freeman2 wrote:The problem as I see it with trying to prove that by lowering taxes Reagan recouped a substantial amount back in increased revenues is that Reagan substantially increased spending at the same time. Thus, it is impossible to know as to what extent the tax cuts resulted in increased revenues because the increase in tax revenues could have come from tax cuts, or higher spending, or some combination of tax cuts and higher spending, or some combination of tax cuts and higher and other factors unrelated to what the government is doing, or from other factors unrelated to what the government is doing. You have an impossible causation hurdle there, RJ.

I think that's fair. However, this digression started a few pages ago when Ricky (and you to a lesser extent) claimed that Reagan's tax cuts are responsible for today's deficits. I don't think you have proven that at all.

ray

However, this digression started a few pages ago when Ricky (and you to a lesser extent) claimed that Reagan's tax cuts are responsible for today's deficits

Not what I claimed.
I claimed that since Reagan had paid no political price for abandoning conservative fiscal policy he set the stage for the political climate that continued to allow deficits and debt accumulation for the next 20 years.
That might be a subtle difference,to you but it isn't.
With conservatives suddenly embracing fiscal irresponsibility, and justifying it with "voo doo" economics and dubious quackery like "lower taxes also pay for themselves", you set the stage for the rise of the unbalanced Tea Party and Grover Norquist. People who are inflexible ideologues, who apply simplistic notions to a complex problems....
In effect, because Ron got away with fiscal imprudence he destroyed the rational Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. Add to this his appropriation of the social conservative, fundamental Christians, (without really giving them anything) and the republican Party was set to become the extreme organization it is today ....so very different from what Ron inherited.

rickyp wrote:ray

However, this digression started a few pages ago when Ricky (and you to a lesser extent) claimed that Reagan's tax cuts are responsible for today's deficits

Not what I claimed.
I claimed that since Reagan had paid no political price for abandoning conservative fiscal policy he set the stage for the political climate that continued to allow deficits and debt accumulation for the next 20 years.
That might be a subtle difference,to you but it isn't.

Up to there I think that's fair My point is that on a standalone basis Reagan's income tax cuts (and more precisely and importantly his lowering of the marginal income tax rate) did work, or at the very least you have not shown evidence that they did not. The budget deficits that followed are more likley the result of increased spending.

I don't see the point of blaming Reagan for events that transpired more than 12 years after he left office. Taxes went up from 1989 to 2000. Bush II (and Obama) are grown ups who make their own (fiscally irresponsible) decisions.

That brings an interesting question. How long can one blame his/her predecessor for an economy?

8 years if Republicans win the next presidential election. 12 years if the Democrats win again.

Ohhhh, it is back to the my party is good, yours is bad. I forgot.

Ray

I don't see the point of blaming Reagan for events that transpired more than 12 years after he left office. Taxes went up from 1989 to 2000. Bush II (and Obama) are grown ups who make their own (fiscally irresponsible) decisions.

Societies evolve. and change. Especially democracies.
But in order for changes to take place, voters perceptions and values need to change. They need to accept the change.
Prior to Ron, at least since 45, the greatest generation had committed itself to paying off the accumulated debt from WWII. A politician who, whist in office, didn't deliver a fiscally responsible budget wouldn't have lasted.
Ron, through his acceptance of, or use of, voo doo economic theories ...set the path.
Whats past is prologue. Without Ron Reagan there would not be the irrational extreme right with their bizarre notions regarding the economy or government finance.
Blame him? If you think the Tea Party and Grover Norquist are a disastrous influence, then yes, he is to blame for their prominence.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

RickyP's bias by selecting Reagan and not anyone else makes little sense. Where were the debts paid off? There are a few years of surplus out of the 60 or so. Doesn't look like much effort to me.

(and no, it does not make sense to me)

Well, I think it is a bit overstated--Reagan is only responsible for what he did. Any president had the free will to enact different policies. What can be said is that Reagan's policies were not cost-free, that in order to get the country out of recession he engaged in a significant amount of deficit spending. Our deficit not being at the level then that it is now, we were better able to absorb that spending.
But the praise for Reagan's handling of the economy is somewhat misplaced, too. Compare what Reagan faced with what Obama faced. Almost everyone agrees that Obama faced a worse economic situation than Reagan did, yet Reagan had the freedom to use deficit spending a lot more to get the economy out of the doldrums than Obama was allowed to do. Reagan had huge tax cuts and huge spending increases, whereas Obama (even if you hold him responsible for the 2008-2009 fiscal year) did not increase spending like Reagans did and he did not have tax cuts. Yet Obama gets criticized. Let's see--Reagan had a stronger economy to start with and he had the luxury to stimulate the economy a lot more through tax cuts and spending than economy--wouldn't you expect that that he would do better than Obama, given those facts?
In fact, Republicans would have liked Obama to cut spending even more, which would have our economy into free-fall
So I don't really criticize Reagan, it was Bush II that created this mess, and I think that all things considered Obama has done reasonably well with both the economy and keeping the deficit from going out of control.
The point is you can't favorably compare Reagan to Obama, because Obama was not allowed to do what Reagan was allowed to do
The problem was not what Reagan did, which could be justified in isolation, but the lessons Republicans learned from his policies. First, after Bush I, no Republican could ever raise taxes. In fact taxes have to be reduced in every Administration. Secondly, military spending has to be raised. It is one thing for Reagan to do what he did with a weak economy and military threat in Russia--it is quite another thing for Bush II to do what he did with a much lesser military threat and a mild recession.

bbauska wrote:http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

RickyP's bias by selecting Reagan and not anyone else makes little sense. Where were the debts paid off? There are a few years of surplus out of the 60 or so. Doesn't look like much effort to me.

(and no, it does not make sense to me)

To be fair, much of the reduction in debt before 1975 is in real terms - it was inflated away over the decades. There were deficits, but they were generally lower and rarely increased overall debt enough to keep pace with inflation and economic growth.

Also, part of the revenue chain is the payment of interest on the debts, so that doesn't accrue until you consider it in the context of all of the budget.

A 1945 dollar is worth a completely different amount to a 2013 one.

You can take solace in the thought that the deficits pre-1975 are less inflated.

The fact that deficits have been a way of government for a long time. A 1945 GDP is different from a 2013 one as well. The commonality is the deficit, and the deficits for 10 years coming (according to the CBO)

I agree that both sides brought this about. Would be nice if others can see that both sides are the problem, and not just focus in biased views...

It is a false equivalency when Republicans try to say that Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the deficit. It's 80/20 the fault of Republicans.

I agree that the spending has gotten worse as time is going on. The issue I have is both sides ARE doing it. If the Rs have spent 80/20, then I hold them responsible for 80%

I also hold Obama responsible for equal debt as all the other presidents since 1945. Do you?

freeman2 wrote:It is a false equivalency when Republicans try to say that Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the deficit. It's 80/20 the fault of Republicans.

Sounds like progress to me.

What's the objective evidence that the 2008 financial crisis was worse than the late 70's? I've lived through both and the latter seemed worse to me. I can see arguments each way, but I don't see how you can say that hands down 2008 was worse.