Rushmore

[Moiraine]

53 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Weeeelllll.......

 

I'm sure my ancestor wasn't quite treated like royalty when the mom was the maid.

 

 

You are the product of adultery!

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

I don't want to derail this thread to talk about just one president, but I had to answer the bold above.  I can't speak  to your personal experience, Big Red,  but despite claims to the otherwise, Reagan did not do major damage to the middle class.  Real job growth, wage growth, reduction in inflation, interest rates, and taxes all had positive affect on the middle class. 

 

This article, written shortly after the Reagan era,  gives factual information from studies on the growth of jobs, African American employment and wages,  tax relief, income gaps, and the affect of Reagan's policies to stop wage stealing inflation and high interest rates and how there was upward growth in all income brackets as a whole during his tenure - including many moving out of poverty and into the middle class.  Too much to copy and paste here but if I could I'd paste the whole article.   I've copied portions.

 

 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1991/04/the-rich-the-poor-and-reaganomics

 

 

 

The census report quoted in the article:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/1991/demo/p60-171.pdf

 

 

And there's more perspective today than there was in 1991:

Column: How Reaganomics, deregulation and bailouts led to the rise of Trump

There's a lot in that article, but here's a graph that gives the high-level view:

 

Quote

 

The poorest 20 percent of the population (the first bar) continued to receive food stamps, but with an average annual income of $18,000 a year, they had nothing but discontent.

 

The two middle-class groups of the second and third quintile grew the least — their income growth is hardly distinguishable from zero. In fact, the third quintile (41 to 60 percent) gained a mere $32 per annum during the 32 years under consideration.

 

While the hollowing out of the middle class is evident on the left side of the graph, the right side of the graph breaks down the growth rates of income for the top 20 percent into four groups. Here, it becomes clear that the top 1 percent was the primary beneficiary of economic growth. Perhaps some of the growth did trickle down, but not much beyond the other members of the top 20 percent.

 

 

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

And there's more perspective today than there was in 1991:

Column: How Reaganomics, deregulation and bailouts led to the rise of Trump

There's a lot in that article, but here's a graph that gives the high-level view:

 

 

I believe the larger forces at play are not the Reagan policies of the 1980s -  Globalization after the fall of the wall, NAFTA, other free trade packs and govt trade/commerce policy.  A lot changed after 1988.  The article (the one I posted) was looking at Reagan's policies specifically to the affect they had on the poor, middle class during the time of Reagan and the positive change which occurred  from the time of the end of Carter's term to the end of Reagan's. 

We weren't talking globalization in the 1980s.  I believe that has had the largest impact on stagnant salaries and overall income levels and not the Reagan policies that were put into place to address sky high interest rates and inflation.  Was it a perfect solution - no - to end the Cold War - military spending went sky high and we had for that period, high deficits.   But the 'peace dividend' as it was called allowed gov't to shift spending away from the military in the 1990s.  The 'premium' for that dividend was the deficits - of course there were suppose to be spending cuts as a % of growth in other programs that never materialized in the 1980s and that contributed to the deficits as well. 

 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I believe the larger forces at play are not the Reagan policies of the 1980s -  Globalization after the fall of the wall, NAFTA, other free trade packs and govt trade/commerce policy.  A lot changed after 1988.  The article (the one I posted) was looking at Reagan's policies specifically to the affect they had on the poor, middle class during the time of Reagan and the positive change which occurred  from the time of the end of Carter's term to the end of Reagan's. 

We weren't talking globalization in the 1980s.  I believe that has had the largest impact on stagnant salaries and overall income levels and not the Reagan policies that were put into place to address sky high interest rates and inflation.  Was it a perfect solution - no - to end the Cold War - military spending went sky high and we had for that period, high deficits.   But the 'peace dividend' as it was called allowed gov't to shift spending away from the military in the 1990s.  The 'premium' for that dividend was the deficits - of course there were suppose to be spending cuts as a % of growth in other programs that never materialized in the 1980s and that contributed to the deficits as well. 

 

I liked Reagan as a President, but I think his policies were good for the rich and bad for everyone else. You also can't give a tax cut (the rich got a 50% cut!!) and then blame the deficit on spending. It's what Republicans like Paul Ryan are trying to do now - blame the $2 trillion deficit the tax cuts created on things like Social Security.

 

And Reaganomics were part of what started globalization:

Quote

Reagan was neither the father of globalization nor a policymaker who can be identified as setting the process in motion, although he helped in the latter quite a bit. Reagan's thought is significant for understanding how globalization rose to such prominence. In part because Reagan had cultivated the evolution from statism to the marketplace, he left two legacies in the field of international trade: the replacement of General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) with a comprehensive rule-making body, the World Trade Organization (WTO) (1995), and the move toward integration with neighbors Canada and Mexico, which ultimately resulted in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1994).

 

Also consider that the income growth was already strong for the middle class and poor before Reagan took office. While we shouldn't blame everything on Reaganomics, you can't simply overlook the long-term effects either.

Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart

[TGHusker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I liked Reagan as a President, but I think his policies were good for the rich and bad for everyone else. You also can't give a tax cut (the rich got a 50% cut!!) and then blame the deficit on spending. It's what Republicans like Paul Ryan are trying to do now - blame the $2 trillion deficit the tax cuts created on things like Social Security.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.   As both sides can spin the numbers to fit the narrative they want to produce.   Is 'Reagannomics' the right fix for all situation - no.   But I believe it was beneficial for that period of time.  I also thought it was the wrong time for Trump to espouse tax cuts and also for GWB to do the same in the midst of fighting 2 wars - there is a point of diminished returns and I believe both crossed that point.  

