Decepticon
Rookie
- Jan 11, 2012
- 1,138
- 189
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Given: Reaganomics has been the ascendant political ideology of the Republican party and of the nation for the last 30 years. The country has moved away from the politics of New Deal to that of Reaganomics.
Reaganomics primarily consists of advocating for the following items:
1)Low top tax rates
2)Weakening of public unions and worker rights
3)Deregulation.
Now let's see what effect those policy changes have had since they were implemented under Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and Bush the lesser.
Wages haven't kept pace with productivity. I wonder where that money went?
OH....here it is!
Corporate taxes and the millionaires tax rates went down and Payroll taxes (which affect the middle class and poor to a MUCH higher extent) went up!
It appears that the rich have done VERY well, at the expense of EVERYONE ELSE.
Yes, things sure have changed since 1979. Why take a look at what would have happened to YOUR income had Reaganomics not been implemented.
Don't believe a source from BERKLEY?
Gee, I would have been grossing an extra 10 grand a year.
All that extra money sure wouldn't have come in handy at all. Oh wait..that's PER YEAR...that means OVER a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS that WOULD have been mine if Reaganomics hadn't been adopted. Sure is a good thing those poor poor rich folks got all that money instead of working stiffs like me. I mean they're rich so they OBVIOUSLY deserve to have more.
What would the economy look like if the bottom 80% were to start getting what they would have gotten had not CONZ so vociferously implemented Reaganomics ?
Probably a lot fewer foreclosures.
So there you have it. Basically Reaganomics is stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich. Anyone who thinks Republicans want to help most of America that IS the middle class is deluding themselves.
I fully welcome EVERYONE to ARGUE THE NUMBERS posted here. Most of the studies are cited and can be found online with a little effort. If you have some stats that show something different, then by all means post it and we can argue the merits of our respective sources. If you just want to come here and say that my conclusions are WRONG and my data is worthless without offering ANY SUBSTANTIATION whatsoever, you will be LAUGHED off this thread as the clown you are.
Reaganomics primarily consists of advocating for the following items:
1)Low top tax rates
2)Weakening of public unions and worker rights
3)Deregulation.
Now let's see what effect those policy changes have had since they were implemented under Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and Bush the lesser.
Wages haven't kept pace with productivity. I wonder where that money went?
OH....here it is!
Corporate taxes and the millionaires tax rates went down and Payroll taxes (which affect the middle class and poor to a MUCH higher extent) went up!
It appears that the rich have done VERY well, at the expense of EVERYONE ELSE.
Yes, things sure have changed since 1979. Why take a look at what would have happened to YOUR income had Reaganomics not been implemented.
Don't believe a source from BERKLEY?
Gee, I would have been grossing an extra 10 grand a year.
All that extra money sure wouldn't have come in handy at all. Oh wait..that's PER YEAR...that means OVER a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS that WOULD have been mine if Reaganomics hadn't been adopted. Sure is a good thing those poor poor rich folks got all that money instead of working stiffs like me. I mean they're rich so they OBVIOUSLY deserve to have more.
What would the economy look like if the bottom 80% were to start getting what they would have gotten had not CONZ so vociferously implemented Reaganomics ?
Probably a lot fewer foreclosures.
So there you have it. Basically Reaganomics is stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich. Anyone who thinks Republicans want to help most of America that IS the middle class is deluding themselves.
I fully welcome EVERYONE to ARGUE THE NUMBERS posted here. Most of the studies are cited and can be found online with a little effort. If you have some stats that show something different, then by all means post it and we can argue the merits of our respective sources. If you just want to come here and say that my conclusions are WRONG and my data is worthless without offering ANY SUBSTANTIATION whatsoever, you will be LAUGHED off this thread as the clown you are.
