Talk:Reaganomics/archive

Personal Life Comments

The comments of Donald Regan do not contribute to an undestanding of Reaganomics and are not appropriate to this article.24.107.100.253 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Keynesian Interpretation" is not relevant

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate information about people, places and things - not to criticize. This section is not relevant to gaining an understanding of Reaganomics; it is only personnel opinion unsupported by any maningful data. Ttocs4591 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal - withdrawn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result, due to the merge being withdrawn, was no merge.

Hi, I have proposed that this article be merged with the recently created Domestic policy of the Reagan administration article. I created the article to encompass everything President Reagan did domestically; though it is short because I haven't had much time to write anything, this merger would greatly benefit the article and "launch it", so to speak, with the majority of its information already there. As his major domestic policy initiatives were his economic policies, and thus would be the bulk of the information on the Domestic policy page, I've had a hard time writing about them while trying not to repeat information and make it sound very similar to this article. In other words, I'm stuck. If there are two pages with very similar content, this one well written and cited, then why should we repeat the information in two seperate places? This article, and its main editors, can carry on business as it/you normally would, but the article would be more centrally located, and soon it will be much longer. I hope that you see, as I do, that this is a good idea. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking, I have withdrawn this merge because there are many other parts of the Reagan administration, as well as other economic theories and perspectives, that cannot all be merged into this article. Unless there are many votes favoring a merge, I'm going to allow it to remain here. Happyme22 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bias

Every single section is 1/3 unbiased reporting, yet the next 2/3rd of all of them is full of bias. The quotes are not portraited in a NPOV way, it seems alot like a personal arguement against Reaganomics. Lets either even up the amount of credibility on either side to represent how the issue is argued in "the real world", or lets make the bias less apparent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The criticism section needs work as well, it is ineffective since the criticisms are all over the page. Lets move them down there. Also the use of a change from Surplus to Deficit is NOT ALWAYS A BAD THING. I dont understand why deficit is always, without exception, a "bad" thing economically despite the fact that very rudimentary macroeconomics explains that lower taxes and higher deficit spending stimulate economic growth MORE THAN just tax cuts alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Edit: While I do agree that there seems to be an anti-Reagan taint on the article, it then behooves those who feel that it is overly negative to prove that it is not telling the truth on a situation. If you can come up with some referenced information, as the article does, to defend your argument, the by all means, post that information. Otherwise, please dont be upset that someone has posted President Reagan's, or anyone else's less positive aspects. 69.142.219.168 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is so biased that a dissection of every instance it occurs would be longer than the original article itself. But before even getting to the policy issues, how can a neutral discussion of facts contain anything like, "Under Ford the problems continued, but policy was more prudent." More prudent? That is unadulterated opinion. I'd say it's disguised as a factual statement but the fact is, it isn't disguised at all. Also, the historical context section contains this gem, "By the time Reagan took office, stagflation was near its end and for the remainder of his presidency the economy performed well." This is a perfect example of the subtle (or not so subtle) bias in the entry. It implies (or rather states) that stagflation was near an end (regardless of Reagan policies or any policies for that matter) and that Reagan fiscal policy had no effect on the end of stagflation. I'd argue that's a debatable conclusion. The only neutral way of addressing the issue is to introduce actual numbers with respect to inflation and unemployment rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LunchpailDefense (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that there is a significant anti-Reagan bias in the article, for the reasons pointed out by the users above and my own views. So I guess now the question is: how do we proceed in dealing with the problem? Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a fair discussion of the events of the time. If people like Reagan, that is good for them. But wikipedia is not the place to impose personal bias on factual information. More 'prudent' in any discussion of fiscal policy implies lower deficit or closer to a balanced budget. Stagflation was indeed coming to an end when Reagan took office. In fact, deficit spending with stable tax levels stimulates economic growth the most, much more than tax cuts funded by borrowing. There is no problem and it is only in the mind of those who want to change the balanced nature of wikipedia articles.(Wikiviedit (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm not going to get involved in an economic debate here, but I will say that many of the things you brought up, Wikiviedit, are still being debated. It is not POV to question the NPOV of an article, and relevant claims should not be discouraged. This is not a matter of liking President Reagan or not caring for him; it is a matter of how well the article presents one sides' argument vs. the other sides' argument. Wikiviedit, I do not support your removal of the POV tag, but I will not be the one to challenge it as I did not add it. I'll leave you with that. Happyme22 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article must reflect evidence and objective truth rather than political talking points of 'either side'. (Wikiviedit (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

It continues to be a matter of debate to what extent this was caused by Reagan's fiscal policies and to what extent it was due to other factors, such as the inflation-fighting monetary policies of the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker and a large decline in oil prices caused by the resolution of supply shocks in the Middle East. (Though it can be said that his policies of lowered regulations in the Oil business was one of the factors that reduced Oil Prices).

this lacks citation and smells of bias. also its very run-on and should probably be split up into multiple points. H64 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Under Historical Context:

"Under Ford the problems ended."

poorly worded, and not cited.