 

Regarding the Quote above: I never blamed the deficit on not cutting spending - that was a portion of it.  The deficit was a combination of increased military spending and tax cuts.  However, the growing economy and the tax revenues from that helped to offset the tax cuts.  A rarely mentioned fact is that Reagan did also raise certain taxes while he was in office as well.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tax-cuts-revenue-what-we-learned-1980s

 

Quote

 

Since most of the Reagan tax cuts applied to lower- and middle-income earners, there was close to a dollar lost in tax revenue for each “dollar” of tax cut for these groups. Still, CBO figures show that total tax revenue only fell from 19.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1982, before most of Reagan’s tax-rate reductions were put in place, to 18.4% of GDP in 1989, the year he left office. This happened because the U.S. economy grew by more than one-third in real terms (34.3%), much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.

The Reagan tax-rate reductions did, in fact, pay for themselves — but it took about seven years.

 

 

This article states why Reaganomics was good for that period but wrong (as I noted above) for Trump and GWB.  So, today, I wouldn't push Reaganomics - it was a policy for a specific period of time.  Republicans however have made it a blanket policy that should work at all time - this is flat wrong. And they hook voters with the 'cut tax' pledge. 

 

https://www.thebalance.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569

 

Quote

 

Reaganomics and supply-side economics can be explained by the Laffer Curve. Economist Arthur Laffer developed it in 1979. The curve showed how tax cuts could stimulate the economy to the point where the tax base expanded. It showed how Reaganomics could work.

Tax cuts reduce the federal budget, dollar-for-dollar, immediately. These same cuts have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money in consumers' pockets, which they spend. That stimulates business growth and more hiring. The result? A larger tax base. 

But the effect that tax cuts have depends on how fast the economy is growing when they are applied. It also depends on the types of taxes and how high they were before the cut. The Laffer Curve shows that cutting taxes only increases government revenue up to a point. Once taxes get low enough, cutting them will decrease revenue instead. Cuts worked during Reagan's presidency because the highest tax rate was 70 percent. They have a much weaker effect when tax rates are below 50 percent.

For example, President Bush cut taxes in the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The economy grew and revenues increased. Supply-siders, including the president, said that was because of the tax cuts. 

Other economists pointed to lower interest rates as the real stimulator of the economy. The Federal Open Market Committee lowered the fed funds rate from 6 percent at the beginning of 2001 to 1 percent in June 2003. The fed funds rate history illustrates how this decrease progressed through the years.

 

 

[Big Red 40]

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I liked Reagan as a President, but I think his policies were good for the rich and bad for everyone else. You also can't give a tax cut (the rich got a 50% cut!!) and then blame the deficit on spending. It's what Republicans like Paul Ryan are trying to do now - blame the $2 trillion deficit the tax cuts created on things like Social Security.

 

 

I agree with this . Reagan was a good man who did what he thought was right,  but things like trickle down economics , union bashing , demonizing most social programs , and corporate deregulation were bad ideas that lead to massive wealth for a select few,  and stagnant wages , lost benefits , weakened social programs, and workers rights for millions . 

[BigRedBuster]

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I liked Reagan as a President, but I think his policies were good for the rich and bad for everyone else. You also can't give a tax cut (the rich got a 50% cut!!) and then blame the deficit on spending. It's what Republicans like Paul Ryan are trying to do now - blame the $2 trillion deficit the tax cuts created on things like Social Security.

 

And Reaganomics were part of what started globalization:

 

Also consider that the income growth was already strong for the middle class and poor before Reagan took office. While we shouldn't blame everything on Reaganomics, you can't simply overlook the long-term effects either.

Our Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart

 

I disagree with that. 

 

I would say say that he was good for the rich and not as good for others. 

 

It it was a major improvement from carter who sucked for everyone. 

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I disagree with that. 

 

I would say say that he was good for the rich and not as good for others. 

 

It it was a major improvement from carter who sucked for everyone. 

I thought about changing "bad for everyone else" to "not as good for everyone else", so I can agree to that framing.

 

As for Carter, I'd say he's a more moral and ethical person than anyone else that's been a President, including Reagan. And I think his policies were better for the nation in the long run than Reagan's. But Reagan was a great leader, and Carter absolutely sucked at leadership, and IMO Reagan was overall a much better President than Carter.

[The Dude]

Ben Franklin or Hulk Hogan.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Ben Franklin or Hulk Hogan.

Ben Franklin was never President, so it has to be Hulk Hogan 

[The Dude]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Ben Franklin was never President, so it has to be Hulk Hogan 

Both were great scientists.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Ben Franklin was never President, so it has to be Hulk Hogan 

 

Holy crap yo beat me to it.

I'm just saying, it doesn't look half bad, especially if it can headbang like that.

 

 

[Moiraine]

Just now, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Holy crap yo beat me to it.

I'm just saying, it doesn't look half bad, especially if it can headbang like that.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that's real. I think Hulk Hogan's head is just a balloon. Very deceiving.

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don't think that's real. I think Hulk Hogan's head is just a balloon. Very deceiving.

 

But just think what we could do with taxpayer dollars...

[commando]