Talk:Reaganomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

/Archive 1

[edit] Merger proposal - withdrawn

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result, due to the merge being withdrawn, was no merge.

Hi, I have proposed that this article be merged with the recently created Domestic policy of the Reagan administration article. I created the article to encompass everything President Reagan did domestically; though it is short because I haven't had much time to write anything, this merger would greatly benefit the article and "launch it", so to speak, with the majority of its information already there. As his major domestic policy initiatives were his economic policies, and thus would be the bulk of the information on the Domestic policy page, I've had a hard time writing about them while trying not to repeat information and make it sound very similar to this article. In other words, I'm stuck. If there are two pages with very similar content, this one well written and cited, then why should we repeat the information in two seperate places? This article, and its main editors, can carry on business as it/you normally would, but the article would be more centrally located, and soon it will be much longer. I hope that you see, as I do, that this is a good idea. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking, I have withdrawn this merge because there are many other parts of the Reagan administration, as well as other economic theories and perspectives, that cannot all be merged into this article. Unless there are many votes favoring a merge, I'm going to allow it to remain here. Happyme22 (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Bias

Every single section is 1/3 unbiased reporting, yet the next 2/3rd of all of them is full of bias. The quotes are not portraited in a NPOV way, it seems alot like a personal arguement against Reaganomics. Lets either even up the amount of credibility on either side to represent how the issue is argued in "the real world", or lets make the bias less apparent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The criticism section needs work as well, it is ineffective since the criticisms are all over the page. Lets move them down there. Also the use of a change from Surplus to Deficit is NOT ALWAYS A BAD THING. I dont understand why deficit is always, without exception, a "bad" thing economically despite the fact that very rudimentary macroeconomics explains that lower taxes and higher deficit spending stimulate economic growth MORE THAN just tax cuts alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2nd Edit: While I do agree that there seems to be an anti-Reagan taint on the article, it then behooves those who feel that it is overly negative to prove that it is not telling the truth on a situation. If you can come up with some referenced information, as the article does, to defend your argument, the by all means, post that information. Otherwise, please dont be upset that someone has posted President Reagan's, or anyone else's less positive aspects. 69.142.219.168 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is so biased that a dissection of every instance it occurs would be longer than the original article itself. But before even getting to the policy issues, how can a neutral discussion of facts contain anything like, "Under Ford the problems continued, but policy was more prudent." More prudent? That is unadulterated opinion. I'd say it's disguised as a factual statement but the fact is, it isn't disguised at all. Also, the historical context section contains this gem, "By the time Reagan took office, stagflation was near its end and for the remainder of his presidency the economy performed well." This is a perfect example of the subtle (or not so subtle) bias in the entry. It implies (or rather states) that stagflation was near an end (regardless of Reagan policies or any policies for that matter) and that Reagan fiscal policy had no effect on the end of stagflation. I'd argue that's a debatable conclusion. The only neutral way of addressing the issue is to introduce actual numbers with respect to inflation and unemployment rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LunchpailDefense (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree that there is a significant anti-Reagan bias in the article, for the reasons pointed out by the users above and my own views. So I guess now the question is: how do we proceed in dealing with the problem? Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


It is a fair discussion of the events of the time. If people like Reagan, that is good for them. But wikipedia is not the place to impose personal bias on factual information. More 'prudent' in any discussion of fiscal policy implies lower deficit or closer to a balanced budget. Stagflation was indeed coming to an end when Reagan took office. In fact, deficit spending with stable tax levels stimulates economic growth the most, much more than tax cuts funded by borrowing. There is no problem and it is only in the mind of those who want to change the balanced nature of wikipedia articles.(Wikiviedit (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm not going to get involved in an economic debate here, but I will say that many of the things you brought up, Wikiviedit, are still being debated. It is not POV to question the NPOV of an article, and relevant claims should not be discouraged. This is not a matter of liking President Reagan or not caring for him; it is a matter of how well the article presents one sides' argument vs. the other sides' argument. Wikiviedit, I do not support your removal of the POV tag, but I will not be the one to challenge it as I did not add it. I'll leave you with that. Happyme22 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article must reflect evidence and objective truth rather than political talking points of 'either side'. (Wikiviedit (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Tax Cuts or Tax Hikes. What it really was?

Ok I know that Reagan was famous for his tax cuts in his early presidency, but as far as I know after his presidency taxes experienced net increase, not decrease. So basically if you ignore his early tax cuts, after his presidency Americans started to pay more taxes. Can somebody back up or debunk my knowledge with any reliable links? As for example I know he decreased capital gains tax firstly, but later he increased it to the levels before he reduced it. Thank you in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Azprint (talk • contribs)

  • It's all right in the article -- see Reaganomics#Tax_receipts. Of course, this analyzes the "Americans started to pay more taxes" question from the point of view of the government's income, so it does not measure how much taxes "hurt". With that caution...

Basically, the 1981 tax cut was his only significant tax cut, and later on he would pass 4 tax hikes and 4 bills with negligible overall tax effects. The 1981 tax cut was so huge, though, that the combined effect of all of Reagan's tax bills was to lower the federal government's income. --M@rēino 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


It seems that you have not taken an economics course, as it is evident Reagan's actions most likely accidentally caused an increase of the worth of the dollar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.76.21 (talk • contribs)

  • No need for insults, Mr. 65.186.76.21. If you can find trustworthy scholarly articles explaining how Reaganomics "accidentally" caused the dollar to appreciate, be my guest and include them in the article. But please note that the discussion topic in this subsection was tax policy, not currency exchange rates or deflation. --M@rēino 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. High interest rates caused the dollar to appreciate. There is no accident involved.(Wikiviedit (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC))