Reaganomics is a failure

I worked in the tax field for 20 years and know the business far better than you do.

 

That is one of the most racist posts I've ever read in my life. And it's all A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=393034&p=1064673962#post1064673962

 

The rich only spend a portion of there money. The 1% save 40-50% of their income, and spend about half.

The middle classes spend a far larger proportion of their income, 95-100%.

So when you take roughly $1.5T dollars every year and distribute it to the richest instead of the middle classes, which is what we have effectively done since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, you end up with over half a trillion less spending in the economy.

And the economy struggles as a result. Exactly what we have seen. Not helped at all by Republican austerity.

- - - Updated - - -

It was 16, I showed you the proof.

- - - Updated - - -

That is correct. We had a strong middle class when Reagan took office.

Plus under Reagan we had a huge government stimulus, unlike the austerity we've had in this recovery.

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

That 1.4 million difference in government jobs makes a difference with more people with money to spend.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn funny that Clinton passed a huge tax increase that conservatives claimed would wreck the economy and destroy jobs. I've never heard conservatives claim that a huge tax increase is "Reaganomics" but maybe its a new thing.

- - - Updated - - -

It was about that high under Reagan too.

- - - Updated - - -

And the strongest part of the boom were the years after Clinton raised taxes. What did they say about that?

 

The debt was caused by that huge spending increase, but also by tax cuts.

If Reagan wanted to embark on a massive spending party, he should not have cut taxes so much. He started the ball rolling on the massive increase in debt over the past 30 years, excepting the years at the end of the Clinton administration. Bush, adopting Reagan's policies, accelerated it again and the GR of course increased it even more.

 

False. Reagan's policies came with a recession in 1990, and Clinton had a stronger economy after his tax increase.

The Clinton economy resulted in much stronger median income growth.

Flat out false. Revenues didn't increase by even half that amount. And a big chunk of the increase was from inflation, and another big chunk was from Reagan's numerous tax increases.

Baseless speculation. Prove it.

Right. It wasn't "trickle down" policies that start the massive redistribution of income and wealth from the middle to upper classes starting in 1981.



It was that the bottom 90% just decided to stop "achieving" and working hard and smart at that exact same time, by a massive coincidence.

1% apologists make sense. If you ignore reality.

What "truth"?

FACTS.

Funny, most people associate the word "facts" as meaning something that is true.

- - - Updated - - -

The one with stimulus. Not the one with austerity.

stimulus:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=393034&page=6&p=1064685763#post1064685763

 

Keep digging kid.

 

Good job refuting the "facts" kid. Just what we've come to expect from you.

 

It's been done so many times before, regular posters already know it's bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Sure thing.