PDA

View Full Version : Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster



nAz
02-01-2008, 12:24 AM
this can't be true ... can it? /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

Posted January 20, 2008 | 12:14 PM (EST)
Read More: Balanced Budget, Economy, Fiscal Responsibility, Reagan, Reaganomics, Ronald Reagan, Breaking Business News


There's been a great deal of back of forth about Clinton and Obama and what they have said about Reagan. Personally, I've missed most of it. Being a stock market person I've been a little preoccupied over the last few weeks. But, I think it's time to chime in on the debate because the underlying facts -- those pesky things -- aren't very flattering to Reagan. In fact, the facts -- again, those pesky annoying things -- indicate that Reagan was a complete and total fiscal disaster.


First, let's go to the charts, shall we? It wouldn't be a Bonddad diary without charts and graphs. Let's start with Reagan's buying the "tax cuts pay for themselves" line of reasoning. Here is a graph from the St. Louis Federal Reserve of the year-over-year percentage change in tax receipts.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/Big%20Econ%20Numbers/taxreceipts.png

If you look closely at the tax receipts under Reagan and compare them to other periods you will notice a clear pattern: there is no meaningful difference between the yearly change in tax receipts under Reagan and any period before or after. This tells us a very important fact: tax receipts -- and the growth thereof -- is as much a function of overall economy growth as the actual tax rate.

OK -- let's see how much of a fiscal conservative Reagan was. Here is a graph of federal expenditures in red and federal receipts in blue.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/Big%20Econ%20Numbers/receiptsvexpenditures.png

Does anyone notice a pattern? In case you have a hard time figuring it out, let me provide some clarity.

-- Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never balanced a budget.

-- Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never came close to balancing a budget.

-- Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never even came remotely close to even thinking about balancing a budget.

So, how did Reagan pay for this? He mired the country is a mammoth explosion of Federal debt. Let's place this in historical context. Here is a graph of total federal debt going back to 1940, again from the St. Louis Federal Reserve.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/Big%20Econ%20Numbers/feddebt1.png

Does anybody notice a pattern? The fiscally conservative party -- at least in theory -- have indebted this country since 1980 with a mammoth amount of debt.

Now -- let's look a little closer at the 1980s.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/Big%20Econ%20Numbers/feddebt2.png

Saint Ronnie -- the great Saint who many are praising in one form or another -- nearly tripled the national debt. St. Ronnie -- the fiscal conservative who we all should bow down and worship -- paid for his massive expanse of the federal government (because he never balanced a budget) by pawning off the expense on the next generation. St. Ronnie used his great communication skills to tell us this was all somehow OK.

St. Ronnie was an [censored].

LWW
02-01-2008, 02:12 AM
Have you ever read the USC?

Do you have any idea how the US budget comes into being?

Do you have any regard for any "FACTS" that are not based on an underlying mistruth?

I didn't think so.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled disinformation.

LWW

LWW
02-01-2008, 05:57 AM
I wanted to come back to this.

What your graphs prove are:

-After the Reagan tax cuts the economy exploded.
-Revenue dipped at first, and then took off with growth.
-When the economy grew revenue exploded.
-Congress spent that plus more.
-The Clinton tax cuts leveled the economy off.
-Over time it sent it into recession.
-Revenue fell.
-Spending continued to increase.
-The Bush tax cuts mirrored the Reagan results.
-The Bush and Reagan tax cuts mirrored the JFK results.
-The fastest wat to grow the economy is lower taxes.
-The fastest way to slow an economy is higher taxes.
-The fastest way to grow revenue is lower taxes.
-The fastest was to shrink revenue growth is higher taxes.
-The fastest wat to sink an economy is higher taxes.
-The fastest way to a deficit is to spend more than you take in.
-The problem has NEVER been tax cuts.
-The problem has ALWAYS been spending.

LWW

nAz
02-01-2008, 11:26 AM
lol Riggghhhttt so Regan was a conservative... in name only. that is what the thread is about.

LWW
02-01-2008, 12:46 PM
What part of my post do you dispute?

Please be specific and link me to what you base it on.