"The federal oil reserves were created to ease any future short term shocks. Carter started phasing out price controls on petroleum, but created the Department of Energy. Much of the credit for the resolution of the stagflation is given to two causes: a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, initiated in the last year of Carter's presidency,[4] and to long term easing of supply and pricing in oil during the 1980s oil glut."

cited from a commentary book. The quote above was taken out of context from a book that has no acedemic usefulness outside of an editorial.

"By the time Reagan took office, stagflation was near its end and for the remainder of his presidency the economy performed well. There was a renewed emphasis on prudent macroeconomic policy; Nixon's price controls and similar policies of government intervention had fallen out of favor, while subtler forms of monetary policy gained favor"

No source. needs to be cited, or deleted.

Under Policies:

" Economists of most affiliations favor cleaning up the tax code, since tax preferences and exceptions distort economic decisions.[citation needed]"

as stated, cited or deleted

"The question of how much of the overall trend of deregulation can be credited to Reagan remains contentious. The economists Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales point out that many of the major deregulation efforts had either taken place or begun before Reagan (note the deregulation of airlines and trucking under Carter, and the beginning of deregulatory reform in railroads, telephones, natural gas, and banking). They argue for this and other reasons that "the move toward markets preceded the leader [Reagan] who is seen as one of their saviors."[7] Economist William Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and later chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes that deregulation had the "lowest priority" of the items on the Reagan agenda[8] given that Reagan "failed to sustain the momentum for deregulation initiated in the 1970s" and that he "added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover." The apparent contradiction with Friedman's data may be resolved by seeing Niskanen as referring to statutory deregulation and Friedman to administrative deregulation."

The information gathered from a credible source has been used incorrectly, with small quotes taken from context, a citing 'no-no.' The portion is obviously biased, and belongs in an opinion blog, not in a real acedimic setting.

under "Economic Record"

"The GDP grew during Reagan's administration at an annual rate of 3.4% per year,[13] slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%.[14]"

The GDP grew at a rate of 9.4% per year, even the Real GDP (adjusted for inflation) increased 3.96% per year on average (http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/usgdp/result.php) so the article must be corrected.

"In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[21]"

These numbers are incorrect. 1981- $997,855,000,000.00 to 1989- $2,857,430,960,187.32 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

The rest of the article has similar mistakes, liable, and incorrect sourcing that I will adress later. So make any comments that need to be made, and lets fix the biased unsupported portion of this article. Popseepopsee (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)popseepopsee

Tax Cuts or Tax Hikes. What it really was?

Ok I know that Reagan was famous for his tax cuts in his early presidency, but as far as I know after his presidency taxes experienced net increase, not decrease. So basically if you ignore his early tax cuts, after his presidency Americans started to pay more taxes. Can somebody back up or debunk my knowledge with any reliable links? As for example I know he decreased capital gains tax firstly, but later he increased it to the levels before he reduced it. Thank you in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Azprint (talk • contribs)

• It's all right in the article -- see Reaganomics#Tax_receipts. Of course, this analyzes the "Americans started to pay more taxes" question from the point of view of the government's income, so it does not measure how much taxes "hurt". With that caution...

Basically, the 1981 tax cut was his only significant tax cut, and later on he would pass 4 tax hikes and 4 bills with negligible overall tax effects. The 1981 tax cut was so huge, though, that the combined effect of all of Reagan's tax bills was to lower the federal government's income. --M@rēino 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay! We are arguing over an economic issue, not whether the dallas Cowboys are better than the Dever Broncos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.233.171 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have not taken an economics course, as it is evident Reagan's actions most likely accidentally caused an increase of the worth of the dollar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.76.21 (talk • contribs)

• No need for insults, Mr. 65.186.76.21. If you can find trustworthy scholarly articles explaining how Reaganomics "accidentally" caused the dollar to appreciate, be my guest and include them in the article. But please note that the discussion topic in this subsection was tax policy, not currency exchange rates or deflation. --M@rēino 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. High interest rates caused the dollar to appreciate. There is no accident involved.(Wikiviedit (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

"It seems that you have not taken an economics course"

I'm not implying that you are one of theese people I'm about to mention.

