Reagan DIES on March 30, 1981

Assuming that Bush is the Republican nominee or Reagan is actually killed early in his first term:

How would the economy and financial states of the United States develop?

Those are two different scenarios. If the POD is Reagan dies in March of 1981, Bush might be more compelled to honor his predecessor early on. That means the first tax cut goes through easily, perhaps no TERFA, not sure if Bush plays hardball with federal unions (bear in mind Reagan had been head of the SAG at one point and honoring Reagan might well have meant being fair with unions) and getting tough with the USSR albeit not necessarily taking to Up To Eleven by calling them an “Evil Empire.” By his second term, he probably vetoes the 1986 tax cut as going too far, and if one passes, it’s toned down big time.

If Bush gets the nod instead of Reagan in 1980? He’s doing it his way and Reaganomics can go straight to hell. Probably still means a tax cut but not anywhere close to as drastic as how the Reagan era ended (no cutting the top tax bracket from 70% all the way to 28% for one.)
 

Anchises

Banned
Those are two different scenarios. If the POD is Reagan dies in March of 1981, Bush might be more compelled to honor his predecessor early on. That means the first tax cut goes through easily, perhaps no TERFA, not sure if Bush plays hardball with federal unions (bear in mind Reagan had been head of the SAG at one point and honoring Reagan might well have meant being fair with unions) and getting tough with the USSR albeit not necessarily taking to Up To Eleven by calling them an “Evil Empire.” By his second term, he probably vetoes the 1986 tax cut as going too far, and if one passes, it’s toned down big time.

If Bush gets the nod instead of Reagan in 1980? He’s doing it his way and Reaganomics can go straight to hell. Probably still means a tax cut but not anywhere close to as drastic as how the Reagan era ended (no cutting the top tax bracket from 70% all the way to 28% for one.)

Fair enough. I haven't really considered that Bush taking over and Bush being elected are radically different.
 
Those are two different scenarios. If the POD is Reagan dies in March of 1981, Bush might be more compelled to honor his predecessor early on. That means the first tax cut goes through easily, perhaps no TERFA, not sure if Bush plays hardball with federal unions (bear in mind Reagan had been head of the SAG at one point and honoring Reagan might well have meant being fair with unions) and getting tough with the USSR albeit not necessarily taking to Up To Eleven by calling them an “Evil Empire.” By his second term, he probably vetoes the 1986 tax cut as going too far, and if one passes, it’s toned down big time.

If Bush gets the nod instead of Reagan in 1980? He’s doing it his way and Reaganomics can go straight to hell. Probably still means a tax cut but not anywhere close to as drastic as how the Reagan era ended (no cutting the top tax bracket from 70% all the way to 28% for one.)

Would Bush really follow through with the tax cuts even thogh he has his skeptcism on it? He did not have the near-mind control charisma Reagan and he'd probably be treated more critically when those taxcuts would backfire like they did in OTL. On the other hand, maybe he'd pass the buck and blame it on Supply-side advocates, by saying they pressured him and he proceeds to undo them to fix the economy. That could help further hinder Reaganomics for sure.

Granted, HW was not one to care for domestic policy and his talents laid more in diplomacy. However, the early 80s would require more focus from him on the economic issues. How he'd handle that would decide his re-election chances.
 

Anchises

Banned
Would Bush really follow through with the tax cuts even thogh he has his skeptcism on it? He did not have the near-mind control charisma Reagan and he'd probably be treated more critically when those taxcuts would backfire like they did in OTL. On the other hand, maybe he'd pass the buck and blame it on Supply-side advocates, by saying they pressured him and he proceeds to undo them to fix the economy. That could help further hinder Reaganomics for sure.

Granted, HW was not one to care for domestic policy and his talents laid more in diplomacy. However, the early 80s would require more focus from him on the economic issues. How he'd handle that would decide his re-election chances.

Well his plan during the primaries was a much smaller tax cut and controlling the budget. Imho he could soften the blow of the double-dip-recession and speed up recovery, I think he has realistic chances to get reelected, if the Reagnites don't force him to enact Reagonomics. He basically predicted why Reagonomics would fail.
 