LWW

bsmutz
02-01-2008, 03:22 PM
As usual, you have no idea how to read and comprehend. I think you either need to get a dictionary or go back to grade school so that you can learn how to read and figure out what the meaning of WORDS are so that your comprehension rate can go up. The way it is now, I'd put up a first grader against you any day (and it wouldn't have to be a very bright one either).

Drop1
02-01-2008, 07:15 PM
Have you ever read the RGV?
Had you the knowledge or desire,you would find you know little,and that is to say very little about economics.

LWW
02-02-2008, 05:57 AM
Then you should have no problem correcting what I have said.

You never do.

Why?

Because you don't think. You let people pour crap in your head and you never question it.

Ever.

This forum is littered with questions that you and the lefties run in terror from.

Why?

Because you know it blows a whole in the side of your fantasies and you hope against hope that if you ignore truth long enough it will go away.

It won't.

Now, tear my arguments down big boy.

Go for it.

LWW

LWW
02-02-2008, 06:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> As usual, you have no idea how to read and comprehend. I think you either need to get a dictionary or go back to grade school so that you can learn how to read and figure out what the meaning of WORDS are so that your comprehension rate can go up. The way it is now, I'd put up a first grader against you any day (and it wouldn't have to be a very bright one either). <hr /></blockquote>
So, you dispute none of it?

Then why are you mouthing off like you did?

I already know.

So your lefty buddies will blindly go "YEAH" as if you hadn't been proven to be a partisan bootlicker yet again.

Now, tear down my arguments.

C'mon. you swear they are all wrong and you are so much smarter than me so it should be simple ... yet you haven't.

Why is that?

Don't embarrass yourself. We both know why.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-02-2008, 08:22 AM
Naz,
You are right. Republicans always get into office with that szame old BS, that Government IS the problem, then they get into office, and prove it.

Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever. He did raise taxes, left the country with a huge deficit, allowed terrorists to slaughter our Marines in their sleep, and did absolutely nothing about it, spread arms around the world to dangerous, inhumane groups, broke the law left and right, and used the old hand to ear system when reporters yelled out questions about his evil deeds.

Figures don't lie. Reagan was a fiscal disaster. Only two other presidents come near to his incompetence, Bush I and II. Bush I had to pardone all of Reagans criminals to keep his whole cabinet out of jail. Just because comspendagain repiglicans have bigger mouths, is no reason to believe any of their well publicized myths. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

The charts from our government show which segments of our society progress financially, and which lose buying power, prove that when Repiglicans are in office, only the rich do well, and the middle class, and even upper middle class, lose. They always do the same damned thing, promise to cut spending, arrange the tax structure to advantage the rich, spend like drunken sailors, and leave huge deficits and serious recessions. Oil prices go up, debt goes up, housing market declines, Corporate pigs steal the rest of the country blind, loss of oversight and government regulations lead to wasteful spending and corruption, the rich get richer, and the rest of the country absorbs their colossal price tag. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

All but the blind and nutty 25% in this country see the reality.
Just read the response from our resident idiot, and it's easy to see how a lying crook like Bush got into the white house. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif


The fact that most of us don't bother responding to the idiot, is a commentary to the pure absurdity of his posts. Why bother debating illusions from the deluded. The idiot may see that as a win, but only an idiot could see it that way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

LWW
02-02-2008, 09:20 AM
I knew you still cared enough to await my every word sweetheart.

I'm so happy I can serve as the lightning rod for your vitriolic hatred.

Perhaps I will save just one of our soldiers from having to patiently tolerate your hate filled, spittle driving, rants about how they are too stupid to be anything more than tools and their sacrifice was meaningless.

Haven't they suffered enough for their country to be spared having to listen to one of it's most misguided citizens pepper them with hate?

If I can spare just one of them from this fate by drawing your fire I consider it all to have been worth it.

We know why you and your fascist wannabes hate me precious ... I have as much fire in my belly as you on the issues and the patience to find the truth and the willingness to tell it.

Join is in the light Gayle ... get some fresh air. It'll do you good.

