Clinton economy family after tax income grew twice as fast as under Reagan

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html



The Great Taxer
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 8, 2004

<snip>We're also sure to hear that Mr. Reagan presided over an unmatched economic boom. Again, not true: the economy grew slightly faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.<snip>

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Except Clinton inherited the booming Reagan economy.

That's why it grew so well. It only took Bill 8 years to break it completely. Fortunately Bush is in power and he'll fix it all again.

At least that's the response I get when I point this out to the conservative types.

[thedudeingeorgia]

2. What Booming Economy??

If Reagan's economy was booming as you say, then George Herbert Walker Bush would have won reelection in a landslide, but since the economy was in shambles, the deficit was skyrocketing with no end in sight, Americans decided that Reaganomics was a failure, as Bush thought during the 1980 Republican primaries, when he called Reaganomics 'voo-doo economics'....

I will agree that Reaganomics is a good short-term fix for a slumping economy, but for long-term growth, it has shown to be a complete and utter failure....

[DarkPhenyx]

3. Don't agree it was booming.

However that is the answer you'll get when you address this issue with Reagan supporters. Since it really can't be proven one way or another, adn even the experts disagree on the effects of Reaganomics, it's pretty much a dead end discussion.