But that is the sentiment of every economics major with an overblown sense of self-worth created by being harrased by jocks in high-school. Taking an economics course does not make one automatically win any arguments, especially in a evolving field like economics.

There are still to this day differing thoughts and ideas regarding economics. Even the mainstream schools differs to varying degrees. Neoclassical economics, monetarism, Keynesian economics, new classical economics, Austrian School and behavioral economics. Annoying username (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the most important proposition in the economics of the Reagan administration was that if you reduce tax rates, the economy would grow and tax receipts would go up. This is what happened. Tax rates were cut during Reagan's eight years and tax receipts increased. The fact that government tax receipts increased does not mean that taxes were not cut.--Paul (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is severely biased

This page is severely biased. Only positive statements in most of the article. Unbalanced and biased studies presented. The criticisms section is badly arrange and unorganized, with a major part devoted to defending reaganomics. Reading the above comments it seems that this page used to more anti than pro. Well, it's definitely been edited too far in the other direction. I'm tagging it as POV till it's brought back into balance. LK (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in particular the article is not based on serious academic studies. It has few and poor sources.--Sum (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- This entire article is poorly written and biased in favor of the topic. No academic economist could take this seriously.. The reference to the Laffer curve should be deleted, as the vast majority of applied economists dismiss the notion that a Laffer effect would ever be relevant at tax rates found in the United States. Ifarania (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And the poorly referenced content here is the same in the main Ronald Reagan article. It's a shame that such article is "featured".--Sum (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with Laffer's theories, Reagan incorporated them into his arguments in favor of lower taxes. I don't think that point is controversial.Mattnad (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

This needs to be entirely rewritten. Whether you agree with it or not, this is horrendously biased and reads more like an attack ad than anything resembling an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.28.27 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So, saying anything negative about Hitler (not that I am comparing the two, just that it is pretty darn hard to say any positive about Hilter) in the Hilter page would be biased? Sometimes facts are not pretty, just the facts. This page is not a discussion on the positive effects that Reagan had on other fronts i.e. the arms race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.93.143 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Krugman on Reaganomics

Something new from this Nobel Prize winning economist [1]. Thought on implications for this article? Mattnad (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman is a known Socialist. --Ericg33 (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You say 'known socialist' like somebody would say 'known Nazi'; do I smell bias? -Joey- (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a considerable amount of people today that attribute Reagan to why we are in this financial mess

There's a considerable amount of people today that attribute Reagon to why we are in this financial mess, largely due to his deregulation policies. Why isn't this discussed? Neverfades (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you provide relevant, reliable sources for the article is can be. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Krugman piece mentioned above is topical. This is a NY Times, Nobel Prize winning economist pinning part of the blame on Reagan's economic policies. It's published in what most consider a reliable source. What do you think? Mattnad (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this was discussed at Talk:Ronald Reagan#Kurgman_Comments_on_Reagan, where it was suggested that, if anything, you edit the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act article and see where that takes you. Happyme22 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was suggested to put it there too and that stub could use some expansion. In the meantime, I'm sure you'll agree that the Krugman article is very specific about Reagan's record and Reagonomics. I think this falls under WP:RS and it's topical. If you disagree, please share your rationale. Soxwon has offered his criteria for inclusion above, and I can't see why we'd keep this out (with proper citation of course).Mattnad (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly because this argument is topical is why it does not belong in this article. This is an encyclopedia article about an administration that left office over 20 years ago. It should not be a venue for a debating society. A description of Reaganomics and contemporary reaction is the correct subject matter of this article. Conservatives and liberals are always arguing about the benefits/dangers of the size of the government. Krugman's Op Ed piece is just a continuation of that eternal argument. It would be entirely inappropriate to include material in this article every time someone publishes an Op Ed piece mentioning "Reganomics".--Paul (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't agree with your premise. If it takes a couple of decades for a policy to have an impact, do we ignore the impact? The Reagan Administration is still very much alive in the national dialog (see this New York Times article for a small taste of Reagan's continuing impact) and Wikipedia is a living project. But I could be wrong. Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines or policy that suggests we don't add new information on articles that address past events or topics. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is Wikipedia policy that specifically outlines that historical articles cannot contain information relevant to the present day, rather I think we would base what does and does not go in off of the preference of the editors. But I do know that such information must be written in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, if there is a consensus to add. Honestly, I would suggest starting with the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act and see where that takes you, because I guarentee that adding Reagan is responsible for the current crisis in an article of this prominence and magnitute will engage multiple editors in a very long and heated discussion, one which we may want to avoid. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

