BUSH MOST ADMIRED MAN IN THE US

by Yerusalyim 183 Replies latest social current

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Aztec:

    On discounting the Reagn Tax cuts....

    Reagan Changed the World
    A twentieth anniversary.

    Mr. Moore is president of the Club for GrowthAugust 17, 2001 8:40 a.m.

    o event over the past quarter century has had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy and the prosperity of the 1980s and '90s than the Reagan tax cut of 1981.

    It was signed into law on August 15, 1981 ? a day that will live in history as a great American turning point.

    Liberals to this day continue to fanatically denounce the Reagan economic plan ? known as supply-side economics ? as an economic catastrophe. Dick Gephardt routinely warns against "repeating the mistakes of the 1980s." In a recent TV interview he proclaimed that it took the nation "15 years to dig out of the hole that Reagan put us in."

    The truth is that the nation was in quite a deep hole of economic collapse when Reagan was elected. We were in the midst of the worst economic depression in 1980-81 than at anytime since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Here is how Newsweek described the economy that Reagan inherited from Jimmy "malaise" Carter: "When Ronald Reagan steps into the White House next week, he will inherit the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago." That was no exaggeration.

    There is a sharp contrast between the performance of the U.S. economy before, and then after the Reagan tax cuts. In 1980 the U. S. inflation rate hit a record high of 13.5%. Mortgage interest rates soared to 20 percent creating a moribund housing industry. America was rapidly deindustrializing. Unemployment had reached its highest level in 40 years. We were literally teetering on the brink of a 1930s style depression. Economist Henry Kaufman of Salomon Brothers reflected the gloomy mood of most Americans at that time when he remarked, "I am aghast at how much our country has faltered."

    In the early 1980s when I graduated from college, the economy was so bad and jobs were so scarce, it was hard to get hired as a burger flipper at the minimum wage.

    Reagan's tax-rate cuts ? combined with his emphasis on sound money, deregulation, and free trade ? created a mighty economic expansion in the 1980s. Bob Bartley of the Wall Street Journal described this period as "the seven fat years." Any student of the 1980s, who wishes to know what really happened to the economy in the Reagan years must read Bartley's invaluable book by that title. This expansion carried through the 1990s as well ? creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. "

    The economy grew by more than one-third in size. Growth was so high in the 1980s that grouchy leftists were forced to resort to ridiculing the Reagan years as the "decade of greed."

    Consider what happened to the net wealth of the nation over this lengthy period of peace and prosperity. In 1982 the Dow Jones hit a low point of 792. When Reagan left office, the market had more than tripled in value. Then in tripled again over the next 10 years. In other words, after the Reagan tax cuts, the stock market soared from a low of 800 to well over 10,000 today. Miraculous is the only word to describe this $15 trillion increase in Americans' wealth.

    It wasn't just the affluent who benefited from the 1980s expansion. After Reagan's tax-rate cuts, real median family incomes, which had fallen sharply during the stagflationary period 1977-82, rose by nearly 10 percent. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile ? from the richest to the poorest ? gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data.

    The table below shows that by 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

    Incomes Moved Up in the 1980s

    (billions 1981 dollars)

    Workers Earning< $10,000> $50,000> $75,000

    1981

    66.09.93.0
    198962.615.85.5
    Difference-3.45.92.5
    % Change-5%60%83%

    Source: Cato Institute calculations based on Bureau of the Census; U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1996, p. 478, Table 740.

    *Earning levels are adjusted for inflation between 1981 and 1989.

    But what about the rise of the national debt that so many of Reagan's critics are so hyper-obsessed over? Tax cuts didn't cause the surge in debt. Spending did.

    Between 1980 and 1990 the federal tax collections doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Tax rates went down, but tax payments went up, because a prosperous economy always produces an overflow of tax payments, just as a stagnant economy never generates sufficient tax revenues to pay the bills. This is just as Reagan had predicted. I have always believed that so many in the media and in academia have such a visceral hatred of the Gipper is that he had this wonderful talent of proving them wrong.

    Reagan used to take great joy in noting that when the economy roared back to life in 1983 and 1984, "no one calls it Reaganomics anymore." That's because Reaganomics was supposed to be a failure according to the models of Harvard and other Ivy League Keynesian economists. How frustrating it must have been for someone trained in economics at tiny Eureka College to blow their decrepit theories away.

    In the 1980s incomes, employment, investment, wealth, consumer confidence, the stock market, and tax-payments rose. Interest rates, inflation, and bankruptcies plummeted. If the tax cuts of the 1980s were a mistake, there are millions of Americans who believe we could use mistaken policies like that again right about now.

  • ThiChi
  • amac
    amac

    "Socialism does not rely on brutality and oppression to hold it together" What Nations do you cite as an example? (Good debate, by the way!) Well I am far from being well versed in political history, but elements of socialism have been implemented in a number of South American countries, but was consistently squashed by the USA under the guise of stopping "evil" communism (aka cutting into US profits from companies like The United Fruit Co.) Guatemala is a good example, but I'd have to have books in front of me to recite what happened. Even if I am wrong on that front, just because no one has bothered to correctly implement socialism does not make it evil. I would like to discuss this further, but I am about to take off for the New Year. Maybe next week.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Happy New year, and I have enjoyed your comments....

  • WhyNow2000
    WhyNow2000

    I think Pope is the only one that beat an incumbent president for this meaningless title.

