Why was personal income growth greater under Reagan than under Clinton?

Question

Real Disposable Personal Income
President Term Years In Office Real Disposable Personal Income Start Of Term (in $ billions) Real Disposable Personal Income End Of Term (in $ billions) Personal Income Growth Annualized (%) Real Disposable Personal Income Rank Average Rank
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 8 5,512 7,255 3.49 5 3.7
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 8 3,906 5,216 3.68 4 4.

kawaii Hichefieidi asked the same question basically a few seconds ago making Reagan look bad and Clinton Look good Yet you chose not to answer? Curious that you only answer negatively to republicans

Answer 1

Because when you cut taxes people will spend more and thus generate more movement in the economy. And the real winners are the small businesses who generate the majority of job gain, if more people have money to invest and create their own companies then more people will be hired and also have money to spend on their own.

Answer 2

I'd say during Reagan years it was clear how to make money. The arms race was going on and the taxpayers and the government were paying for it. People with money to invest could simply check with the good ol' boys network and see what government contracts were coming up, then they could buy stocks and get rich.
Meanwhile the poor started dying off more quickly, people released from mental hospitals often ended up homeless, and the practices of companies firing mid level employees with benefits and replacing them with part-timers without benefits made a lot of companies rich. A lot of working people became poorer and frustrated, some one paycheck away from disaster, if there was a paycheck.
Still the major profits at the top brought the averages and total earnings of the invested way up. Some Americans got amazingly rich.
When Clinton came along he had ideals and he could speak. He had a brain and a reasonable temper. He tried to be fair, and as a result he was attacked by more venom than any president in my lifetime, and congress blocked his every effort and held things back from 1994-2000 with their hypocritical investigations into Clinton's foreplay and denial.
When Clinton lied, nobody died!

Answer 3

Couple of issues right here. a million) The inventory industry crashed over 500 factors in one day for the period of Reagan's term. even nevertheless it develop into no longer something that any government develop into predicting. 2) organic unemployment interior the financial equipment is 5%. Any unemployment cost above or under 5% is undesirable. something under 5% motives the financial equipment to overheat. something above 5% is undesirable because of the fact it potential no longer adequate individuals are working. That being suggested, the two 5.3% and four.7% are the two undesirable. even nevertheless, neither one deviates a protracted way adequate from 5% to be considered a considerable concern to the financial equipment. 3) Capitalists want the financial equipment to strengthen rapidly on the prospect of it collapsing each and every each and every now and then. Liberals (for motives i won't be able to look to confirm) are keen to stifle financial growth to make collapses much less straight forward and/or much less harsh. Capitalism is the only equipment of economics that works. recover from it.

Answer 4

You have to give some credit to inflation. Personally I believe that during the Clinton years financial lending companies flourished with alot of gov help. Then add a country encouraged to induce credit and buy on time more than ever b4. A cycle of debt was orchestrated where in personal income was deflated. Bankruptcies booming. Heck the Clinton's had stock in Realtor companies and financial ones ?? Mortage's given and revoked? It has only gotten worse. That may have something to do with the numbers. During the Reagan years we still paid cash and just started on the credit bandwagon.
Thank you very much.

Answer 5

I never said ANYTHING about CLinton. AT ALL! The fact that many on the right choose to talk about CLinton, rather than answer questions about their OWN party and beliefs is beyond me, but don;t tell people that I asked a question making Clinton out to look good...he wasn't even mentioned by me...that was the right (who can't answer how they defend poolicy that doesn;t work)

Answer 6

Megamergers, outsourcing and illegal immigrants. Workers has less choice of jobs because their are fewer employers. Less competition means the employers do not have to pay so much to gain employees. Emlpoyers also can keep the wages down by threatening to lay off everone and outsource their work to china. If the jobs can not be outsourced , they could use illegal immigrants to pressure for lower salaries for the employees.

Answer 7

Probably because Clinton was busy paying off debts created by Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 8

Oh do I disagree with you on this. I faired much better with the Clinton as prez than Reagan.

Answer 9

Cause' the rich got richer under Reagan.

Answer 10

Larger military spending by Reagan and a greater previous recession.