Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't the crash of 2007 and rising inequality and poverty in America prove well enough that the "dream of the 80s" is no longer alive? I hear libertarian and conservative types and even some liberals still sing the praise of deregulation and flat taxes.
Large American corporations are now called the multinationals. This causes a shift in attitudes toward the greatest economic machine of all time, the American middle class. While overhearing a conversation between myself and a coworker a manager remarked "The middle class is toast".
Evidence is in this graph. Notice how the labor force shrinks but does not recover during the last two recessions.
* Crash of 2007 was really set in motion during the Clinton Admin -- a combination of a GOP led house and Senate and a President too considered with his polls. You are stretching to go back to the 80s for that crisis.
* Rising inequality has been a secular trend that has gone back to the early 80s and could care less about party lines--instead look at all gutting of the middle class and the simple nature of globalization, led by China and India coming back "online" after self-imposed isolation and incompetence. Within that process we see both parties and their rich constituents loving the outsourcing.
* Poverty: The reality is that the deep poverty of isolated islands of forgotten Americans is again the fault of a air of indifference shared by both parties over the plight of Americans.
* Deregulation. The deregulation of the 70s was long overdue and in many ways a move in the right direction. Remember the starting point was horrific regulation and taxes. The deregulation of the financial industry--such as lifting barriers for investment banks--and doing so without consideration/monitoring of possible consequences was the work of complete idiots--Gingrich, Gramm, and Cheney--under a Democratic Administration only too happy to see a return of the booming 20s.
* Flat Taxes: This was not Reagan but Reagan acolytes and pseudo-economists like Kemp and Forbes. But flat taxes are irrelevant since they never came about.
The critique of Reaganomics should be focused on the explosion of the deficit spending, militarization of foreign policy beyond the cold war, and the lost opportunity to deal with outsourcing, which began to ramp up in earnest that decade.
S.
*
The proximate cause of the 2007 crash was the response to the Enron/dotcom bust and 9/11 in 2001. The stock market was already slumping badly when the trade towers attack sent it into a death spiral. That's when the Fed started handing out free money. Instead of treating the crisis as a temporary issue, they continued to prop up a tottering economy with huge infusions of money, until the whole house of cards collapsed under its load of profiteering and greed.
Carter never gave Volcker the political cover that Reagan did after he appointed Volcker in July, 1979; no one laid a glove on Volcker during reagan's administration as opposed to the micro-manager-in-chief currently in the White House.
Volcker's heroics in bringing the economy back to life certainly contributed to the creation of 5,700,000 new jobs between January 1981 and the 1984 election in which Reagan won 49 states.
Reagan cut income tax rates at all levels, encouraged the Fed not to print too much money (Bernanke certainly didn't being the Keynesian disciple that he and his boss were), and kept the effect of regulations on the economy at a minimum as Brian Domitrovic of Forbes pointed out in an article which appeared in Oct. 2012.
Tha article went on to explain why the UE rate went from 10.8% in October 1982 to 7.4% two years later, and just one month before the 1984 election in which Reagan obliterated Mondale.
Since Obama doesn't believe in tax cuts having initiated increases in the HSA tax rate and too many other tax increases to count, it's no wonder that Obamanomics has been an abject failure as has Obama's Presidency domestically and internationally, since he never understood the relationship between tax rates, revenue and job creation; hopefully Keynesianism will never rear its job-killing head in DC ever again.
But then he's a lawyer and not an economist, and a Democrat on top of that.
If the liberal ideology works, there wouldn't be so many people against it. You can get followers, but the fact that a significant portion of the society doesn't buy into that shows its failure.
(?) "Every else is doing it", so it must be OK? Insanity! There is nothing wise about the majority of people. The majority elected Obama. Put another way, the majority rejected Romney.
Because it works. The great recession was caused by a variety of factors, mainly lending.
Wow, I guess so long as you can buy Cheetos at Walmart you would be happy. I hardly think the trickle down economics works. It is stupid and less and less people can afford to buy goods. Hope they don't shut off your cable TV someday. What would you do with your bowl of Cheetos if you can't have some TV on?
Didn't the crash of 2007 and rising inequality and poverty in America prove well enough that the "dream of the 80s" is no longer alive? I hear libertarian and conservative types and even some liberals still sing the praise of deregulation and flat taxes.
Maybe they possess an unreasonable antipathy toward sharing the wealth and favor prosperity.
Reagonomics gave G. Bush and Clinton an exceptional economy, so much so that Clinton increased tax rates significantly ("It may surprise you, but I think I raised your taxes too much, too" - Bill Clinton) and increased social spending (the welfare reform didn't decrease spending). This was followed by GW Bush with a new entitlement (drug treatments), an attack on the US economy, two wars, and increased social spending, all with no meaningful tax reform, tax cuts, or federal social spending adjustments.
The Dems controlled both houses for the last two years of GW Bush's presidency, and did everything they could to weaken the economy to improve democrat presidential prospects.
The crash of 2007 was engineered by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, abley abetted by the incompetence of those in power positions with oversight responsibility like Barney Frank and others, and from an economic perspective, there was not actually a recesion until after Obama took office (negative growth in 4th qtr 2007, 1st qtr 2008 - two qtrs are the economic definition of a recession).
Reagonomics works so well it survived almost 20 years of socialist tinkering and all out war against it - that's why people still believe in it.
"Reaganomics" is what buried GHWB (he was a 1-term bust). The rest of your post is utter tripe as well. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Wow, I guess so long as you can buy Cheetos at Walmart you would be happy. I hardly think the trickle down economics works. It is stupid and less and less people can afford to buy goods. Hope they don't shut off your cable TV someday. What would you do with your bowl of Cheetos if you can't have some TV on?
Reaganomics works! Your example of CEO pay to employee pay has nothing to do with it and actually illustrates why we should pursue it in some ways. Many major corporations have moved to different portions of their operations overseas because of the high tax rates on corporate profits in America. The headquarters may remain here in name only for corporate image reasons. Because of this the CEO and other highly paid executives are based in the United States but the labor force that produces their products are based elsewhere. A recent example of this is Burger King who is moving to Canada because of the significantly lower corporate tax structure. If America was truly to follow Reaganomics and lower the taxes on corporations we would see more corporations move to the states instead of moving out.
By the way, your Cheetos are a bad example because they are made in America by an American corporation that has not yet relocated out of the country.
My response to you was based on your line "What evidence?".
On the positive side, his efforts bankrupted the Soviet Union and all of the things that you've said above. There was an economic expansion after a recession in the early eighties. Inflation was brought under control.
On the negative side, The firing of the air traffic controllers was the opening salvo in the war against unions. I don't want to hear that the unions were driving jobs offshore. No one can compete with one or two dollars an hour , not even the "right to work" south. His administration is recognized as the start of flat wages. This flat wages campaign was and is a war on the middle class that forced married women into the work force and the used home equity as a cash machine. This was just to stay even with inflation. Last but not least the Reagan Administration adopted trickle down economics. Two trillion dollars worth of trickle down money is being held offshore.
My political philosophy is not a factor here. As an established member of the middle class it is my empty wallet that motivates my response to you.
Neither the economic war on the Soviet Union nor the air traffic controllers have anything whatsoever to do with Reaganomics.
Sorry, but you cannot address the point, but continue to wander all over the place.
Reagonamics, as has been described by me and others, worked. Sorry you do not have the intellectual honesty to see that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
