Hey reps! Reaganomics did not work for the reason you think they did!

Hello everyone! There seems to be a LOT of arguing on ATS when it comes to who should be the next president, and why. There's arguments of different economic systems, taxation, arguments of what will work and should work and could work. I am here to make an argument that supports the "trickle down" effect, and also "Reaganomics", but also supports the opposite side of things.

You see, I don't think Reaganomics was successful for one simple reason. I don't think it's the superior way to do things, I don't think it trumps every argument the left has. In fact, the way the left are leaning right now, I think the circumstances in which Reaganomics were implemented supports the democrats these days. I used to be more right-leaning on economics - I saw the 90's and realized how great our economy was under a republican congress, and how great our economy became after Reagan changed things up... However, I don't believe that anything is meant to last more than it's season.

You see, Reaganomics was very successful because it was a CHANGE. It was an adaptation, it was a look at the circumstances and presidents were smart enough to change. Taxation was close to 90% for some time within the previous decades, and getting closer to Reagan, went lower and lower. This caused a shift in the market, this changed things up. Businesses got ahead, the economy flourished.

Our ability to purchase goods and services has significantly changed over the years, our dollar simply does not go as far. Corporations and individuals are hoarding masses of money, taking money to off-shore accounts, evading taxes, taking their entire business overseas when they feel picked on... and the economy is simply drooping, we are no where near our best years no matter how much the obama fans tell you we are. For those that say we need to give these people more money, for those that say we need to let them do whatever corrupt things they want...... I really cannot relate to your way of thinking. Thinking "Reaganomics" and free market capitalism is the only way to live life because it worked during a specific time period of change is extreme ignorance. The corporations have manipulated the process, seeing that instead of trickling down, they can simply hoard everything on top.

My argument is that changing and adapting creates the best economies.

Previously businesses were charged far too much taxes and as a result, the economy was not at it's peak. Presidents changed this, and over the years our economy became nearly the best it's ever been, even up until the Clinton era, we had a much better economy than now.

Right now, there's a huge amount of power, money, and corruption at the top. Something needs to be done to shift this power to the people once again. Look up REAL numbers like a consumer price index to get a real look at the power ( or lack of power ) the middle class has these days. Look at the growth within the economy, the numbers.. They are support the top rich people far more than they do the average person. History does NOT prove we need to emulate Reagan to make our economy better, it DOES prove we need to adapt, change, shift the power in the correct direction - This is what happened back then to make us great, and this is what needs to happen to make us have a greater future.

Anyways. Let me know what you all think.

Thanks.

-Deadlyhope

PS. Don't give me any of that socialistic utopia crap, I'm not insisting on any system nor being hopeful of anything that the right may think I am. I do not support 90% taxes, I do not support government ownership of businesses or land, I do not believe in equal wages for all.

Every presidential economy is effected by circumstances outside their control. The dot Com bubble bursting, the housing crash, ww2.
It has become cliche to blame the previous administration for current problems all while not accepting any responsibility for failing to adapt to the circumstances at hand.
Not everything is a president's fault but much of it damn well is a president's fault. They always promise to fix everything.

a reply to: deadlyhope

The 90s fiscal success were aided by two major things--a President who (sometimes unwillingly) worked with a Republican-controlled Congress, and the boom of "dot coms" what exploded with the introduction of the internet into private homes in the early- to mid-90s.

We don't have anything like that right now, and really haven't since the dot-com bust. And as a result, those mega-companies that are dot-coms (Amazon in '94, Google in '95, etc.) are now in massive control of the markets and have massive amounts of power, because they were the survivors.

Plus, we didn't have a ton of government interference during that time in the dot-coms, so those who were going to fail did fail, and those that had appropriate business models succeeded. We COULD be having a dot-com sort of explosion with things like alternative energy and other things, but the gov't has decided that they "need" to subsidize these markets to force growth, resulting in the exact opposite result. This model of govt-interference to force a product starts out business sectors with a few mega-corps instead of many small start-ups that will succeed if they offer something relevant to the needs of the economy and people.

My opinion is that it is the shift in amount of subsidization in which the government is entangled is the reason that our economy is so stagnant and decrepit.

Plus, "Ren & Stimpy" isn't on TV anymore, so people are more depressed and have a bleaker outlook on their own lives

reagan was an unmitigated disaster, he ran the biggest debt since world war two, eclipsed by W but that's a different story, bailed out the savings and loans, which caused a huge housing bubble and, one of the unfairest taxing periods in global history.
giving the rich tax breaks, popular by republicans and conservatives it should, in theory allow the rich to make more and make more jobs for the poor, who themselves should aspire to be rich but, due to being taxed at the same rate as the rich can't.
so with the broken finances, iran contra and other tomfoolery, he would be remembered as a disaster?

nope, the republicans built a cult of personality around teflon ron, using pesky communists as the fault for all.

did you know: reagan claimed to have liberated a nazi concentration camp?
he did in a film he recorded while the war was ongoing.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah, everything was just right during that time for a booming economy. There will always be boom and bust periods.

Unfortunately, I think things are just right for an economic implosion though now.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

But what many forget (or didn't even know), Reagan had a Democrat House majority all 8 years.

He is the only president to have that "honor".

So who exactly are the responsible people?

United States Presidents and control of Congress

a reply to: Edumakated

Maybe, but I think that IS directed and controlled by current-administration policies.

Again, I think Obama has screwed up the natural cycle for the worse.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
reagan was an unmitigated disaster, he ran the biggest debt since world war two, eclipsed by W but that's a different story, bailed out the savings and loans, which caused a huge housing bubble and, one of the unfairest taxing periods in global history.
giving the rich tax breaks, popular by republicans and conservatives it should, in theory allow the rich to make more and make more jobs for the poor, who themselves should aspire to be rich but, due to being taxed at the same rate as the rich can't.
so with the broken finances, iran contra and other tomfoolery, he would be remembered as a disaster?

nope, the republicans built a cult of personality around teflon ron, using pesky communists as the fault for all.

did you know: reagan claimed to have liberated a nazi concentration camp?
he did in a film he recorded while the war was ongoing.

Yeah because Jimmy was making everything great...

a reply to: Edumakated

It's inevitable. The more you have a government minded to "help;" the more it actually ends up hurting. There are more stock market crashes than just the Great Depression, but that's the one you hear about because that's the one where the entire world was flirting with government interventionalism in the form of fascism and communism on a grand scale ... even FDR and the US. As a result, it took an entire decade for any country NOT engaged in military build-up to recover.

Reaganomics would work very well in the US if global free trade was abandoned and national protectionism reinstated. Tax the hell out of imports and the domestic production sector will absolutely return.

The destroyer of America's economy is bi-partisan. It's mathematically impossible to have global free trade plus strong environmental and labor laws plus minimum wage and union contracts. One of those MUST go or America will never recover and our economy will bleed out until it is dry.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Agreed. I am actually for taxing the hell out of imports. We can sustain within our own country, no reason we shouldn't.

So you admit they worked?