Reaganomics


  1. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    The 1980 Act allowed S&L's to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction), i.e. commercial loans, the Tax Reform Act of 1981 gave huge tax incentives for real-estate investment, thus the boom and bust with the taxpayer picking up the tab, as these riskier loan weren't segregated from FDIC insurance.

    The Glass Steagall Act was gutted way before the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act .
  2. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    To be fair to out of date, his reference to deregulation seemed to be with regard to the financial system. Cutting regulation is often to be commended, I guess carter as a medium sized business owner had first hand experiences.
  3. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

    That's a good question. Honestly I think Romney being a wall street type guy is better positioned to be able to make a change in a Nixon goes to China sort of way. But so far I don't see any daylight between him and Obama when it comes to coddling the big banks so I wouldn't bet on it.
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Well the Democrats are supporting the approval of the Volcker Rule and the Republicans are attempting roll-back Dodd-Frank, so I see some daylight between the two.
  5. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

    You say that like it is a bad thing. Dodd-Frank is a sop to big banks, enshrining and expanding the concept of Too-Big-To-Fail.
  6. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    How so ?
  7. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

  8. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  9. cjr72

    cjr72 Well-Known Member

  10. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  11. TJGoSurf

    TJGoSurf Well-Known Member

    My minor in economics is going insane right now.

    Reaganomics actually works but it takes much longer. By stimulating the supply side (companies), by either lowering the fed rate, buying of bonds, or lowering the required ratio you allow banks to have more money to loan out. But the whole 90s boom was really just awful for this country; everywhere you want it was virtually no unemployment.

    Yet unemployed people want to start their new job tomorrow but still need to reelect the same people that overturned the very acts that put us in this situation.
  12. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    So does running motor vehicles on coal.

    You can have a credit fueled boom while keeping a GINI coefficient of 25. Trickle down did little more than zero for growth while slashing future economic prospects.

    Wat
  13. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    Yep, it worked for the rich...
  14. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Yep those government surpluses and low unemployment just ruined the country, good thing the country or I mean Supreme Court put Bush in.

    Don't bogart that joint.:smokingsomb:
  15. TJGoSurf

    TJGoSurf Well-Known Member

  16. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    The wealthiest individuals in the country went from paying about 70% in taxes to approximately 28% in taxes.


    However tax rates for people in lower income taxes rose, suggesting that the little guy and poorer people were not benefiting from Reaganomics. With fewer government programs, fewer resources were available to the poor.

    Reaganomics removed safeguards from industries which increased corporate greed.

    What Was Reaganomics?
  17. TJGoSurf

    TJGoSurf Well-Known Member

    Now I understand. You have the philosophy you make more money than me so you should pay more in taxes. Quite the silly way to look at things. I looked up what tax bracket I would have been in right after the Reagan era tax cuts. Screw the poor if I have to give up half my income that I worked so hard to get. I make six figures but that was only after getting shot for five years as an infantryman, then spending the next few years in a engineering college barely getting by on my GI Bill (that I paid for to receive), and then getting sent back to the same awful countries to show them how to extract their oil. I deserve everything I get.

    You may find this hard to believe but no corporation pays income tax. Yes, you will say the corporate income tax is XX% but that doesn't matter as a corporation will merely raise their prices to make up the difference.

    With a third of the country on some form of welfare now I think cutting government programs might be the best idea. If people are no longer being taken care of they find other means to support themselves.
  18. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    Did you volunteer for the military or were you drafted? If you volunteered, then you shouldn't be complaining.

    Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits.

    By the wealthy paying more in taxes was healthy for the country as a whole. It seems to have changed during the Reagan years.

    Maybe we shouldn't cut programs but sort out the deadbeats from it.
  19. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I served in an earlier period, pay was lower, but if you survived, benefits were better. You might want to look into price elasticity and product substitution. The last President that served in the regular military was Carter.

    G.I. Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    As the funding levels increased, the numbers of veterans entering higher education rose correspondingly. In 1976, ten years after the first veterans became eligible, the highest number of Vietnam-era veterans were enrolled in colleges and universities. By the end of the program, proportionally more Vietnam-era veterans (6.8 million out of 10.3 million eligible) had used their benefits for higher education than any previous generation of veterans.[citation needed]

    Contrary to some stereotypes of Vietnam veterans, most who served in Vietnam used their benefits to construct productive and successful lives after service.[citation needed] Education benefits during the Vietnam era did not have the same impact on higher education as the original 1944 Bill because higher education had become much more commonplace in America.[citation needed] But the G.I. Bills of this period did have a similarly positive impact on the lives of the beneficiaries.[citation needed]
  20. PH8AL

    PH8AL Well-Known Member

    You really should call it Republicanomics. They've been following a pretty consistent game plan since Nixon opened China. Maximize their profits by moving their companies to the 3rd world.

    The result is most of us now have service jobs and vey few Americans make a product any more. Pay has hardly went up and Corporations are raking in Billions.

    The banks are doing their best to unreg
    ++ulatedly take what little we get.

    Our Olympic Athlete were wearing uniforms made in China.

    Reagan personally destroyed my city. It was on his watch we lost the industrial base of our country to the Chinese.

    Not to mention he personally went after hemp and was the guy behind a lot of the miss information. And now we spend Billions of $$$ every year to keep people from growing a crop with wide industrial uses. Just the Pot trade alone is a $7,000,000,000 a year industry that already exists in our country. We are getting screwed out of the Tax money from it.

    Thank you Mr. Reagan. I wish I believed in hell so I could mean it when I say I hope you rot there.
  21. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry but none of this has anything to do with Republicans or Reagan.
  22. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    I disagree. Poster is giving views of the results of Reaganomics, even if poster prefers the term "Republicanomics", which is a valid point as the Republican party claims they adhere to this alleged "philosophy".
  23. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well protectionism used to be a Republican policy, although now its their opposites who are somewhat more so,, never worked too well for anyone.

    Without foreign competition the quality of stuff in America would be crap. Your food doesnt seem to be effected though (corn lawl).
  24. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Well we just modified the practice and terminology to the new and improved import quotas.

    Monsanto is busy turning our food into genetic modified crap.

Share This Page