Hattrick

Hehehe. Actually having lived in the Reagan years my memory is correct and the facts substantiate that Reagan reversed what were miserable times, as they are now again, in the United States with high taxes and government spending;

"When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse."

"The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently."

"Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."

"These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months." <----Democrats at work again

"Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan?s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%."

"Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan?s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That?s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%."

"Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%."

forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

Arguing that his tax cuts caused the problems of today is simple ludicrous. It was his increase in government spending driven by a Democratic congress and subsequent spending increases by both parties that have us where we are at. Neither party has taken the courage to revamp entitlement programs; which combined have unfunded liabilities that exceed the nation's entire private wealth.

Under Reagan government spending as a percentage of GDP actually increased;

"In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

What does this really teach us? That when you cut taxes and increase the risk reward for investments, jobs are created and together with enough economic growth, disposable income also grows and standard of living increases. Yet when government spends more money than tax receipts allow for, deficits are created which lower the value of the dollar and increase costs of commodities; such as food and gas, leading to less disposable income and lower quality of life.

The problem is not lower taxes. The problem is government spending most of which stems from the social entitlement programs Americans now value over individual prosperity. It is a sad comment that Americans would rather opt-for what are really very measly social programs and massive government regulation than living their life with ample economic opportunity that can be realized with individual effort and a sense of self-responsibility over government nurturing.