Reagan prosperity, collapse of soviet union, etc

[alphatarget1]

It's a post from the clinton thread that made me wonder...

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Tominator

The economy started up in ernest because of things Reagan did.

Yup, doubling the national debt in two terms helped us out a lot. It took all the other presidents 204 years to rack up that much debt. It's funny that Republicans claim to promote small goverment and less spending, while Saint Reagan was probably the biggest spender in history. mmm mmm, 1987 stock market crash anyone? Damn, he REALLY had the ecomony started up. Oh wait, started up means people have MORE money? In that case, he was a fvckup from hollywood with Alzheimer?s (and it showed).

Reagan did spend LOTS of money and doubled the debt, read that from a history book. It ultimately led to the collapse of Soviet Union but as much as Republicans praise him for the economic boom in the 90s did he really contribute ANYTHING to the economy (led to the recession in the Bush sr. administration) other than doubling the national debt?

I find it ridiculous how the Republicans has become in terms of their principles. Bush is spending lots of money and bringing back the national debt AND a bigger government (homeland security department). I was watching Dan Abrams report like a couple of months ago back when 9/11 was still a news topic and some guy said "9/11 is the biggest failure of the government since the government failed to protect its people". CIA and FBI screwed up and we know it.

 

[Chadder007]

Clinton pulled an Arthur Anderson to hide the dept during his reign. They used the money that is for Social Security to show the goverment having more money than it really did.

 

[earthman]

Don't forget to mention George W.'s help-the-rich tax plan that will help to drive deficits permanently higher, 6% or more for eternity. And say goodbye to your Social Security.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: kenleungI find it ridiculous how the Republicans has become in terms of their principles. Bush is spending lots of money and bringing back the national debt AND a bigger government (homeland security department). I was watching Dan Abrams report like a couple of months ago back when 9/11 was still a news topic and some guy said "9/11 is the biggest failure of the government since the government failed to protect its people". CIA and FBI screwed up and we know it.

I find it equally as ridiculous that some people insist on laying the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration.
IMHO, you can't lay the blame for Bin Laden on any one administration.
But since that seems to be what we are attempting to do why not
blame the Clinton administration
who were offered Bin Laden and his network on a silver platter by Sudan?

 

[PlatinumGold]

hehehehe

this again.

i'll tell you what tho, you can attribute most of the "growth" during reagons administration to one thing.

When he deregulated the banks we saw credit cards given out like flyers. i was a freshman in college in 83 and i got 2 mc and 2 visa cards each w/ 500 limits (which then went a lot farther than it does now). guess what, that is a TEMPORARY increase in money supply. anyone that knows anything about basic economics knows that when you increase the money supply you heat up the economy. surprise surprise that's what happened. but guess what, eventually you have to pay that money back, i know cause i went thru it, i got 4 CC maxed them out, played them one against the other, got 2 more, kept playing them 4 years later, i couldnt' play anymore and i had to pay. weird isn't it, kinda like what happened to the economy during that period.

temporary increase in money supply = heated up economy, but eventually those credit card bills come due, guess what, you now have a shrinkage of money supply, uh oh.

obviously that isn't all that happened but i am convinced that it was a factor in what happened.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: kenleungI find it ridiculous how the Republicans has become in terms of their principles. Bush is spending lots of money and bringing back the national debt AND a bigger government (homeland security department). I was watching Dan Abrams report like a couple of months ago back when 9/11 was still a news topic and some guy said "9/11 is the biggest failure of the government since the government failed to protect its people". CIA and FBI screwed up and we know it.

I find it equally as ridiculous that some people insist on laying the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration.
IMHO, you can't lay the blame for Bin Laden on any one administration.
But since that seems to be what we are attempting to do why not
blame the Clinton administration
who were offered Bin Laden and his network on a silver platter by Sudan?

I didn't blame Bush for 9/11. The guy was a conservative (or so I thought) and he's just making a point how the big government has failed.

 

[UNCjigga]

I think things would be a lot different if Carter and the Dems had ruled the 80s. Punk music would've taken even longer to reach our shores, the Shah would probably be back in power in Iran, and 'Wall Street' and 'Ferris Bueler' wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining. We wouldn't all have Countache and Testarossa posters in our bedrooms. I think that whole 'yuppie' culture would have been much more subdued actually. In short, we would have had fewer short-term successes with the economy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: earthman
Don't forget to mention George W.'s help-the-rich tax plan that will help to drive deficits permanently higher, 6% or more for eternity. And say goodbye to your Social Security.

Nothing like blind ignorance...

Historically, tax cuts have INCREASED revenues. Reagan's tax cut dramatically increased tax revenues, as will Bush's.

The only problem is, they can't stop spending.

But that's the fact. Tax cuts don't cause deficits, run away spending does.

BTW, the "rich" see that smallest percentage tax cut in Bush's plan.

Nice try at class envy, though...

 

[PlatinumGold]

amused

the difference between democrats and republicans is

democrats raise taxes and spend on social programs

republicans raise taxes and spend on military

unfortunately republicans generally spend more money because the military is sooo expensive. technology is expensive in general.

the lie is that republicans claim to spend less money.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
amused

the difference between democrats and republicans is

democrats raise taxes and spend on social programs

republicans raise taxes and spend on military

unfortunately republicans generally spend more money because the military is sooo expensive. technology is expensive in general.

the lie is that republicans claim to spend less money.

Last years budget was 2.1 trillion dollars, the military got 285 Billion. The military is far from a big item on the budget.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One of these days, someone will figure out that economically neither Reagan nor Clinton were gods, and Carter and Bush 1 weren't devils. It all depends on the hand delt to you. Personally, my family suffered terribly in the Reagan years as a direct result of his policies. Others did not. On the whole though, no one pushed the economy around like he owned it. That is just ego or hero worship.

 

[Novgrod]

If memory serves, Reagan had his tax cuts heavily influenced by free marketeer Milton Freedman, who thought that Congress wouldn't have a choice but to cut the budget. Well Congress don't cut no budgets, so we have defecit!

It seems to me that the worst presidents can do for an economy is hurt it, and the best they can do is leave it alone.

but i'm probably wrong.

 

[Maetryx]

Certainly the President is only one of many forces that affect the economy, no matter which President we're talking about.

But I have read that the rate of increase in the debt declined under Reagan. Yes, it reached new highs, but it got there at a slower pace than a linear progression from the previoius administrations. Also, never forget that the congress under Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr. was Democrat controlled. IIRC it was Democrat controlled for about 50 years straight, up until 1994.

So one could argue that the booming economy was a result of the Republican's takeover of congress. One would be wrong, but the logic is just as good as blaming the President.