Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General "Reagan Principles"

It is of course impossible to fully attribute any economic cause and effect since the entire system is enormously complex with a virtually infinite number of influences to consider.

That being said, the economic boom of the 90's was largely due to historically low interest rates of the time... low interest rates that followed relatively high interest rates that depressed economic activity . The most important reason for low interest rates in the 90's was the tax increases passed to reduce the federal deficit.

High federal deficits resulted in competition for available capital and hence a high price on loans of the capital. The resulting high interest rates made most economic investment unprofitable and risky.


edit to add detail--
Note... many of the same good effects of lowering interest rates could have come from reduced federal spending in order to reduce the deficit. Although that reduction would also reduce the economic stimulation of government spending.

Also, I am not making a political value judgement... just saying what I believe are the economic "facts"

And by the way, relative government spending did decrease during the 90's for a variety of reasons. One of the big reasons was a much lower defense budget subsequent the collapse of the soviet union.

The U.S. economy is a strange relationship between its government and its citizens. It goes something like:

Government: Hi citizens of the U.S.. I would like to invite you all out to dinner at the very best resturant.

Citizens: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I want, I want, I want....

Government: Welcome all to dinner good citizens.

Citizens: Hip-hip-horayyyyyyyy...

Government: I hope you all enjoyed your dinner, anyone for dessert?

Citizens: Yessssssssssssss, I want, I want, I want....

Government: Now that was supreme as a dinner could be.

Citizens: Goooooooooooooooooooooood!

Government: Thanks all for coming and see you next time.

Citizens: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa! A next time...yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Government: Hummmmmmmmm, excuse me good citizens, I'm afraid that I left my wallet at home. Can I borrow your credit card? I'll repay someday.

Citizens: Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuureeeeeeee, no problem.

Citizens: Wow that was fantastic...hope we get another free meal again soon.

Government: Hi Citizens, gosh, you've all been such good sports and citizens, and I would like to offer everyone another meal, anybody interested?

Citizens: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Now take this little blog play and repeat the scenerio over about umpteen thousand times...and there ya have how our economy works.

Anybody hungry?

So, basically you are saying all politicians, Reagan included, blatantly lied or were incredibly stupid when they told us that?

I keep asking how you know and based upon what facts you claim they are biased. And what I get back is "because they are biased" and "because the writers are leftists". That isn't evidence, unless of course, you are saying everything anyone writes reflects some bias, and in that case I agree, including you and me.

No they did not. When you have more money to spend because of a tax cut the economy will improve. Conversely when you have less money to spend because of a tax increase the economy will decline. Are you better off after you get a raise? Or are you better off when your hours at work are reduced?

Read my rebuttal of the articles in post #37750. BTW, my rebuttal is based on extensive research a lot which there are not links to that I can post here on the board. But as I explained to another "Ranter" on a different thread my sources are often lacking in the political spin of today.

How about " defense" of our country against Polio... or small pox, or Bird Flu.... are those legitimate national roles?

Lets say we have severe national epidemic comparable to the Spanish flu... does the government have any role to play?

Would you answer change if the epidemic were small pox and were initiated by Bin Laden?

Or maybe we only suspect it was initiated by Bin Laden... should we wait for proof before the Government does something?

Phil...I think you're on to something with, "you are saying everything anyone writes reflects some bias, and in that case I agree, including you and me."

Seems like everything written in recorded history could be tainted with bias...well, except maybe Popular Science articles. Mmmmmm, never mind, them too.

Those are good questions Ardy. Some answers to them can be found by looking at what was done during the 1918 influenza Pandemic. Here is a link to information about what was done then.
1918 Influenza Pandemic Stanford University
Since the 1918 flu epedemic was not caused by a terrorist, it infected and affected the whole world, I do not know if our government dealt with it as national defense issue.

Yes, but regardless of what was done in the past, what should be done in the future (if you were president).... do we need proof of Bin Laden involvement before our government can act?

And would you say that government efforts to eradicate small pox and polio were unconstitutional since they were not a defense against an external enemy?