Well his plan during the primaries was a much smaller tax cut and controlling the budget. Imho he could soften the blow of the double-dip-recession and speed up recovery, I think he has realistic chances to get reelected, if the Reagnites don't force him to enact Reagonomics. He basically predicted why Reagonomics would fail.

I don't think the Reaganites could force him to do so and if he had to, he'd have a plan to cover his butt by blaming their policies and possibly shunting out Reagonomics out for good. He'd raise the taxes to fix the economy and then probably opt for a more modest tax cut when everything is stable.

I am wondering the possibilities of who would replace him along with Dem strategies. HW may also prove useful instoping the rise of the Second New Right that Reagan ended up flourishing.
 
I am wondering the possibilities of who would replace him along with Dem strategies. HW may also prove useful instoping the rise of the Second New Right that Reagan ended up flourishing.

Bush probably appoints Jack Kemp as VP. This would be an olive branch to conservatives, but ironically it would sap them of much of their power by neutering Congress' leading supply-sider. Bush/Kemp would be on track to re-election once the economy improves, however I don't think Kemp would be the Presidential nominee in 1988. He'd be too conservative on economics and abortion, while too liberal on issues like poverty and housing. And outgoing President Bush would probably stay neutral. Dole, a relative moderate compared to Kemp, would have a much stronger chance of winning the nomination. He'd easily beat Dukakis in the general election.

As for the Democrats, they might nominate Mondale in '84. Maybe they would nominate Hart. Either way, they have no chance to win that year.
 
Bush probably appoints Jack Kemp as VP. This would be an olive branch to conservatives, but ironically it would sap them of much of their power by neutering Congress' leading supply-sider. Bush/Kemp would be on track to re-election once the economy improves, however I don't think Kemp would be the Presidential nominee in 1988. He'd be too conservative on economics and abortion, while too liberal on issues like poverty and housing. And outgoing President Bush would probably stay neutral. Dole, a relative moderate compared to Kemp, would have a much stronger chance of winning the nomination. He'd easily beat Dukakis in the general election.

As for the Democrats, they might nominate Mondale in '84. Maybe they would nominate Hart. Either way, they have no chance to win that year.

So how would Bob Dole do as president for 1988 and beyond? Especailly since everything going on would change how things are now
 
So how would Bob Dole do as president for 1988 and beyond? Especailly since everything going on would change how things are now

In domestic policy, Dole was to the left of Reagan but to to the right of Bush 41. As for foreign policy, much would depend on how 41 handles things from 1981-1988. The biggest difference could end up being War in the Persian Gulf. If Hussein still invades Kuwait, I think Dole would stand the same stand Bush did and counter the aggression. However, Dole may be less inclined to not invade and overthrow Hussein. But given that even Dick Cheney opposed this in 1991, I think it's unlikely that Dole would go for it.
 
Would Bush really follow through with the tax cuts even thogh he has his skeptcism on it? He did not have the near-mind control charisma Reagan and he'd probably be treated more critically when those taxcuts would backfire like they did in OTL. On the other hand, maybe he'd pass the buck and blame it on Supply-side advocates, by saying they pressured him and he proceeds to undo them to fix the economy. That could help further hinder Reaganomics for sure.

Granted, HW was not one to care for domestic policy and his talents laid more in diplomacy. However, the early 80s would require more focus from him on the economic issues. How he'd handle that would decide his re-election chances.

That depends. And again, it depends on how Bush assumes the office - if Bush is elected in 1980, he passes a toned-down tax cut if he passes one at all, and I don’t think he allows anything close to the 1986 tax cut to see the light of day. If he assumed it because Reagan dies, he probably passes the 1981 tax cut more or less intact but the 1986 one doesn’t go through.
 
Reagan's charisma and personal popularity had a lot to do with Bush's win in 1988 OTL. With a less charismatic Bush at the helm in 1988, the Democrats, depending on who they nominate, stand a good chance at beating would be VP Kemp or Laxalt, or Bob Dole.
 
That depends. And again, it depends on how Bush assumes the office - if Bush is elected in 1980, he passes a toned-down tax cut if he passes one at all, and I don’t think he allows anything close to the 1986 tax cut to see the light of day. If he assumed it because Reagan dies, he probably passes the 1981 tax cut more or less intact but the 1986 one doesn’t go through.