    On the other hand there are many Senators...Hillary (freshman) beat them all...now that's interesting.

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed
    and at their core, all JW's are republicans, they just don't vote.

    Sorry, Six, but all the JWs I knew here in the Northwest were very liberal at heart and just didn't vote. Maybe their "pure language" isn't so pure afterall?

  • DakotaRed
    DakotaRed

    DakotaRed: You seem to be one of the closed-minded "war is always right, especially my side" types. The US has faught plenty of unnecessary wars and backed the wrong side. If you can't admit that then you really need to go and learn some history.

    Once again, Simon, that's were you are very wrong. I do not support all wars and if you remember, didn't want to see this one coming in Iraq. However, certain key countries tried their best to keep a tyrant in power and not force him to be held accountable and war came. Saddam was a menace to the free world as is Al Qeada and other terrorist groups popping up. Since Europe has felt the sting of terrorism much more than America has, it is they who should realize that more than we do.

    I don't think the US should have gotten involved at all in Kosovo, they were no threat to us or other parts of the world, so why were we there? Ask Clinton, I don't know. Haiti should have taken care of their own business too, why did Clinton need to send troops there?

    As to unnecessary wars, yes, there are others besides the two I listed. But, just because we may think they weren't necessary doesn't mean some good didn't come out of them. And, if you really want to study history, let's stack Britains unnecessary wars against the US's and see who has more.

    I think you will find that OUR opinion of what WE want is more correct than your convenient theory of what you imagine that we want.

    Well, Simon, had you read the links, you might have discovered how many came from "YOU" and expressed "YOUR" opinion, meaning, they were written in Europe by Europeans.

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    Simon,

    I'm not trying to stir you up here - I have a great deal of respect and admiration for you putting this board together and maintaining it for all of us to use. I certainly do not want to jeopardize my status here because I enjoy being a part of this community. I truly want to understand your point of view, however, I am having difficulty seeing what you see. Will you please help open my eyes to your viewpoint, while understanding that I am not trying to disrespect you or your opinions?

    It was perfectly legal! We weren't any more able to see the future and how despicable Saddam was going to turn out to be than the next guy.

    Maybe legal ... but totally immoral and the administration KNEW what he was like just like they knew what other dictators they have supported or installed are like. They do not care one jot for the people that their messed up policies affect so all this "we've removed Saddam for the Iraqi people, aren't we great" talk is a bit hollow. They put him there and kept him there for their own ends so they share the responsibility for the attrocities that he committed with their weapons.

    1. What evidence is there that the US knew that Saddam would turn out to be an evil dictator when the US legally supplied him with arms?

    2. If you believe that America is responsible for Iraqi deaths because we supplied Iraq with arms prior to any UN sanctions that prohibited it, then do you also believe that France and Russia are responsible for American deaths because they supplied arms to Iraq when they knew it was against international law?

    3. Since France and Russia began supplying arms to Saddam after it was evident that Saddam was in fact a dangerous dictator because he had already gassed his own people, does that make them responsible for Iraqi deaths suffered at the hands of Saddam before the second Gulf war?

    4. Since France and Russia signed the UN Resolution prohibiting trade with Iraq, does that make them guilty of violating international law?

    5. Do you believe that when France and Russia illegally supplied Iraq with arms that this was a moral act on their parts?

    I really want to understand how you see this. Please help me.

    growedup

  • Sunnygal41
    Sunnygal41

    Six, I feel so very strongly about my vote that I personally don't see one candidate who I would say comes anywhere near enough to Dennis. I'd rather not vote at all than put someone in office by default and say it was me that had an active hand in it. Dean is a big weenie. Whimpering and moaning about the negative press he got from his own party and the Repubs haven't even gotten THEIR shot at him! LOL! Even the dems are embarrassed by him. Lieberman is my own Senator, and at first, I thought maybe I'd go with him..........but, since I heard about Dennis and researched his positions, etc. I haven't pursued Lieberman's. As far as Dennis being an ideologist, yes, he is. So am I. In fact I did an online personality test and I am part of only 1% of the population with my viewpoints, etc. That may explain why everyone accuses me of having my head in the clouds and my heart on my sleeve too much. The world is not ready, wholesale, for Dennis or people who think like him. There's still too much left to clean up and clear away psychologically for peace. People like Yeru don't understand people like me. They think I'm naive and illogical. That's okay. I'm comfortable with who I am. I'll tell ya tho, I will be doing alot of research.....I'm such a babe when it comes to politics........in alot of ways I find the whole process distasteful. Why can't we all just get along??????????????

    Terri

  • Sunnygal41
    Sunnygal41
    So Sunnygal, I guess I'm hoping you'll take part in the process of progressive change, even w/o DK on the ticket. Btw, this will be my first time to vote or be political in any way as well. Yay us.

    Yeah, we just wish there were better choices. Actually, who ever said that voting for president is the only way to get things done...........what is that quote, by Mother Theresa, I think about being only one person, but, what she DID was the most important thing of all. She walked her talk. I try to walk my talk too. None of us can change what happened in the past, but we can certainly start today, to try to make the world a better place by being peaceful, loving people, and by taking better care of our planet!!!! Otherwise, this whole debate/discussion will be a moot point! LOL! I'm thinking about the old joke about the fleas on a dog arguing over who owns the dog..............

    Terri, a very peaceful warrior

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit