I have another question...

[frawin]

Larry, I think Reagan did a great job as President, he decontrolled Oil and dropped the price of oil from $39.50 to $10.00, he cut interest rates from 17.50%+ to 6-8%, he got the economy running great and he put people back to work. I would sure like to have Reagan back now.

[Anmar]

I was not yet born when Reagan was governer.  My point is, i thought the Bushes were operating off the same economic policies that Reagan did.  Tax cuts for the wealthy, low interest rates and de-regulation.  That being said, why did the economy collaps at the end of Bush's 8 year term?

I have to admit I'm being a whippersnapper again.  To make a long story short, the fact of the matter is that the economic environment is a result of a whole lot of different factors.  The policies of the sitting president is just a minute factor.  As someone pointed out, Reagans policies led to a successful cycle of economic growth.  Part of this was because he was borrowing incredible amounts of money and passing it on to the people through tax cuts and defense spending. 

If we measure the affects of reagans policies for years after his administration, why are we not applying the same principle to Bush?  Why is Obama being blamed for a recession that started during Bush's tenure?  Shouldn't Bushs' application of Reaganomics be blamed for the events that are occurring now?

[Varmit]

No objections.. I will volunteer to lead them to the alter......  

OOOO....please, please, can I hold the knife.....I WANNA HOLD THE KNIFE

[flintauqua]

I present this only to bring Reagan back to what he was, a very good President.  He was not God, or even Midas.  His economic policies did have some shortcomings, his accomplishments often get overstated, and some of the middle-class are still suffering from policies put in place during his administration.  

Again, he was a very good President, but:

Reagan's tax policies were accused of pushing both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. Debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990), so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, critics argue that the doubling of revenue is significantly smaller when looking at real inflation-adjusted figures ($1,077.4 billion in 1981 to $1,235.6 billion in 1988, measured in FY2000-dollars).Furthermore, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.

A recession occurred in 1982, his second year in office. This was central to Volcker's campaign against inflation: applying either the Phillips Curve or the NAIRU theory, high unemployment (more than 10 % of the labor force in both 1982 and 1983) undercuts inflation. Reagan benefited from the fact that Volcker relented (shifting to more expansionary monetary policy) after inflation had largely been beaten. Further, the sudden fall in oil prices around 1986 helped the economy attain demand growth without inflation in the late 1980s.

The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, which is in the middle of the pack of twentieth-century Presidents.  Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983-1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%) and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined during the Reagan Presidency.  What makes this comparison so significant is that between 1971 and 1980 the economy suffered a severe recession in 1975 whereas during the Reagan recovery there was no such interruption.

Another recent critique of Reagan's policies stem from Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The tax reform was ostensibly to reduce or eliminate tax deductions. This legislation expanded the AMT from a law for untaxed rich investors to one refocused on middle class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax states. This parallel tax system hits middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their deductions and effectively raising their taxes. Meanwhile, the highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) are proportionately less affected thereby shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5%. In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code. As of 2007, the AMT brought in more tax revenue than the regular tax which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.

[Teresa]

OOOO....please, please, can I hold the knife.....I WANNA HOLD THE KNIFE

NO!! I said it first!!

I'll let you lead them... But..... I get to hold the knife.. !

You can watch...