posted 06-04-99 12:56 PM ET     

Lets get some raw facts here.
(All statistics take inflation into account)
From 1983-1990, the Mean household income in the lowest Quintile (lowest twenty percent wage earners) rose 7.3%.
Second rose 8.7%
Third rose 8.8%
Fourth rose 9.8%
Fifth rose 17.7%
(Source, U.S. Bureau of the Census Report)

From 1983 to 1989, the percentage of this country below the poverty line went from 15.2% to 12.8%.
(Source, American Almanac 1993 ed.)

From 1980-1990, the percentage share of tax burden among all five quintiles
Lowest, 1.6%-1.6%
Second, 7%-6.6%
Third, 13.4%-12.6%
Fourth, 22.2%-21%
Fifth, 55.7%-58.1%
(Source, Congressional Budget Office)

From 1983-1989, the increase of Income Tax Revenues went from 275.3 billion dollars a year, to 354.4 billion dollars a year, including a thirty percent tax cut and a stock market crash. Who says supply-side economics doesn't work?
(Source, IRS Statistics of Income)

From 1981-1988, the amount of Federal Social spending went from 11.6% to 10.9%.
Yet the percent of GNP provided by the States and local governments (who could handle the money better than the Feds) to Social Programs went from 7% in 1981 to 7.6% in 1988.
(source, Information Please Almanac, 1991 edition)

Now to the question of the National Debt.
First of all, the vast majority of the bloating debt occured because of the interest on the debt, and when interest compounds, the debt grows at an alarming rate. Yet when you look at the stats, in 1983, the debt was growing at a rate of 117% a year, yet by 1988, the debt was growing 110% a year, almost half as fast. Except for a brief period in 1990(Bush), the debt has fallen at about the same rate until it hits an even 100% under Clinton, and look who takes credit.
(Source, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Deficit)

Obviously, it was possible for Reagan to balance the budget, but which is more important, an enemy superpower or a balanced budget. He chose the Soviets, and I can hardly blame him. The reason the Soviet Union fell was not because they were destined to fall, but because Reagan's hardball defense spending and negotiating forced them to outspend themselves, and eventually choose to end the Cold War. The Soviet Union could of lasted a long time.(Technically an opinion)

More info will come on the next post

posted 06-04-99 01:04 PM ET         

All righty now. I did disvover one horrible problem with these stats, i failed to talk about charities Not too bad, 'cause I have the info right here

Remember inflation is taken into account

Social Budgets:
the percentage of total federal outlays in '81:
54%
in 88:
49.1%
Amount of capital in dollars put into social spending:
'81, 344 billion,
'88, 532 billion.

The percent of state and local outlays for social spending in:
'81, 63.1%, $207 billion
'88, 60.1%, $363 billion

total govt. social spending:
'81, 56.9%
'88, 52.8%
(Source, Information Please Almanac, 1991 edition)
Note: The percent of GNP can be found in my last post.

This shows that while Reagan cut the percent of social spending, the amount of money to social causes went up considerably.

Number below poverty line:
'83: 35.3 million
'89: 31.5 million (percentages are on previous post)
(Source, American Almanac, 1993 edition)

Lets look at job creation:
Percentage of jobs created paying under $7,012:
Carter: 42.77%
Reagan 6%

$7,012-$28,048
Carter: 68.2%
Reagan: 46.2%

Over $28,048:
Carter: -9.9% (yep, thats a negative)
Reagan: 46.1%

Now to those earning $200,000 or more:
Tax Rate in
'80, 70%; '88, 28%
#of returns
'80, 117,000; '88, 725,000
%of income
'80, 7.5%; '88, 25.3%
Total taxes collected
'80, $250.3 billion; '88, $412.9 billion
(IRS Statistics-published October 12, 1992 in Arkansas Democrat gazette)

Hmmmmm...
Now an interesting question has been brought up as to tax deductions. True, some deductions were taken away, but the principle cause of the deductions to begin with was to get rich people to spend more money to build up the economy. So most were on things the rich (or anyone) might like, for instance a country club membership, or a credit deduction from a car. Well, it turned out that this wasn't strengthening the economy(I'm not just talking about taxes here). Therefore, by cutting most of these deductions, the rich spent money elsewhere, where they could get a deduction and strengthen the economy, like their own businesses. See a pattern? (Happy, not a statistic for once!)

So, to answer your question, these stats should prove that the govt. really didn't charge more, they helped redirect the outlet of money from luxuries to investments. And I think I've answered the Social spending.

posted 06-04-99 01:12 PM ET         

in Wilderness society, down 35%

in National wildlife Federation, down 14%

A few smaller notes:
Donations to charities from 92-93 went down 1.5%.
'91-92
Avg. household donations went from $899 to $880
Volunteered time went from 51.1% to 47.7%.

Now even I was a bit dissappointed by these stats in realtion to Reagan, being as i don't think they give enough info. I do think that they clearly portray a general trend of charity giving for the socialist/capitalist debate.

posted 06-04-99 02:36 PM ET         

Sign me,

posted 06-07-99 08:33 AM ET            

HP started a new thread so this info did not end up in the socialism thread.

I know, I'm just wondering about the exact point...

The "I Love Ronnie" stuff, as you put it, is one of the strongest possible rebuttals to all of the arguments against socialism.

you mean... _for_ socialism ?

The year Margaret Thatcher took over 10 Downing Street, Britain had the smallest of the G7 economies; when she stepped down in 1990, only the US and Germany were bigger.

