SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RMF who wrote (43271)5/18/2010 11:04:49 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
I wouldn't say Reaganomics really got us in to this mess. To the extent that we are in a mess (or multiple messes) there are a lot of different sources. To the extent spending under Republican presidents is a problem Bush II spent the most and increased spending the most, not Reagan. If we still had 70% marginal rates (in other words if we didn't have Reaganomics) the mess might be different but would probably be worse. The spending probably would have increased at least as much (unless perhaps the reason why we didn't get tax cuts was that Reagan used his political capital to enact serious entitlement reform, but there is a good chance he would have failed in the effort, in fact absent the tax cuts he may have had less political capital to use), while the economy to support the spending would be smaller.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News