The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Staph-Infection (Stephanie) still as pathetic as usual? Some things....

typical=when nothing else, insult.

this from a smelly twat juicer who says the President of the United States of America doesn't love his country?

Hello?

 

[BlindBoo]

Poor Ronnie Raygun. The patron saint of the Pseudo-Conservatives.

But he loved America more than ouir current president? Hahahahahaha.

 

[ShackledNation]

There is another Ron who will actually help this country. His last name is Paul.

 

[Too Tall]

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 we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t. - 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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is another Ron who will actually help this country. His last name is Paul.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

sorry to disappoint you my dear wingnut, but Carter?

Never voted for the man. Was with Birch Bayh in 1976 and Ted Kennedy in 1980.

Interesting. Some of us vote in the general election as well as in the primaries.

 

[ClosedCaption]

At least Reagan LOVED his country.

I can't say I see that in the one we have NOW.

How do you know that? That applies to both

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t. - 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.

Reaganomics started the fiscal mess we have today.

Like some big Republicans said over and over again "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

GOP: "Deficits don't matter"

"Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved deficits don't matter."

Unless, that is, a Democrat is in the White House.

After all, while Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it again, each Republican was rewarded with a second term in office.

But as the Gallup polling data show, concern over the federal deficit hasn't been this high since Democratic budget balancer Bill Clinton was in office.

All of which suggest the Republicans' born-again disdain for deficits ranks among the greatest - and most successful - political double-standards in recent memory. - Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter* | Crooks and Liars

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.

 

[Patrick2]

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.

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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 you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?

STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now


David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.

Reagan Budget Director: ‘Absolutely’ Raise Taxes, Just Like Reagan Did | ThinkProgress

 

[ShackledNation]

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 we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t. - 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.

And what do you believe caused that growth?

 

[Robert]

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.

 

[Patrick2]

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 you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?

STOCKMAN: Absolutely.

Note the brazen dishonesty of the leftwing? You represent the single defector from the Reagan administration, who was fired by Reagan, as representative of the Reagan administration.

 

[Patrick2]

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.

Reagan's administration was SPECTACULARLY successful in that regard and restoring american self-confidence and prosperity. The faux "republicans" want to lay at Reagan's doorstep the consequences of the democrat created ponzi schemes of social security and medicare/medicaid. It will only work with those who don't know the history. Unfortunately, as 2008 showed, there are many idiots-with-a-vote.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

#35-Only the architect of his economic plan. LOL!

 

[Patrick2]

Only the architect of his economic plan. LOL!

Uh, no he wasn't. C'mon, don't clutter the thread with idiocies, kay?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"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"

More BS myth: Gorby did it, and we're lucky Ronnie Bluster didn't screw it up and bring the hard liners back. All he did was break OUR budget, and start the ball rolling with ALLY Saddam and abandoning Afghanistan, after arming Bin Laden. Also made greed and discrimination acceptable. A nightmare.

 

[whitehall]

How is Reagan's legacy "sad"? Woodrow Wilson was mentally incompetent to govern after he suffered a massive stroke but democrats failed to tell the people who elected him. That's sad. FDR's medical records disappeared from a locked safe after he died suddenly in his 4th term. Indications are that democrats covered up his physical condition when they ran a walking corpse for a 4th term. That's sad. Harry Truman couldn't muster enough support to run for a second full term even after nuking half of Japan. That's sad. LBJ told the world he was quitting the war he started and quitting politics just when America needed leadership. That's sad. Lefties can hire George Soros and a billion dollars of tax exempt propaganda to try to rewrite history but Everyone knows that Reagan was a hero who turned this Country around from the malase and corruption of the Carter years and was shot by a left wing zealot. It's sad that Reagan died but he was a great man.