phillytugger wrote
Reagan actually raised taxes big time. And he increased spending big time. Inspite of much huha about cutting a few welfare programs (which he was probably right to cut but they were such small line items it didn't really make much of a difference) he cranked up spending on almost everything: not just the military. And while he cut taxes for the wealthy he soaked the middle class and created the working poor (both through tax policy, labour and education policy)
As for the miltary he cranked up spending on every weapons program not just those that worked (remember the $10,000 toilet seats - they didn't have much effect on ending the cold war I don't think but they certainly helped some of the people who donated to his campaigns.)
Some sectors of the economy recovered. Specifically defence, Wall Street and real estate in areas within commuting distance of Wall Street and defence contractor areas such as silicon valley, parts of Texas etc. Other areas never really recovered.
It's ironic that a lot of the areas of the country where decline kicked in so severely under Reagan are the areas that voted for Trump. A lot of Trump's policies, if he follows through on them, are VERY different from Reagan's; hence the establishment Republicans' hatred of Trump. For example, Reagan, going back to when he was Governor of California, always loved illegal immigration. Cheap labour for his big corporate agriculture donors and undermining of the unions. Talk about a win/win. Ditto for free trade. He talked a bit like an anti-immigration type at times and blue collar workers loved him but his policies didn't match his rhetoric.
If Trump is serious about his policies he'll be a modern day Teddy Rosevelt, hated and undermined at every turn by establishment Republicans but loved by the American middle class. But who knows.
One good side effect of all Reagan's defence spending though was the Internet and its spinning off to the private sector. That's made information flow (including information that the corporate American medical e$tablishment doesn't like such as all those anti-circ sites not to mention this site) widely available to the masses. You're welcome too :-)
I'm unclear what you mean by "Reagan actually raised taxes big time," as the President has no such power. He can choose to sign or veto Congressional bills, all of which are the product of compromise (ACA being a noteworthy exception), which is part of the checks-and-balances. I have no doubt he knew that marginal income-tax rates (as high as 70%) were choking growth, and succeeded in getting Congress to lower them dramatically (28% top rate after Kemp-Roth). As for "cutting" welfare programs, all the Reagan Administration sought was to restrain spending to the rate of inflation. This was called a "cut" by the media and bureaucracy, and as a result, hardly any actual spending reduction took place. Again, compromise negated many of his intentions, and Democrats remained in control of both legislative houses throughout his presidency.
The "$10,000 toilet seat" is a myth. (The dollar amount changes every time I hear about it.) You are probably referring to a custom-made toilet cover, ordered in a small number by the DoD to fit one specific aircraft. Such items cost a great deal of money in design and manufacture and aren't comparable to common "toilet seats." But some ideologue found the line item, pushed it to the unserious and the comedians, and as Mark Twain said, the lie went halfway around the world before truth could get its shoes on. And it continues circling the globe, as demonstrated here.
In 1984, the U.S. economy began a broad surge that continued for seven years. Texas actually suffered in the mid-decade oil bust. (I lived there then. Seeing your neighbors pack up to move in with family is a jarring sight.) Neither Reagan nor any government force could do much to revive the Rust Belt, if that's what you're referring to. And its collapse began in the early 1970s.
Federal "education policy" accounts for about 10 percent of education spending. How anything done in D.C. from 1981-89 could have affected the middle class is beyond me.
To bring it back to this site's purpose, I'll agree that the democratization of information-sharing has done much to lower circumcision rates. IMO YouTube has been the most influential. Nothing like the sound of an infant screaming to make the point.