iHappyme22, nobody has suggested he's solely responsible for the crisis, but we don't have to ignore reliable and authoritative sources that identify the contributions of deregulation that happened under his watch. And given there has been nothing yet added to this article, your concerns about NPOV and Weight seem a bit premature. I will add there are other editors who have commented on this page with concerns this article has been edited to the point that it's overly kind to Reaganomics. Mattnad (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote in the section below? I actually think you are trying to help this article, and I don't get the same feelings from you about me. My previous post was not a partisan defense of Reaganomics; I am trying to be open-minded. I am simply stating that contentious information mut be written with extra-special regard to WEIGHT and NPOV. There was something added, today in fact, at the bottom of the criticism section dealing with this very topic.[2] --Happyme22 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that addition to the criticism section. Not what I would call scholarship. Sorry if I came off sounding critical of you. I was being a bit defensive (I'll admit). 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The current state of the article

As many have commented so far, the current state of the article is not one we should be proud of. I'll leave it up to others to decide if the page is biased in one way or another, but for me the biggest problem I have is the organization. The "Support" and "Criticism" sections should be very much pruned and weeded per WP:WEIGHT and combined into one section (titled "Results of the program" or something along those lines).

In addition, the lead should contain a brief mention of both sides of the economic record; as is stands, only deregulation and deficits are there. The lowering of taxes, decrease of unemployment, decrease of inflation, improvement of the economy overall, large military spending, and large deficits should all be there. In addition, we should mention that the Reagan model is what dominated economic policy in the United States for nearly 30 years.

There are some that know more about this topic than I do (namely User:Paul.h and User:Mattnad) and I should like to enlist their much-appreciated assistance in giving this article a complete overhaul. Let us try to start soon. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is in need of a major overhaul. It currently consists of a bushel of erroneous information delivered with mostly execrable writing. I don't think I'll have time for a few weeks to devote much effort to cleaning it up, but I'll put it on the 2-do list. --Paul (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are far right think tanks like cato allowed as sources? This is intellectually dishonest. No economist today thinks cutting taxes can increase tax revenues yet the article makes it seem like it happened when it didn't.

Incorrect numbers abound

From the bottom of the page: [...]

According to a 1996 study[34] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

   * On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
   * Real median family income grew by $400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost 990,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the post-Reagan years.
   

[ridiculous numbers! Is this supposed to be a joke? In the link it says $4000 and $1500 which should be closer to our reality]

[...]

further down "billions" double to "trillions":

[...]

Reagan's tax policies were accused of pushing both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. Debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts[citation needed] ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in ...)

The same passage about deviation from article neutrality adjacent to the "Criticisms" setion, should be made next to the "Support" section. Better yet - since it's difficult (and not, I'm sure justified) to state facts wihout at least the appearance of impropriety - remove that passage from both; in this context, if properly cited, they serve as facts. Moreover, the effects of Reaganomics are as germain as its consituent policies; besides which, both sections are clearly-labelled, and thus readily discernable as to their purpose/content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.250.130 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

One reason about the billions doubling to trillions is because they do. 1000 billion equals 1 trillion. that means that if you double 500 billion, you get 1 trillion.... Popseepopsee (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)popseepopsee

Support

I think it´s not to wise to have such a section. Instead of support and critic there should be a reception section. Support by just one libertarian voice isn´t very neutral anyway. --80.187.104.100 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the support and criticism section should be combined into the article. This is not a debate page, it should be a fact page, it is unfortunate that so many people can't seperate their own fact from opinion. I have tried to edit some of the uncited statements and opinion based sections from the article, but it keeps being reverted. It is not very fitting to have editorials as citation for a fact. The numbers should be presented, and the rest deleted. It doesn't really matter what one individual says about the policy, or what one author says "many think." It matters much more what it was, and what the results were. A couple of the sections could be combined still, beyond support and criticism.Popseepopsee (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Policies