I don't think he would pass the Reagan taxcut if he doesn't believe in it and the subsequent drop in the economy would get him alot of heat unless he deflected it to the Reagonites and other Supply side stooges, possibly even killing the idea for a while iif not for good
 
As for Reaganomics: Beginning in November of 1982 and lasting uninterrupted for 92 months, the US saw the biggest peace time economic boom in its history. Economic indicators point to the robustness of Reagan’s recovery: unemployment which stood at 7.6% when he took office and soared to 10.8% during the height of the recession, plummeted to nearly half of that by the time Reagan left office, down to a low 5.3%. Similarly, interest rates, which had peaked at 21.5% in 1980 were cut in half, down to 10.5%. Inflation, which pervaded most of the 1970s, and stood at 13.5% when Reagan was elected, was down to 4.8% in 1989, and continued to fall thereafter. The poverty rate fell from 15.2% to 12.8%, while real family income increased by 10%. And over 19 million new jobs were created, with the vast majority of them being relatively high paying jobs.[1] Furthermore, by 1988, American manufacturing produced 65% a year more than it had in Carter’s final year in office, making a mockery of the claim that American manufacturing dried up under Reagan.

Yes the deficits went up, but government revenue INCREASED under Reagan: unfortunately the Democrats who controlled the house refused to cut spending.
 
the US saw the biggest peace time economic boom in its history

No it wasn't, I already pointed this out. The biggest peacetime boom was from 1991-2001, beginning under Bush 41 and ending under Bush 43.

Inflation, which pervaded most of the 1970s, and stood at 13.5% when Reagan was elected, was down to 4.8% in 1989, and continued to fall thereafter.

Again, this was due to the policies of Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Carter but fired by Reagan in 1987. He was replaced by Alan Greenspan, who's largely considered one of the primary architects of the 2007 economic crisis.
 
the Reagan recovery broadly lasted from 1982 to 2007, (with small recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001), the Reagan twenty-five-year expansion was the most extraordinary period of prosperity in American history. Indeed, the ‘Clinton boom’ was in reality a continuation of the Reagan boom, which saw the US create more wealth during this period than in the 200 years preceding it.
 
the Reagan recovery broadly lasted from 1982 to 2007, (with small recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001), the Reagan twenty-five-year expansion was the most extraordinary period of prosperity in American history. Indeed, the ‘Clinton boom’ was in reality a continuation of the Reagan boom, which saw the US create more wealth during this period than in the 200 years preceding it.

Dude, it was not Reagan. He was not that much of a good president and the growth was the result of increasing taxes, not lowering it.
 
the Reagan recovery broadly lasted from 1982 to 2007, (with small recessions in 1990-1991 and 2001), the Reagan twenty-five-year expansion was the most extraordinary period of prosperity in American history. Indeed, the ‘Clinton boom’ was in reality a continuation of the Reagan boom, which saw the US create more wealth during this period than in the 200 years preceding it.

Economic recoveries don't last for decades on end. The economic recovery from stagflation and Reagananomics (which, as I poinited out earlier, helped to cause a painful 1982 recession that marked the worst economy since the Great Depression) occurred within only a few years.

There was no such thing as a Reagan boom or a Clinton boom. Both Presidents impacted the economy in different ways, but the 1980s recovery was caused by the Fed's policies while the 1990s boom was caused by the tech bubble.

Also, 1982 to 2007 was not the most extraordinary period of prosperity in US history. That would be the Long Boom, which lasted from 1945 to 1970. This is a pretty basic historical fact that is taught at the high school level. In 1945 the United States owned a staggering 50% of the world's wealth and in the following decades the average American consumer prospered like never before or since. This came to an end in the early seventies, corresponding with the end of the Bretton Woods system and the Advent of stagflation.

Long story short, your facts are wrong.
 
Last edited:
4. The strengthening of the MIC that Eisenhower warned about.
Over the 8 years that Reagan occupied the White House, the US defence budget was increased six times. This created an unsustainable sector that provided temporary jobs and benefits, but no long term gain.
to be fair, a lot of Americans at the time wanted an increase in the defense budget... in the wake of Afghanistan and Iran, it's hardly surprising..
 
Top