From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of sparaig
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:31 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone have a good rebuttal to this article?
Google: reagan tax cut myth
e.g.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it
continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing
from $700 billion to $3 trillion.
that's an increase of 400 percent over 8 years.
People are bitching about Obama's increases to the debt, which are a tiny
fraction of Reagan's.
Lawson
My conservative friend responded:
Exactly, you are stuck in your liberal bias. Too bad. Living a lie isn’t good
your health. The debt increased under Reagan because the congress was
controlled totally by democrats. Every budget Reagan sent up there was thrown
out. Let’s see, Reagan under the Dems had an increase of less than $300
billion a year. Obama, again under most Dems has had a $1.5 trillion increase
in debt per year. If $300 billion a year is bad, isn’t $1.5 trillion 5 times
worse? Also, you want more revenue and have the “rich” may more, right? Under
Reagan tax revenues increased by a very large amount and upper income people
paid a lot more: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
But again, I guess facts simply don’t matter. What seems to matter is to
punish success and reward failure. What a crazy world you live in. Rewarding
success leads to more success. Rewarding failure leads to more failure. This
simply economic logic seems to baffle liberals.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ,
Rick Archer rick@... wrote:
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.
* By http://online.wsj.com/search/term..html?KEYWORDS=STEPHEN+MOORE
http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=STEPHEN+MOOREbylinesearch=true
bylinesearch=true STEPHEN MOORE
If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack
Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald
Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.
The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy
in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed
the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary
restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1
trillion spending stimulus.
By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was
soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In
1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the
economy would overheat. In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping
along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a
double-dip recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in
America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.
My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an
incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.
The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize productionâ€i.e., the supply side
of the economyâ€by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment.
This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory
high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.
View Full Image
stevemoore http://si.wsj.net/img/BTN_insetClose.gif
stevemoore
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO139_stevem_G_20110825162903.jpg
The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would
not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of
inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian
textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supplyâ€as
Reagan didâ€prices go down.
The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of
the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that
to slay the inflation monster would take five to ten years of austerity,
with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of barely 1 or 2 percent.
Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982
recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, The
engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they
are likely to stay that way for years to come.
The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months.. Then
the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually
a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a
year
