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.
Yep. Reagan wanted to do four things durig his Presidency: (1) Cut taxes, (2) balance the budget, (3) defeat the Soviet Union, and (4) rebuild the military from its post-Carter doldrums. But the Democrats in Congress reneged on their promises to cut spending, hugely increased the "social" spending, and told Reagan to sign it or else lose his military buildup. Reagan caved and signed, and the deficit exploded as you said. Reagan achieved three of his four goals.
Nice try. But Bush 41 lost re-election because he promised "Read my lips, no new taxes", and then let Democrats railroad him into signing some new taxes. He also signed several "gun control" laws that only affected the law-abiding, and the voters kicked him out.
You mean, the Democrats' spending and coercive tactics.
Hilarious. Faced with documented evidence that Reagan's tax cuts helped rich and poor alike, this liberal is trying to pretend he hasn't read it, and keep lying about "taxes for the rich" anyway.
No wonder nobody listens to them any more.
Prove that the results in your chart were the result of the tax cuts and not the result of interest rates and inflation declining, the breaking of OPEC resulting in a huge decline in oil prices, the arrival of the personal computer (and other tech advancements) which created of a whole industry that didn't exist previously.
Just consider if we played out this scenario all the way. If the US cut the tax rate to zero the economy would grow dramatically and the Federal deficit would be wiped out. Let the good times roll.
President Ronald Reagan cut taxes hugely in 1981, and again a few years later.
What was the result?
I made this graph from data in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the U.S. Government, now in public domain. It shows the percentage change in household income, for five quintiles of population income: Bottom 20%, next-to-lowest 20%, middle 20%, next to highest 20%, and highest 20%. It is adjusted for inflation. (if it hadn't been, the increases in income would have been numerically even higher.)
ALL groups saw large increases in their incomes once Regan's tax cuts began to take effect.
I've noticed that the usual liberals have already begun their usual screaming about Reagan's tax cuts "only benefitting the rich". They are apparently casting about for something to use to bash Donald Trump's proposed major tax cuts. The fact that their screams aren't even true, doesn't seem to matter to them.
Documented evidence indicates otherwise. A not unusual status for liberals' claims.
Not unusual for Repugs to misrepresent facts. While your data may be true, it is very heavily biased in it's presentation.
You will notice that after Reagan, the rich started getting much richer, while the poor did not share in that benefit. Note the increasing slope of the top % people, versus virtually no change in slope for the majority of people. The further down in income you get, the more pronounced it shows.
Reagan was the begining of the end for the American Dream. I do believe he loved America, and had good intentions. I also think he did some things right, and some wrong, like any President prior to 2017. But your graph is an obvious give-away, because you did not establish trend before Reagan, which made it easy for you to make the virticle axis indexing steep, to make his results appear good. It's all meaningless without context.
For the desperate liberals trying to pretend that the graph in the OP didn't show what it showed, here it is again, as documented by the U.S. Government:
As you see, the rich got richer... and so did the poor. Despite what the liberals want you to believe.
(Anybody know how to make a thumbnail out of this file, the way it was in the OP?)
I responded before I saw this idiotic comment. I've explained how you've hidden context by leaving out the trends, and skewing the graph. Apparently, now I have to explain to you that you also lumped the gains of the 1% in with the top 20% to minimize the dichotomy of two America's. The poor by your own graph are growing by a very small amount, you say you adjusted for inflation, but all stats I've seen, heard and verified say that the average middle class and poor are losing ground. Let's grant your spin as truth, it still pales in comparison when you consider the top 20% are growing wealth at 2.5x the rate of the rest of the people, and that is amplified greatly if you parse out the top 1%, which would include people like your current, self-serving POTUS.
Honestly, you should really try to understand things before you try to make an argument that is so easily picked apart by facts.
President Ronald Reagan cut taxes hugely in 1981, and again a few years later.
What was the result?
Hard to say what the effects of the tax cut were, considering that there are hundreds of different factors at play other than taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
I made this graph from data in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the U.S. Government, now in public domain.
The Statistical Abstract is 1,000 pages long and full of thousands of datasets, and you provided no link to any datasets for us to check your work
For all I know you fabricated this data, or don't know how to adjust for inflation, or don't know what you're looking at and got it all wrong.
Quote:
ALL groups saw large increases in their incomes once Regan's tax cuts began to take effect.
More than likely due to increases in both public and private debt.
Quote:
The fact that their screams aren't even true, doesn't seem to matter to them.
Documented evidence indicates otherwise.
I don't think your analysis is serious or rigorous or accurate, and the fact that you engage in political party-based attacks in your post suggests to me you are biased to begin with.
And where Reagan got the money is another story. The economy is like a balloon you squeeze the air from one side it goes to the other. I knew two people at that time who were devastated by the Reagan economy. One was a vet and the other was student whose father had just died. Reagan found a way to take money from them that they depended on to go to college. The tax cut sounds great, but to pay for it they'll take a few dollars here and a few dollars there from thousands of little people who have no voice.
National debt doubled under Obama, but you dont care..
it most certainly did.
But tell me how YOU would have fixed the economic collapse that BUSH gave us? or do you want to pretend we did not have the biggest recession in the last 75 years because of bush's failure to rein in feckless banking and a run away housing market.
Obama used the money to save your house. How do you think banking was saved? WHO do you think underwrote fannie and feddie, and has been the primary purchaser of loans for the last 9 years ?
or maybe you don't have a clue and are just bleating the GOP line "obama doubled the debt".
Honestly do you guys just selectively forget the crimes GOP committed by allowing the near total destruction of western economies. WTH do you think was happening ? did you think Obama ate the money? do you think all that money went to ACA ? I suggest you spend some time learning about what we just went through and what it has taken to fix it.
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.
