the Great Ronald Reagan presidentcy

[lucky wilbury]

Inflation declined 48%, from 8.9 to 4.6%.

Unemployment declined 45%, from 7.5 to 5.2.%.

Interest rates declined 71.9%, from 21 to 5.9%.

Twenty-one million new jobs were created.

ended the cold war

http://www.enterstageright.com/arch.../0800record.htm

Unfortunately, like so much of the Clinton-Gore legacy, it just ain't so. Ronald Reagan presided over what was at the time the longest continuous peacetime economic expansion, during which GDP increased by the size of West Germany, real per capita incomes grew by one-fifth, the rate of manufacturing productivity growth tripled, exports doubled, unemployment and inflation were halved, and Americans enjoyed 21 million net new jobs and 4.5 million new businesses. The record Clinton and Gore today vilify sounds very much like the one they are trying to run on, except Reagan's numbers are all the more impressive because of the Carter malaise he had to build on and the smaller national population.

Indeed, between 1983 and 1989 the economy grew by 4 percent annually. It grew by 2.6 percent annually during most of Clinton's term. In order for this period of growth to be the longest economic expansion in history, Clinton and Gore must concede that it began 21 months before they took office, under the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Otherwise, Reagan's record for the longest peacetime expansion still stands.

[lucky wilbury]

go on deny facts

[FORD]

Receipts during the Reagan years increased by $310 billion and by $870.8 billion under Mr. Clinton. This chart show a sharp and steady increase in revenue under Mr. Clinton which may have helped him return us to fiscal responsibility.

Two conservative myths bite the dust in this category. First, tax increases do NOT decrease revenue and tax cuts do not increase revenue more than tax increases. Conservatives also argue Mr. Reagan doubled revenue. This is NOT correct.

In 1993 President Clinton signed into law his economic plan which called for $250 billion in tax increases and $250 billion in spending cuts. Every republican in both Houses of Congress voted against the legislation. However, after republicans took control of congress in 1995 they didn't repeal the tax increases. This fact alone suggest very strongly that their first vote was pure politics and they really didn't want to balance the budget. That vote along with the tax cuts they passed under Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush suggest very strongly they use the government purse to buy power.

[FORD]

As a percent of the economy receipts grew under Mr. Clinton and shrank under Mr. Reagan. When one considers Mr. Reagan promised a balanced budget in four years, but instead gave us the largest deficits in US history (until Mr. Bush) not only was it a broken promise, but these charts and those that follow disassemble many if not all of what conservatives say they stand for.

Conservatives, like Reagan did not believe in a balanced budget. The deficits created under Mr. Reagan are nothing more than future taxes plus interest. A reasoned individual would never give the present generation tax cuts while saddling the next with massive tax increases. But, this is exactly what Mr. Reagan and his conservative allies in Congress did.

It's important to understand that higher receipts gave us the massive surpluses, not less spending. Also, more growth in the economy didn't give us higher receipts since both presidents gave us about the same amount of growth. Two more conservative theories bite the dust.

[FORD]

Spending during both presidencies was about the same. Mr. Reagan increased spending by $386.3 billion while Mr. Clinton increased spending by $379.3 billion. However, Mr. Clinton was forced to spend far more money to finance the debt than Mr. Reagan. When Mr. Reagan began his term we were spending only $112 billion a year to finance the debt. In 2000, Mr. Clinton had to spend $225 billion. See Interest on the Debt. On the other hand, Mr. Reagan had the luxury of spending on whatever programs he wanted (since the deficits didn't really matter to him), including the biggest pork program in the government...the US military.

[FORD]

The striking difference between the two presidents can be seen here. Mr. Reagan began his presidency on a spending spree, increasing spending as a percent of the economy every year through 1985 (the year after his reelection). For the rest of his term spending declined. It should be noted Iran/Contra broke in late 1986 and the republicans lost control of the Senate in the same year.

So a republican president and congress gave us massive spending and our highest deficits for six years, but spending was dramatically cut after the democrats regained control of the Senate in 1987.

Spending under Mr. Clinton declined every year.

[lucky wilbury]

and ford guess who was in control of the house and senate in the 80's and who was in control of it in the 90's? thats right the dems in the 80's and the repubs in the 90's. who put in all the reforms to bring down the deficts? republicans. it's ironic the country had a deficit budget for the first time in 2002 which was the first time in 10 years that the dems controlled the senate and it was the first budget they passed in 8 years

[lucky wilbury]

to bad facts still don't support you

[FORD]

No matter how we cut it, the rise in the surplus during the Clinton years was truly historic. Mr. Reagan however, was unable to trim a single penny from the deficit from where it was when he began his presidency. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year until we had record surpluses.

The falling deficits freed up needed capital for the economy to grow and the Clinton Investment Led Super Boom began. Stocks rose at historic levels and continued to do so throughout his presidency.

The surplus of $274.1 billion in 2000 was in marked contrast to the record -$290 billion deficit in 1992 and -$274.1 billion in 1993 under Mr. Clinton. Mr. Reagan increased the deficit in dollars every year except 1987 and 1988, the two years democrats controlled the Senate. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year.

[FORD]

Deficits as a percent of our economy shrank every year under Mr. Clinton and as you can see from the chart never recovered from the Reagan spending spree and tax cuts in the 1980's. Any evidence Mr. Reagan was for less government or a balanced budget can not be found in the facts. Mr. Reagan spoke of both, but delivered the opposite.

Oddly enough, Mr. Clinton was attacked by conservative republicans for his spending programs. All one has to do is review the deficits under both presidents to see which party and which president wanted more government and more taxes (deficits are future taxes plus interest).

Deficits as a percent of gdp peaked in 1985 and fell every year after under Mr. Reagan, while under Mr. Clinton deficits as a percent of the economy fell eight years in a row.

By the time republicans got around to passing the balanced budget plan in 1997 for fiscal year 1998, the deficit was almost gone. Anyone attempting to give them credit for the balanced budget is sadly mistaken. Their five-year plan calls for our first balanced budget in 2002 ( a year Mr. Bush has once again returned us to deficits). Their plan was only five years off. Our first balanced budget occurred in 1998.

[lucky wilbury]

again ford facts don't support you all your showing is the republicans turning around everything.

[FORD]

Deficits in current 1996 dollars are about the same as in the other deficit chart (two up). This chart was included to show how similar they look.

The average deficit in current dollars was -$167.34 under Mr. Reagan and -$34.6 under Mr. Clinton.

[lucky wilbury]

you can try all you like ford but fact are facts. republicans did everything uder clinton and you know it and posting the same thing over and over show your an idiot

[FORD]

As stated earlier, the cost of deficit spending during the Reagan and Bush years sucked an enormous amount of money out of the economy. Interest costs peaked in 1996 under Mr. Clinton, then fell every year afterwards. Costs never declined under Mr. Reagan.

When conservatives tell you deficits don't matter...remember this chart and the numbers. Someone has to pay more taxes to finance all the debt conservatives give us with their tax cuts. Mr. Reagan gave us more debt than all previous president combined and therefore the largest future tax increase of all previous presidents combined. Mr. Bush gave us the largest deficits in US history. Mr. Clinton returned us to fiscal responsibility (tax and spend, instead of spend and borrow) and the largest surpluses in US history.

[FORD]

Another area of extraordinary success during the Clinton years is the rise in median family income. Income rose $3,900 under Mr. Reagan and $7,418 under Mr. Clinton (in 2000 dollars). This is one time when a picture isn't worth a thousand words. The increase under Mr. Clinton were almost twice that of Mr. Reagan.