First, the this section fails to mention the policy’s view and affect on labor unions. As noted in an article describing Reaganomics on the University of Houston website, Reagan pledged to “end exorbitant union contracts to make American goods competitive again” (Mintz 1). In 1981 President Reagan fired 15,000 air-traffic-controllers that were on strike, sending an austere message. Though unions were quick to deplore Reagan’s decision, the general populace approved his actions and his approval ratings improved. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article fails to mention the fate of many social programs under the Reaganomics policy. Government monetary support of job training programs for new participants in the labor force was significantly reduced. Additionally mental health services, food stamps, nutrition for infants, and abuse prevention programs experienced severe declines in government funding. Both of these elements of Reaganomics are key attributes of the economic policy and shouldn’t be neglected (Mintz 1).

Mintz, Steven. "Reaganomics." Digital History: Using New Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Research. University of Houston, 2007. Web. 15 Apr. 2010. <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=406>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgdvorak (talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased, Inaqeuate

The clear overall point of this article, as it stands now, is to criticize "Reaganomics", and to minimize any credit due to President Reagan for the economic turnaround during his administration. It also does an inadequate job of defining the subject. The opening section contains contradictions: "The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to:[2] 1. Reduce government spending..." and then "...In his stated intention to increase domestic spending while lowering taxes..." (unsourced).

The rest of the article is built around criticism. The "Historical Context" section, the "Deregulation" section, the "Economic Record" section, and the "Tax Receipts" section are all dominated by criticism. The "Criticism/Keynesian Interpretation" section at the end of the article is nearly three times as long as the "Praise" section. Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.153.215 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some obvious shortcomings in this article. The stated goals of Reaganomics are fairly well mapped to the legislation enacted, but the Cold War spending, the fact that House was 60% Democrat along with the fact that the Republican Senate majority was no more that 55-45 (allowing for filibuster and thus necessitating more compromises) need to be addressed. The executive branch plays only one part in the management of the economy along side congress and the Federal Reserve. Solely placing blame/credit upon a Presidential Administration is logically inaccurate and oversimplifies complex economic issues.Skbenz (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bias/plagiarism

Huge swarths of this article are cut directly from an essay by William Niskanen, a Reagan economic advisor. It appears online courtesy the conservative think tank Cato Institute:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

That should be enough to refute its neutrality. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.101.4 (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to compare the two, but at a minimum the cato article must be cited, and if there are cut and paste elements, then it's a copyright violation. Have one biased source does not in itself make the whole article biased but it's a matter of degree. Too much from one source, if biased, needs trimming and new content from other sources.Mattnad (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

one side only

This is a very disapointing article not really worth reading. For those of us who teach finance and econ in a university this article has a very nonscholarly tone to it. It appears to be a socialist rant of the same old tired argument of a utopia that has no chance in a real world. I would like to see a realistic treatment exposing the good bad and otherwise. I think this article discredits the serious thinkers on the left. I would provide this to my students as a way one should not to make an argument. I think Wikopedia can do better than this sophamoric treatment of a serios presidency.

Sorry just calling it like i see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.159.58.190 (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

tax cuts caused the debt?

to say, as this article does, that Reagan's tax cuts caused the debt is just simply wrong. Revenues over 8 years to the Fed doubled. If I double your salary over 8 years and you are broke, then you overspent. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.92 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Simplistic Tea Party Answer. The fact that this revenue growth is attributed to the tax cuts means you don't know about TEFRA, the largest tax HIKE since World War 2, and shows your intended bias towards Reaganomics. I don't know what the article looked like before, but right now this article is full of misinformation designed to support modern pro-Tax Cut policies while ignoring basic facts (The recession of the early 1980s, the unemployment rate during that recession (reaching 10.8%, the highest since the Depression), or in fact the spike in unemployment following every tax cut since 1981, and so forth.) (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/02/art1exc.htm) - Diesel Phantom (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Table: Short-term revenue effects of major tax bills enacted under Reagan

The sourced table was removed. It takes a lot of effort to create tables. If there's no objection, I'll restore it. Lionel (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Broken Links

I would like to note that references 20-22 referring to the census data are not working and the links need to be remade because the page they are linked to is no longer there. Sunfishtommy (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)