Why has no one mentioned The October Surprise?
My point is not that you were completely wrong but that you were rather imprecise in a way that made it sound as if the budget deficit was falling rapidly as Reagan left office. In fact, most of the drop occurred between 1986 and 1987…and we are still unsure what exactly that was due to…but the fact that it occurred mainly over a period of 1 year and was accompanied by large increases in certain types of tax revenues is suggestive of a lot of it being due to policy changes, obviously helped somewhat by the fact that we were in a good part of the economic expansion cycle. “At the end of his second term,” the deficit as a percent of GDP was not falling rapidly but sitting steady at ~3% of GDP…and this was at the end of a boom cycle. It quickly rose back up to 3.9% in 1990 and up to 4.7% by 1992 before starting to decline.
Let me annotate this portion of the number you listed. You know, try to make it easy for you.
1980: 2.7%
1981: 2.6%
1982: 4.0%
1983: 6.0%
1984: 4.8%
1985: 5.1%
1986: 5.0% Lower
1987: 3.2% Even lower
1988: 3.1% Yet again, lower
Now, you may notice how those last three numbers, each lower than the one before (no, not the number on the right, that is the ‘year’), corresponds with Reagans last years in office.
Brutus, did you even read the words that I posted?!?! Clearly not since you are arguing points that I didn’t dispute. What Sam said was “But by the end of his second term, the deficit was falling rapidly as a percentage of GDP as the U.S. grew out of its debt problem.” I pointed out, “A rapid drop occurred between 1986 and 1987 and then it pretty much flattened out, dropping only slowly through 1989 and then rising back up once Bush I got into office.” I then discussed why it might have dropped rapidly between 1986 and 1987, although I couldn’t make a conclusive determination. I also noted that even the low water mark for the deficit in 1989 at the end of the boom cycle was higher than it had been in any year under Carter, let alone the best year under Carter…And, that it increased quite a bit again under Bush I once the economic boom disappeared.
So, quit trying to score partisan points by not reading what I post and then posting garbage that does not address what I said. This sort of B.S. is really what has lowered the level of debate here in GD that Sam complains about in his pit thread. Thanks for providing such a good demonstration of this.
In particular, I noted that the fact that there was such a sharp growth in certain tax revenues over one year with slower growth on either side suggested it might be due largely to tax policy changes…read tax increases, just the sort of thing that conservatives hate to admit occurred during much of the Reagan Administration (and I gave you a cite from one conservative commentator who did admit this)…and would certainly hate to admit helped lower the deficit.
I hope that summary helps to make it easy on you. If not, I suggest practicing every day on your reading comprehension and I’m sure you’ll make improvements eventually.
By the way, here is a link to an interesting analysis discussing some aspects of economic performance under Reagan.
[Note that the GDP numbers there are a little bit different than mine for 1977-1979 quoted in a previous post. I got mine by taking the GDP from the Federal Budget historical tables in one year and comparing it to the GDP of the previous year after factoring in the composite deflator (that accounts for inflation). The official way it is done by the Dept of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis is apparently a little different. They might do something closer to a running growth rate, rather than a back-comparison of the current year’s GDP to the previous year’s.]
I’m confident that part of his legacy will be his HUGE headline on CNN. Do they think that we won’t be able to read it? Are they going for the surprise factor?
Anyway, I’m too young to remember his Presidency, so I’m finding this - as well as the very substantive articles about his tenure and legacy - very interesting.
When Reagan took office, morale in America was dismal. Eight years later, people were feeling better about themselves and their country. This was a Big Deal.
When Reagan took office, the economy was a shambles. Eight years later, things were much better. This was a Big Deal.
When Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was a feared adversary and the cold war was raging. Eight years later, the Soviet Union was crushed and it’s death rattle was being heard around the world. This was a Big Deal.