LWW

Drop1
02-02-2008, 02:05 PM
Why should I help you,so you can ask help on the next problem,and the next,and the next. If you want to be ignorant,which seems to be your condition,don't ask me to bail you out...ask Bamadog he seems to do a lot for you,including fetch.

bamadog
02-02-2008, 02:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>


The fact that most of us don't bother responding to the idiot, is a commentary to the pure absurdity of his posts. Why bother debating illusions from the deluded. The idiot may see that as a win, but only an idiot could see it that way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Come on Gayle, we all know why you don't debate, you have nothing to debate with. You prefer to rant away in your little corner. I guess you feel safe there, no pesky facts to have to deal with.
You're not fooling anyone, except yourself.

LWW
02-02-2008, 03:38 PM
So, you have psychobabble schoolyard bull shiite, but nothing to support the inane, insane, and asinine claims of the OP?

Sad, but expected.

No matter how low I set the bar you always trip trying to vault it.

LWW

Drop1
02-02-2008, 07:25 PM
Attaboy keep shucking and jiving. Hell some day you might make a point,and wake some people up.

LWW
02-02-2008, 08:01 PM
Actually, you do have a point.

However, if you would wear a cowboy hat I don't think it would show as much. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW

Drop1
02-02-2008, 08:24 PM
Is that the high comedy they taught you at Mensa? If your ears weren't so big,you could get your head out of your a$$. Thats from public school. Attaboy /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
02-03-2008, 06:24 AM
I'm still waiting for you to make a single cogent point explaining why you believe what you do.

We all know why you don't write it don't we?

You don't even know why you believe what you believe ... you have handed off intellectual thought to others to do for you.

Now, toodle over to Gayle and ask her what you think about that.

LWW

hondo
02-03-2008, 07:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>


The fact that most of us don't bother responding to the idiot, is a commentary to the pure absurdity of his posts. Why bother debating illusions from the deluded. The idiot may see that as a win, but only an idiot could see it that way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Come on Gayle, we all know why you don't debate, you have nothing to debate with. You prefer to rant away in your little corner. I guess you feel safe there, no pesky facts to have to deal with.
You're not fooling anyone, except yourself. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm sure you'll charm her into wating to engage in a civilised conversation with you, you silver-tounged devil!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll go back to ignoring you now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Drop1
02-03-2008, 07:52 PM
Now that was sweet. So tell us who reads them to you?

LWW
02-03-2008, 10:17 PM
Sometimes I let the system read your posts aloud ... they are tedious on the eyes what with all the spittle and everything.

LWW

Drop1
02-03-2008, 11:36 PM
As always,the reply of an infant.

pooltchr
02-04-2008, 05:03 AM
Contrary to your unique opinion, most rational people understand that revenue actually INCREASED as a result of Reagan's tax program.
Steve

LWW
02-04-2008, 05:26 AM
They understand it as well ... it's that "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" thing.

They just prefer to ignore it as they do all reality that doesn't meet their agenda.

But, of course, they believe Clinton balanced the budget and applied the surplus to the national debt ... and then they run in terror when asked to explain why the national debt went up 8 years out of 8.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 09:04 AM
Actually, contrary to your unique ignorance, increased revenue while deficits are rising, don't count for much, and a tax structure which sends the bulk of the revenues back into the hands of the top one and a half percent of the wealthiest in the country, while the middle, and upper middle class suffers, loses income, jobs, and suffers from stagnent wages, sending the country into a recession, is not, overall, a good economic result for the country.

Reganomics was untimately a failure, hence, he had to raise taxes, as did his successor. Bush I.

ayle in Md.

Deeman3
02-04-2008, 09:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Reganomics was untimately a failure, hence, he had to raise taxes, as did his predecessor. Bush I.

ayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Huh? His predecessor???</font color>

Gayle in MD
02-04-2008, 10:37 AM
Correction, successor. Senior moment.

LWW
02-04-2008, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Reganomics was untimately a failure, hence, he had to raise taxes, as did his predecessor. Bush I.

ayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>
When you revise history to fit your agenda what difference does it make.

Auntie Gaylie ... tell me the one again about how Jimmuh Cahtuh saved the world and won the cold war.

LWW
<font color="blue"> Huh? His predecessor???</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
02-04-2008, 06:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Actually, contrary to your unique ignorance,
ayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Coming from a mindless puppet of the liberal left, I accept this as a compliment! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve