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.
I never said the Republicans and/or Bush had no responsibility for the economic downturn. Unlike many people, you seemingly among them, I'm not a mindless partisan who picks "D" or "R" and then defends that side to the death no matter what. What I said, in reference to the budget, is that Democrats have no right to look back to the Bush deficits and complain about them because they did nothing to stop it at the time, and when they subsequently took over, they exploded it further. The Democrats bear their share of responsibility. If you really wanna pretend the Nancy Pelosi Congress doesn't have any responsibility for racking up debt, by all means.
Under Reagan, interest rates, inflation, and unemployment dropped precipitously from what it had been under Carter. That's common knowledge. GDP is important, but not everything. And even if it was, the Kennedy-Johnson years featured a large cut in the top tax rate, from I believe 92 to 70, and the Clinton biggest economic output came in the 3 years following the slash on the capital gains tax. So I guess that would actually be evidence against what the current leader of the politburo, Barack Obama, says.
Wages have stagnated, and my guess is me and you might actually have some agreement on why (my guess is you're anti free trade, as I am, but I could be wrong). But people misunderstand Reagan's trade policy. He was by no means a pure free trader. Grand Old Protectionists - New York Times
I don't have time to read the Min article right now, but I will get to it. I'm trusting the claim is that F&F's role in subprime mortgages is overstated, and not that subprime mortgages did not in large part cause the meltdown?
I never said the Republicans and/or Bush had no responsibility for the economic downturn.
What you said was, "The two largest deficits occured (sic), and the economy first started to tank, after the Democrats took back Congress," which seems to lay blame at the Democrat's feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheYanksAreComin
Under Reagan, interest rates, inflation, and unemployment dropped precipitously from what it had been under Carter. That's common knowledge. GDP is important, but not everything. And even if it was, the Kennedy-Johnson years featured a large cut in the top tax rate, from I believe 92 to 70, and the Clinton biggest economic output came in the 3 years following the slash on the capital gains tax.
What exact policies under Reagan brought down interest rates, inflation, and unemployment?
The president does not control interest rates. That's done through monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. During the early 1980s, Fed policy was to control inflation and it did that by raising interest rates to high levels. That brought down inflation as the economy basically stopped. The byproduct was high unemployment and interest rates.
What the Fed giveth the Fed can take away. Reagan benefited from loosened Fed monetary policy that brought rates down and, by doing so, created an environment for hiring.
Reagan could not be responsible for lowing interest rates as his Administration created more debt at the time than any other president, which competed in the market against businesses, who were trying to borrow. That raised rates higher than they would have been.
Today, the GOP complains that the top tax-rate of 35% and 15% capital gains is too high. The top rate under Reagan was 50% and 39%. Neither is an impediment for expansion as evident by the fact that even with 50% and 39% rates, the economy was not hampered.
More importantly, how can anyone point to Reagan's policies as the model and simultaneously claim that Keynesian economics has no effect, when Reagan deficit spent to the tune of $2 trillion in 1980s dollars?
There's no reason for him to run on his record as the Republicans thus far appear to want to allow Obama to run against his opponent. If you were Obama, wouldn't you do the same thing?
Maybe I'm a bit slow but would you care to elaborate? I have no idea what you are saying. I know jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them but please indulge me if you don't mind.
NEWS FLASH: During an economic downturn, which Obama inherited, unemployment rises and the number of of people applying for Food Stamps increases. Thank God and Johnson that we have these programs that the GOP would have gutted had they had the chance.
Fortunately, safety-net programs have at least mitigated that damage -- notably, uninsurance among children has actually fallen thanks to Obama passing SCHIP. Medicaid and unemployment insurance has literally kept millions above the poverty line, and the early features of the Affordable Care Act have helped hundreds of thousands of young adults retain insurance. Of course, we won't hear the OP thanking Obama for that.
Why isn't obama running on all those legislative "victories" the dems passed?
There's no reason for him to run on his record as the Republicans thus far appear to want to allow Obama to run against his opponent. If you were Obama, wouldn't you do the same thing?
Well...shouldn't he run on the historic legislation that was passed?
You know, the largest stimulus in history?
The megaton entitlement obamacare that threatens to do all we were warned it would do?
His great Cash4Clunkers that destroyed perfectly good used cars?
His home mortgage program?
His takeover of GM that gifted the company to the union?
Against an Establishment Republican, for example in the model of a Bob Dole circa 2011 version, BO would have no choice but to attempt to run on his record, and he'd lose. He is a very lucky man, not many presidents watch their opponent seize defeat from the jaws of victory, by choosing to get so extreme the awful economic indicators take a back seat.
MTA, you're correct in pointing out the deficits during the Reagan years, however none of those were his budgets. Every proposal he ever made was pretty much dead on arrival. It was Tip O'Neill and the Democratic house that pulled the purse strings. It was also Tip O'Neill's House that torpedoed the Balance Budget Amendment, as Democrats have done several times now.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with the high unemployment and interest rates, at least as compared to the late 1970's. Are you denying unemployment, inflation, and interest rates fell under Reagan from what they had been under Carter? It is simply fact. As for the President's effect on monetary policy, I don't believe that they operate free from Presidential influence, even though they are independent. Reagan was certainly not a passive observer on monetary policy.
The Reagan years may not have been model, but there was a lot that was good and they were clearly leaps and bounds better than the Carter years. They would have been better had the budget been balanced, but again, that was not his fault. Tip O'Neill was, like Reagan once said, like Pacman-a round thing that just gobbles up money.
As for the tax rates during the Reagan years, it was first 70, then cut to 50, then cut to 28. Amazingly, but not amazing to anyone who has studied economics and is familiar with the Laffer Curve, tax revenue actually had a sharp increase (accounting for inflation) in the years following the drop to 28. http://startthinkingright.files.word...n-tax-cuts.jpg
The percentage of income taxes payed by upper income people also increased, giving lie to the claim that the Reagan tax cuts somehow shifted the burden of income taxation away from the rich onto the poor. The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm - broken link)
Two and a half years of complete GOP obstructing his agenda.
Keep those bogus excuses coming. Keep trying to blame anyone but your clueless leader. He had a veto proof majority in both houses of Congress and still failed to accomplish his agenda. We are still a free people.
Shared by his minions, the 0-bama blame game continues.
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.
I know jokes aren't funny if you have to explain them but please indulge me if you don't mind.