I don’t care if he was that good or simply that lucky, he’s a hero to me. I think he’ll be recorded as one of the greatest presidents ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator
*Let’s release the Reagan Papers! You know, those reams and reams of notes, documents, transcripts that were supposed to be released a while back? For reasons only GeeDubya truly understands, they are still held from public scrutiny. *
According to another post below, the time-table on this is 12 years after a president leaves office. Does that mean that about 2012 we’ll finally get to learn who whacked Vince Foster, and why?
4 sure, maybe the greatest …
I’m glad that Reagan isn’t suffering anymore, something I hope we’d all be able to agree on. I’m sure he’ll be in the thoughts of everyone at my church tomorrow.
Even as a Democrat, we all have to recognize that Reagan was incredibly important. I wish the man in office today had half his class or character.
Having studied the issue in depth during my time in college, I agree that President Reagan had very little to do with the fundamental reasons behind the collapse of the Soviet Union, but his time in office certainly hastened by a few years that inevitability.
However, Reagan did something far more important than his role in the Cold War. He rid America of the ghosts of Watergate with his wit and charm and basic decency.
I was a kid when the Challenger exploded, and his handling of that situation was dignified and hopeful, and helped keep our space program moving. Bush’s response to the loss of Columbia doesn’t even compare. I disagree with his tax cuts and particularly his Star Wars plan. But he deserves credit for shaking the malaise out of the military after the loss of the Vietnam War.
And his courage in bringing the public into the very personal crisis of Alzheimer, and providing a familiar face for a disease too often hushed over and avoided is an act that deserves heaps of praise.
In the end, Ronald Reagan didn’t remember the world, but the world will never forget him. I may not agree with his politics, or the surreal claims of his accomplishments made by many of his supporters, but he was a good man who did many good things.
John Carter of Mars:
Dunno where you were, but I not only didn’t feel better, I felt pretty decidedly worse. 'Course, it could just be a matter of perspective, which would negate that whole Big Deal thingie.
See above
No, it wasn’t. No, it wasn’t. No, it wasn’t. No, it wasn’t. And finally, no, it wasn’t.
Tell ya what. Since I obviously disagree with you on this (you did pick up on that, didn’t you?) and since we’re still a fortnight or so away from history being written, if you wind up being right, I’ll stand you to any beverage of your choice. Of course, I will expect reciprocity if I’m right. And I’m no cheap date, so you need to start saving now.
And really, now! Vince Foster? You mean that you still believe he was murdered? That is so 1995.
Waste
Even if you grant that Reagan had something to do with the collapse against the Soviet Union, he certainly wasn’t the only one, nor the main one.
I think to say otherwise does a great disservice to the Russian people themselves, Gorbachev and John Paul II.
Crown Royal with just a dash of Coke is what you’ll be buying for me. Wanna’ make it doubles?
That’s why Gorbachev sent President Reagan a piece of the Berlin Wall which is placed near where he will be buried. :smack:
I don’t think Gorby would’ve send a piece of the wall to himself. Perhaps you should re-read the sentences you quoted?
The Berlin Wall has been placed in California?
Far out!
Reagan single handly defetead the U.S.S.R. The battle for Granada will be studied by future soliders as a lesson of how can great leadership, and no gays in the army can, overcame terrible odds… Give me a fucking break.
SDI was a sham. Remember when junior tried to sell SDI II?, with today technology the system could only handle a couple of bombs, never the hundreds that the Soviet could have deployed. I seriously doubt that someone took it seriously back then. I could be wrong?
In Great debates there is a thread open “God Bless Ronald W. Reagan”, all I can say is that he surely needs the blessing not only from Jehova but also from Shiva, Zeus and Ra, otherwise he is screwed.
My guess is that tax revenue primarily increased due to increased prosperity within the country. Your tax increase cite says nothing about increasing federal income tax rates which is is the primary regressive tax for the economy, but I suspect that these “tax increases” could be better described as “user fee increases”.
Nope, just a piece of it. Read slowly next time.
Re-read the sentence you quoted. :wally