Peter1469
05-06-2016, 07:10 PM
A tale of two recoveries: Reagan v Obama (http://www.investors.com/politics/viewpoint/veronique-de-rugy-tale-of-two-recoveries-reagan-vs-obama/)
Reagan's recession lasted 16 months and the US enjoyed the largest peace-time expansion in US history.
Obama's recession has never truly lifted. The economy has been flaccid for his entire presidency.
In an interview about his legacy recently published by The New York Times, President Barack Obama took a shot at the Reagan revolution to make the case that contrary to conservative dogma, tax cuts and other free market policies — such as cutting spending — weren’t good at jump-starting the economy. The implication seems to be that his preference for big-government policies produced superior results.
Now, not everything about the Reagan revolution was as free market as we think. For instance, Reagan wasn’t as big of a spender as George W. Bush, but he still presided over large spending increases during his two terms in office — 23% in real terms (though the federal government shrank slightly as a share of gross domestic product). A lot of the growth came from defense spending increases. Contrary to what some conservatives believe, defense spending is still spending, and not every dime spent by the Department of Defense is productive. Reagan also expanded Social Security taxes and failed to deliver on much of his promise to devolve powers to the states.
Yet he did deliver on major tax reforms. Not every economist agrees about the impact the Reagan tax cuts had on economic growth during the 1980s, but they do agree that the long-term impact of making large changes to the tax system can be incredibly productive. Regarding the changes to the tax system during the Reagan years, economist Michael J. Mandel wrote in 2004 for Bloomberg, “Making changes to the tax system and regulatory policies of a mammoth economy like the U.S. is like turning the rudder slightly on a supertanker: The initial effects are small, but it leads to a big shift in course over time.”
We also know that lower tax rates today would change the incentives for younger people to invest in educational and career choices that would increase the odds of their becoming the rich people of tomorrow. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott showed that lower taxes incentivize people to work longer hours over time and retire later. It means that the Reagan tax cuts led to higher long-term economic growth and tax revenue. And it’s worth noting that rich people actually paid more after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.
Read more at the link.
Reagan's recession lasted 16 months and the US enjoyed the largest peace-time expansion in US history.
Obama's recession has never truly lifted. The economy has been flaccid for his entire presidency.
In an interview about his legacy recently published by The New York Times, President Barack Obama took a shot at the Reagan revolution to make the case that contrary to conservative dogma, tax cuts and other free market policies — such as cutting spending — weren’t good at jump-starting the economy. The implication seems to be that his preference for big-government policies produced superior results.
Now, not everything about the Reagan revolution was as free market as we think. For instance, Reagan wasn’t as big of a spender as George W. Bush, but he still presided over large spending increases during his two terms in office — 23% in real terms (though the federal government shrank slightly as a share of gross domestic product). A lot of the growth came from defense spending increases. Contrary to what some conservatives believe, defense spending is still spending, and not every dime spent by the Department of Defense is productive. Reagan also expanded Social Security taxes and failed to deliver on much of his promise to devolve powers to the states.
Yet he did deliver on major tax reforms. Not every economist agrees about the impact the Reagan tax cuts had on economic growth during the 1980s, but they do agree that the long-term impact of making large changes to the tax system can be incredibly productive. Regarding the changes to the tax system during the Reagan years, economist Michael J. Mandel wrote in 2004 for Bloomberg, “Making changes to the tax system and regulatory policies of a mammoth economy like the U.S. is like turning the rudder slightly on a supertanker: The initial effects are small, but it leads to a big shift in course over time.”
We also know that lower tax rates today would change the incentives for younger people to invest in educational and career choices that would increase the odds of their becoming the rich people of tomorrow. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott showed that lower taxes incentivize people to work longer hours over time and retire later. It means that the Reagan tax cuts led to higher long-term economic growth and tax revenue. And it’s worth noting that rich people actually paid more after Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.
Read more at the link.