Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Prove it.
|
whats to prove? its self evident history.
Reagan sought to both lower taxes on the wealthy, increase defense spending, and increase tax on those earning less than 50k, all of which he did.
It was under his presidency that the US moved from the worlds largest international creditor to the worlds largest debtor nation.
He borrowed domestically and abroad to cover the lack of revenue that his experimental economic policy created, ushering in a new era of irresponsibility because the idea of borrowing the difference has become apparently an acceptable policy, and for JohnQ taxpayer, of course we all want to pay less taxes, so everyone loves the idea.
Ironically, He himself called the huge increase in national debt under his presidency his greatest disappointment. He raised taxes something like 11-12 times during his presidency, in the name of responsibility after his first huge slashing of the taxes and modification of tax code, but that only brought us about a 3rd of the way back.
Next, you need to correlate the decrease in job security in the 80s with the settling in of reaganomic policies over the long term, and the new republican standard of accepting Reaganomics as workable. Suddenly, it became MORE profitable to buy and sell companies at will, fire the employees and loot the company for huge gains for a few, while thousands have to search for another job. How many people lost their long term jobs during the 80s on this forum?
George Bush senior was the one who called them "Voodoo Economics", yet todays republican party will violently defend the policy of less taxes all around will balance the budged and deal with the debt.
Look at Romney's paper thin smoke and mirrors proposal of what he wants to do, more of the same telling everyone what they want to hear, that we don't have to face a painful increase in revenue combined with a slashing of government services to get out of the hole we have spent 30 years digging.
Basically, the concept of reaganomic policies is exceedingly attractive, that my taxes can be cut, yet somehow at the same time we can increase spending or maintain what was there earlier. For 30 years the republican standard has been to violently defend the idea of tax cuts every presidency, when Reagan himself attempted to undo some of what he started.
I think Reagan was a good president, but I think his greatest mistake was starting something that then ran out of control, and when the same idea was tried in the 1890s and failed under "horse and Sparrow" policy, back then you didn't have the escape hatch of borrowing the difference, we didn't have the level of international credit we did in the 80s.