Your feelings on Reaganomics

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ace, you were shown government statistics, telling how much in tax revenue the government made. Why these people know more about government tax revenue than the government?[/quote]

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']FACTS. FACTS.

. . .

For that one point, [Kevin] found a good source. I didn't say otherwise.[/quote]

(emphasis added)

He then went on to say he couldn't find anything to dispute any of my other information, and coincidentally neither did you. You and this other fellow just started crying about how much ya'll hate books.
 
Actual Facts about Reagan (Note: NOT FACTS in a book written by a Reagan appointee)

Real Growth of Gross Domestic Product (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysi)

1973 5.2
1974 -0.5
1975 -1.3
1976 4.9
1977 4.7
1978 5.3
1979 2.5
1980 -0.5
1981 1.8
1982 -2.2
1983 3.9
1984 6.2
1985 3.2
1986 2.9
1987 3.1
1988 3.9
1989 2.5
1990 1.2
1991 -0.6
1992 2.3
1993 3.1
1994 4.1

--

Inflation Rate (U.S. Department of Commerce)

1960 1.7%
1965 1.6
1970 5.7
1975 9.1
1976 5.8
1977 6.5
1978 7.6
1979 11.3
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2
 
I think you fail to recognize that just because a doctor writes something doesn't make it true. Your failure to realize that government data on tax revenue is more accurate than a political writer is the issue here.

That one statistic was the only point I was arguing, and you keep whining about how I don't trust those books over the statistics shown here.

Honestly, I'd doubt you'd be so uncritical if it was a clinton biography written by a supporter.

Translation.. Reganomics didn't do shit.
Click to expand...

Well, one of ace's statistics showed that millionaires increased from 4k to 34k (or about that). So, assuming that's true, he was of great benefit to the wealthy. We all know how much they struggle to get by on just one bottle of dom perignon a week, they really needed a champion.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That one statistic was the only point I was arguing[/quote]
Then you obviously can't read seeing as how I acknowledged that as a good source.

Well, one of ace's statistics showed that millionaires increased from 4k to 34k (or about that). So, assuming that's true, he was of great benefit to the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Making more people wealthy is disgusting, you should only be proud if the average family net income goes down! Everyone should have far less than a million dollars to their name! Why, if it were up to me there would be no millionares in this country unless they were government officials!
 
Okay, so I've thrown together an outline for my project(required) but let me know what you think.

Reaganomics

Reaganomics, the ambitious attempt to change the course of the American economic policy and pick up the pieces of the Carter Administration.

I. Pre-Reagan Years
A. Carter had pushed the country into a large defecit
B. He made no attempts to reform the economy

II. Reagan’s Plan
A. Supply-Side economics
1. Easing the tax burden on private business to encourage economic growth
2. Cutting taxes that businesses incurred gave more money for expansion
B. Supply creates it’s own demand, one must sell before one can buy

III Reagan’s Reform
A. Reagan pulled the government out of the economy
B. The economy became more open to private enterprise
1. Private enterprise expanded its business creating more jobs
2. “A rising tide raises all ships”
IV. Conclusion
A. Reaganomics scored one for The Gipper
B. Crime, Drugs, police, and Corruption at an all time high
C. The Gipper scored big time
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Definately not a liberal perspective, but pretty good if you are arguing the conservative perspective.[/QUOTE]

I don't really know where I stand when it comes to politics. Partly because of my lack of knowledge between liberals, conseravtives, reds, blues, greens, and what ever else. I come up with my own opinion on things, and stick by it more or less.

But thanks for the feedback on the outline. I can't wait to see how pissed or suprised my teacher will be, mainly beacuse pushing her buttons is fun.
 
You're not going to get very far arguing that Carter built a deficit, but failing to mention (in your outline anyway) that Reagan trumped all of the previous 39 Presidents' collective deficits combined. You may not have a savvy teacher or class, but I'm just sayin'.

It's a fallacious argument, and one that shows me you're building too much of this research off of a CAG thread, and not doing much work in the library.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']A. Carter had pushed the country into a large defecit[/QUOTE]


So are you just going to ignore the part where Reagan multiplied it?

I can understand that if you are sugar coating it to stroke a conservative teacher but thats a pretty glaring oversight.
 
mykevermin, I understand what you are saying, and it is quite true that I snatched just about all of the outline from this thread(heh), but it is only the rough draft(forgot to mention that part) and my teacher plans on checking everyone's outlines and correcting any errors. I've got about 6 or 8 pages of research from wikipedia, and two books on Reagan/Reaganomics. The outline isn't being counted for as much compared to the actual paper, which is why this time around, I fudged it together with just this thread as my background on it.

Msut77, You're right, in that I should mention Reagan's defecit. I'm thinking I might put it under the "conclusion" part of the outline. Or might it be a better idea to add another roman numeral bumping the conclusion back to 5 and making the 4th one about Reagan's defecit.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']mykevermin, I understand what you are saying, and it is quite true that I snatched just about all of the outline from this thread(heh), but it is only the rough draft(forgot to mention that part) and my teacher plans on checking everyone's outlines and correcting any errors. I've got about 6 or 8 pages of research from wikipedia, and two books on Reagan/Reaganomics. The outline isn't being counted for as much compared to the actual paper, which is why this time around, I fudged it together with just this thread as my background on it.

Msut77, You're right, in that I should mention Reagan's defecit. I'm thinking I might put it under the "conclusion" part of the outline. Or might it be a better idea to add another roman numeral bumping the conclusion back to 5 and making the 4th one about Reagan's defecit.[/quote]

The people here are in college, and their criticisms are valid, for college. What your doing is fine for high school (which I assume you are in since you were born in 89). Some teachers may not like relying on wikipedia that much, but you shouldn't have an issue in high school. If you can put it together well and have decent writing ability you have enough to do well.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The people here are in college, and their criticisms are valid, for college. What your doing is fine for high school (which I assume you are in since you were born in 89). Some teachers may not like relying on wikipedia that much, but you shouldn't have an issue in high school. If you can put it together well and have decent writing ability you have enough to do well.[/QUOTE]

K, thats good to hear. And yeah, I am in high school.

But any way, how does this sound:

IV Reagan’s Defecit
A. Reagan multiplied the nation’s defecit during this reform
B. Reagan cut welfare and income tax which resulted in a 150 billion dollar bail out
C. The bail out nearly collapsed industry

-basically cited from wikipedia, again, easy way out, but I'm not taking the outline as serious as the actual paper. Any better ideas or criticism? Thanks.
 
[quote name='Supaman1489']Msut77, You're right, in that I should mention Reagan's defecit. I'm thinking I might put it under the "conclusion" part of the outline. Or might it be a better idea to add another roman numeral bumping the conclusion back to 5 and making the 4th one about Reagan's defecit.[/QUOTE]

I think a better way to do it is list both views and the pros and cons and then in your conclusion list which ones has facts on their side.
 
Do a little more research on Carter. He did several things that Reagan did but without credit.

He cut captial gains taxes and deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.

Futhuremore, at some point you need to look at what the Federal Reserve was doing.

The "recession" blamed on Carter happened 2 years into Reagan's term.
 
Carter also repealed anti-distillation laws that made homebrew of any alcoholic beverage illegal from prohibition until 1978! Respect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top