[Will]

You can't make any counter-argument on your own, so you have to regurgitate Krugman's propaganda. Congratulations on being a lemming incapable of your own thoughts I guess.

Fine, since you're so intellectually devoid, I'll go up one step on the ladder and debate Krugman, who is merely intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by Z06PDQ

Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
January 20, 2008, 4:43 pm
Reaganomics

Since we are, improbably but importantly, discussing Ronald Reagan again, I thought it might be worth posting a few graphs on the Reagan economic record.

First, the unemployment rate. What this figure shows is that “Morning in America” was a one-shot affair — a recovery from a very severe recession.

Uh, so what? We're supposed to not be impressed with Reagan's policies because they had to be implemented in the face of the true worst recession since the great depression (high peak unemployment, higher peak GDP loss, and more quarters of GDP loss than the current recesssion)? Krugman fails to mention that Reagan's generational tax policy changes have only been mildly modified since. Furthermore, the first recession that came in the wake of Reaganomic, the 1990s recession, was the SHORTEST and SHALLOWEST of the 20th century. And it ended WELL before the election of 1992. The "longest period of peace time growth" was NOT presided over by president Clinton. It began while George H.W. Bush was still in office. Clinton presided over the REST of it, in an era of economic prosperity and new, LOW taxation. Bush and Clinton both only slightly tinkered with Taxes.

This point is mindless gibberish at best. Blaming Reagan for the 2 term limit, blaming him for inheriting the massive recession, being in office during it's peak and recovery, and for not being in office for another decade? Stupidity.

Next, incomes. These are inflation-adjusted after-tax income for the richest 1 percent and the middle quintile, from the Congressional Budget Office, both expressed as indexes with 1979=100. Big gains for the rich, not so much for the middle class:

Oh look, another cheap and dishonest tactic just like the one I discussed above. Scale distortion and using $$$ amount. Hey dipshit, did they not teach you about percentages at Princeton (rhetorical question, I know you know and you're just being dishonest since simpletons like Z06PDQ will eat it up).

In terms of % change, here's the REAL story:



No matter what tax policy we follow, no matter who controls each branch, the ebb and flow of income at ALL levels is uniform. Of course the $$$ amounts are going to get higher and higher at higher income levels. That's how percentages work.