Nice try, but:

G7:

US
Japan
Germany
France
Italy
UK
Canada

posted 06-07-99 10:43 AM ET         

At any rate, I have to leave for a few weeks, but I would like to point out that just a small part of this has to do with socialism=the charities in success part.

posted 06-09-99 01:28 AM ET            

You are right about Canada having a smaller economy, and Japan having a bigger economy. I had read several threads, and incorrectly extrapolated the info from them. Both of my statements would be correct if they were changed to "Western Europe" rather than G7.

posted 06-09-99 03:58 AM ET            

Sorry to be annoying, but that would give:

"The year Margaret Thatcher took over 10 Downing Street, Britain had the smallest of the Western Europe economies; when she stepped down in 1990, only the US and Germany were bigger."

The UK hasn't overtaken France, and you could argue about Italy.

Britain's GDP growth may not have been impressive compared with Asia or some of the smaller European countries, but it was a damn sight better than what happened in the early seventies, when the ostensibly conservative Heath government, and its Labourite successor flushed Britain's economy down the tubes.

Yes, and I agree with several conservative policies of the time. Just that UK's growth has been lower than that of continental Europe for 1989-1998 by about 0,3 % per year; it has been higher in boom years, but recession has been much deeper (in that decade, both had one recession). I think the pattern is the same for 1980-1990, but I'd have to check this.

It's also funny that the UK is now slower than Germany, but in the anglosaxon media, people seem to be talking about germany's problems only. Funny...

posted 08-23-99 02:03 AM ET         

Your statement that tax cuts were only for those making 200K or over proves that you have no idea what you are talking about, and didn't even read my post.
Proof(once again):

From 1980-1990, the percentage share of tax burden among all five quintiles
Lowest, 1.6%-1.6%
Second, 7%-6.6%
Third, 13.4%-12.6%
Fourth, 22.2%-21%
Fifth, 55.7%-58.1%
(Source, Congressional Budget Office)

Oh dear, it seems that while the lowest did stay the same, the highest was the only on that rose. It would seem that Reagan made tax cuts for the poor and middle class, while raising tax burden for the rich. That combined with overall lower taxes makes tax cuts for the lower classes huge. The main reason the poor stayed relatively the same is through welfare(more liberal crap) and the long term damage it has inflicted on this nation.

One thing you must remember(or sometime be taught) is that most truly "rich" people live like middle classers. They simply invest their money and/or time much more wisely. Want Proof? Read "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley, and someone else who I can't remember on hand.

What this means is that the rich gradually get richer when the economy is good(for obvious reasons of money sense), while the poor have no way to get out of the pit made by the liberals with welfare. The middle class is(and was) borrowing too much money, and not investing it where they should.

Supply Side Economics helps those who help themselves

Sorry if your idea of an economy's prosperity is the size of your welfare check

As to your pathetic statements about credit cards and car loans, the tax cuts weren't THAT big to begin with, you don't HAVE to pay everything with a credit card, and you don't NEED a big fancy car. Plus, these setbacks were made well into Reagan's precidency, and show no (or very little) impact on my long running statistics.

Reagan helped those who helped themselves.

As to the Soviets, the fact that their economy might have collapsed doesn't mean that the Cold War would have ended.
With all those nukes and military personnel in the wrong hands could have been real trouble.

It seems a coincidence that Gorbachev was appointed, and tensions began to warm, at the same time Star Wars and other large defense projects came into being.

The main reason the Soviet economy collapsed when it did was because of far too much defense spending, trying to compete with Reagan. It could probably have kept chugging along, fueled by vast(untouched) oil reserves. It didn't start having real problems until Reagan came along.

Watch PBS's documentary on Reagan: although poor in some areas, it gives an accurate view of what I am saying.

Also, Stalin did very little to help the Soviet Union in the long run. In fact, with his poisoning(not in the literal sense) the government and putting to death many of Russia's backbone, many Socialists believe their expirement would have succeeded if not for Stalin. You can never believe a socialist, though, and I probably disagree with the last statement, but its still interesting to point out.

High Priest

PS I'm not saying there isn't good info out there that can refute what I say, but stop the stupid, uninformed propoganda.

PSS Opposing arguments have simply reinforced my ideals, thanx Mcerion

posted 08-23-99 07:30 PM ET         

quote:

---

Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Reagan '81

---

quote:

---

"Facts are stupid things." '88 (slight misquote of John Adams, 'Facts
are stubborn things.')

---

quote:

---

"I have flown twice over Mt St Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't
know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released
more sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been
released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so
concerned about." Reagan '80. Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted
about 2,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.

---

posted 08-23-99 11:09 PM ET         

Pretty funny

On an info gathering rage.

I've come up with more, better facts and proof for my upcoming debate

posted 08-25-99 12:29 PM ET            

You stated that total taxes collected rose from 275.3 to 354.4 billion, an increase of 28.7%. You also state that the percentage of total taxes paid by the lowest quintile stayed the same, at 1.6%, so the total amount of taxes paid by the lowest quintile increased by 28.7% while their total income(also from your figures) increased by only 7.3% -- this means their tax burden increased by 19.9%(as a percentage of their income).

Even in the case of the second quintile, whose percentage of taxes decreased, the total amount of taxes paid increased by 21.3%, far higher than their 8.7% increase in come, and resulting in a percentage of income increase of 11.6%.

For the top quintile, the total of all taxes paid increased by 34.2%, while their income increased by 17.7%, giving a percentage of income increase of 14.1%.

Now, assume the number of households increased by 14.1%. This would eliminate any change in the top quintile's percentage of income increase, bringing it to 0%. For the bottom quintile, 5.1%. For the second, a decrease of 2.2%.

posted 08-25-99 05:13 PM ET            

"Also HP says that the statistics take inflation into account but is that in the percentages shown or the dollar amount of taxes collected?"