- Thread starter
- #21
At least Reagan LOVED his country.
I can't say I see that in the one we have NOW.
How pathetic.
Obama loves America. Heck, they elected his black ass President in spite of people like you
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
At least Reagan LOVED his country.
I can't say I see that in the one we have NOW.
Staph-Infection (Stephanie) still as pathetic as usual? Some things....
typical=when nothing else, insult.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom declarations that you see in highly respectable places are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know were supposed to pretend that were having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we arent. - Reagan and revenue - NYTimes.com
There is another Ron who will actually help this country. His last name is Paul.
sorry to disappoint you my dear wingnut, but Carter?I'm waiting for him to post the sad legacy of Jimma Carter.
should we hold our breath.
some people just won't live in the here and now. And they damn sure don't want to talk the sad President we have in the White House now.
Never voted for the man. Was with Birch Bayh in 1976 and Ted Kennedy in 1980.
At least Reagan LOVED his country.
I can't say I see that in the one we have NOW.
Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom declarations that you see in highly respectable places are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know were supposed to pretend that were having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we arent. - Reagan and revenue - NYTimes.com
Krugman LIES!
Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
Back in June, Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse lamented the double-standard at work in the Republicans' posturing on the national debt:
"I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "But to me, that doesn't have an enormous amount of credibility, because when President Clinton left office, he left an annual surplus... At the end of [George W. Bush's] term, we had $9 trillion in debt."
"We would have none of this if it hadn't been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through," Whitehouse said.
Apparently, Sheldon Whitehouse and his Democratic allies don't understand how this game works. As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Unless, of course, a Democrat is in the White House.
The article in the OP is not simply raw numbers. You are absolutely right on the disastrous foreign and domestic situations. But Reagan did not cut spending, lower taxes by any significant amount, or reduce the size of government. In fact, he did most the opposite. He truly was the Great Communicator, for he was able to have the widest policy-rhetoric gap of any politician in the history of the United States.The OP is yet another idiot take on the Reagan era, which simply dumps out raw numbers without analyzing the horrendous foreign and domestic situations Reagan inherited from the disastrous Carter administration. Noithing to see here, folks, move along.
I am a Republican. It is important to face reality if you want to overcome big government. Reagan's legacy is sad because it offered hope for reducing government, but ultimately the opposite happened. We can't make the same mistake in 2012.
The article in the OP is not simply raw numbers. You are absolutely right on the disastrous foreign and domestic situations. But Reagan did not cut spending, lower taxes by any significant amount, or reduce the size of government. In fact, he did most the opposite. He truly was the Great Communicator, for he was able to have the widest policy-rhetoric gap of any politician in the history of the United States.The OP is yet another idiot take on the Reagan era, which simply dumps out raw numbers without analyzing the horrendous foreign and domestic situations Reagan inherited from the disastrous Carter administration. Noithing to see here, folks, move along.
I am a Republican. It is important to face reality if you want to overcome big government. Reagan's legacy is sad because it offered hope for reducing government, but ultimately the opposite happened. We can't make the same mistake in 2012.
You want to go round and round with me on this? Hokay!
The OP WAS just raw numbers, without any analysis of the history behind the numbers.
Reagan HUGELY reduced tax rates with the 1981 tax cut.
Reagan agreed to a democrat proposal for a tax increase with a $2 for $1 spending cut in 1982.
Reagan had to greatly ramp up the military because of the consequences of carter's appeasement policy which unleashed a huge soviet military buildup and anti-US aggression all over the world. This was expensive. To do otherwise would have been almost treason. That he HAD to do this says NOTHING about his philospohy of cutting spending when it's POSSIBLE.
OK - now you repeat your standard anti-Reagan post.
And what do you believe caused that growth?Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom declarations that you see in highly respectable places are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know were supposed to pretend that were having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we arent. - Reagan and revenue - NYTimes.com
Krugman LIES!
Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
The article in the OP is not simply raw numbers. You are absolutely right on the disastrous foreign and domestic situations. But Reagan did not cut spending, lower taxes by any significant amount, or reduce the size of government. In fact, he did most the opposite. He truly was the Great Communicator, for he was able to have the widest policy-rhetoric gap of any politician in the history of the United States.
I am a Republican. It is important to face reality if you want to overcome big government. Reagan's legacy is sad because it offered hope for reducing government, but ultimately the opposite happened. We can't make the same mistake in 2012.
You want to go round and round with me on this? Hokay!
The OP WAS just raw numbers, without any analysis of the history behind the numbers.
Reagan HUGELY reduced tax rates with the 1981 tax cut.
Reagan agreed to a democrat proposal for a tax increase with a $2 for $1 spending cut in 1982.
Reagan had to greatly ramp up the military because of the consequences of carter's appeasement policy which unleashed a huge soviet military buildup and anti-US aggression all over the world. This was expensive. To do otherwise would have been almost treason. That he HAD to do this says NOTHING about his philospohy of cutting spending when it's POSSIBLE.
OK - now you repeat your standard anti-Reagan post.
from a man who ran Reagan's Office of Management and Budget:
FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy so youre, like, a red-blooded capitalist could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?
STOCKMAN: Absolutely.
And I thank Ronald Reagan for single handily CRUSHING the life out of Soviet Union and ending a major form of Socialism from the world stage THANK YOU Mr Reagan for having the vision to do what needed to be done.
Only the architect of his economic plan. LOL!