"Now that he is safely dead, let us praise him." poet Carl Wendell Hines wrote of Martin Luther King Jr, after his assassination. Ronald Reagan has been "safely dead" for just under seven years, but the economic impact of his policies remain with us.
In a sense, it's highly appropriate that the centennial of Reagan's birth falls upon us in the midst of a economic nightmare from which it is uncertain when — or if — the nation will awaken. Though we will be inevitably awash in conservative praise and hagiography of Reagan, his 100th birthday is also an occasion to remember how America's long economic nightmare began.
It's a story told many times, but it bears telling again, and again, as David Johnson did last year as he explained how the "Reagan Revolution" came home to roost. He even told it in charts.
As Dave said in his post. take a look at a chart of almost anything, and you'll notice that right around 1981, things take a sharp turn in the wrong direction — that is, for just about everyone but the wealthiest 1%.
Conservative policies transformed the United States from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years.
And it started with Reagan. Anyone who's wringing their hands about America's debt and China's ownership of it has Reagan to thank, as Reagan's former budget director David Stockman recently explained to David Corn.
GO HERE to read more.
Reagan didn't do this.
ReplyDeleteThe Congress did it.
Over many years, and with an increasingly NON-conservative mindset (in BOTH parties.)
This is just another socialist propaganda piece.
Agreed - also what many don't understand. The financial impacts of legislation don't take place the moment a president takes office, it may take years to realize the beneifits of particular policies. Just like the housing crisis, starting with Carter's CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) took years for the bubble to burst with several liberal and conservative legislatures adding to the problem.
ReplyDeleteJust like the benefit of the major tax reductions in teh Reagan administration led to the cash surpluses and business booms that took place at teh end of his presidency and well into Clinton's terms.
If you follow the theme that what a president does leaves its mark after one leaves office....well then....look at where we are NOW.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and good point. This was not an argument for Bush at all. Under his watch (and that of Clinton's) the legislature created plenty of laws and mandates that made the situation worse. Keep in mind the so-called bush tax cuts are what Obama is now praising as a step that 'his admiinistration' has taken to provide relief to the economy.
ReplyDelete"Just like the benefit of the major tax reductions in teh Reagan administration."
ReplyDeleteKDickson - You mean, except for the fact the he INCREASED taxes every year after 1982, right? Right?
From a strict cash perspective - yes. While it is true that Reagan slashed then added taxes most of those 'increases' (beside the social security increase primarily) were the elimination of loopholes and they were admittedly done to create revenue. They were in various forms. However, the marginal rate along with the bracket adjustments for inflation severely reduced the tax burden for many tax payers.
ReplyDeleteOverall the increases never came close to equaling the 70%-28% rate change ushered in over this presidency. Even liberal interpretations I've read estimate at 60-70%, I'd call it half or less than that. Did he run up a deficit, yes. Did income rise, yes. Did spending in almost all aspects of the economy increase, yes. In the long run, we are much better off.
All done with a Democratically held congress. Did I mention that I'm not defencing, but certainly pointing out that these burdens we all face come from all sides of the aisle.