When Reagan Gave Borrowed Money To The Wealthy..........

[FJO]

Cammmpbell said:

"Horse shit!! The guy cut taxes for the wealthy and his own vice president called the plan "voodoo exonomics" The two of them borrowed $3 trillion to fund cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We used to pay our way.George W. Bush came along and did the same thing again. You people won't be satisfied until a member of what used to be the middle class is working 80 hours a week with no benefits....about the same as a Maylasian day laborer."

Reagan cut taxes for EVERYBODY who EARNED a living. He did not cut taxes for the free-loaders, because they paid no taxes to begin with. To them, and of course to Cammmpbell, everybody who works for a living is "wealthy".

George H.W. Bush disagreed with some of Reagan's policies. Their disagreement resulted in Bush's entering a primary for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. Reagan won, and as the gentleman that he was, offered the Vice Presidency to Bush.

Bush had the courage and integrity to challenge his boss. On the other hand, Joe Biden had neither the courage nor the integrity to challenge Obama. For that matter, neither had Hillary.

As far as working hours, the unions and the cowardly wusses who belong to them (and co-incidentally, to the Democratic Party) won't be satisfied until they either won't have to work at all, or extorted as much undeserved riches from the job providers as they can. And then they can go and bitch about jobs sent to China. Or Malaysia.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And since Reagan, welfare spending has steadily been going up. With more and more people relying on government taxpayer-funded assistance for their paychecks.

LBJ started the "War on Poverty" How's that going?

 

[Cammmpbell]

You are absolutely correct. Reagan's resolve and his philosophy of "Peace thru Strength" brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of its slave countries, my old country among them.

Yet, the Left, including to the rotten-to-the-core and corrupt Nobel Prize committee gave the Prize to Gorbachev, but not Reagan. Clear case of glorifying a weak-kneed coward and disrespecting a hero.

If anyone disagrees with my contention that the Nobel people are despicable dirtbags, explain to me the Peace Prize given to their soul-mates, Gore and Obama.

I hate to burst your bubble. Your precious Reagan was a Democrat and the president of a union until his grade B movies began to make some serious bucks...then for the rest of his life he worked on tax cuts for the wealthy. You want to talk "standing up to the Soviets" you should read the events surrounding and involved in the nuclear missile crisis in Cuba. John Kennedy stood toe to toe with Krusheiv and put a naval embargo in place which ultimately caused the Soviet military to load up their nukes and get the hell out of Dodge. We were on the brink of ww3 for several days.

I think one could evaluate the day to day events of Reagan's presidency and come to the conclusion that alzheimers was beginning to set in at least 10 years before the public knew about him being taken by it. After all......not too many politicians in their right mind would have sent 1500 state-of-the-art ballistic missles to Iran and hidden it from the American public.

Yes, Reagan used to be Democrat until the Democratic Party left him. Eventually just about every soberly thinking and rational Democrat becomes Republican. Eventually every child grows up and starts thinking for himself.

Saul, who was the wildest and most vicious persecutor of Christians, became on the road to Damascus, one of Christianity's most revered saints.

So, conversion is not only possible, but normal people it is the only way to sanity. As he old saying goes: A conservative is a former liberal who got mugged.

I read about Kennedy, the philandering tom cat. And I stood up to Soviet tanks in October 1956 in Hungary when I was only seventeen.

To say that President Reagan was afflicted with Alzheimer's disease two years before his first election to be President puts one of your heroes, the peanut farmer, one of your personal heroes, Jimmy Carter I in a stupid class all by himself for the way Ronald Reagan demolished him and send him packing to Habitat for Humanity for phony photo opportunities, takes an especially evil and ignorant person, such as yourself.

BTW, I said Jimmy Carter I, because Jimmy Carter II - another of your heroes - will get his ass kicked back to Chicago on November 6th.

Your Republican fairy tale is about as realistic as the one from primitive times which says people will rise from the grave, meet a ghost floating on a cloud...then fly off to paradise to live forever. Major horse shit.

 

[CMike]

Letting people keep more of their own money is not giving them money.

 

[CMike]

.

Ugh.

I'm not a "cut tax rates at all costs" absolutist, I agree that we need to look at the point of equilibrium where marginal tax rates provide revenues without retarding growth.

However...

It amazes me that so many people think that the government is "giving" money to a taxpayer when they're lowering their tax rates or keeping them low. Have we not yet learned that it's not the government's money to "give"? That arranging for a person to keep more of what they have earned is not "giving" them anything?

I suspect this ties in with the "you didn't build that" stuff. If "you didn't build that", it's not yours, it was "given" to you by the government, so the government can take more of it back.

Tough to solve problems when you can't even agree on facts.

.

Actually, if current tax law puts you under an obligation to pay, let's say for example, 10% of your income to the government,

that IS the government's money. They have, under current law, a legal, legitimate claim to it,

as many a person who may for whatever reason not paid their taxes has found out.

So...

...if you made 50,000 and had a 10% tax rate obligation under current tax law, that $5000 is not 'your money'...

...it is by law the government's money.

If, then, you get a tax CUT, let's to 8%, your tax obligation would fall to $4000, thus,

the government has given back to you $1000 that under previous law belonged to the government. No, it was not 'your money'.

Like it not, those are the facts.

It is not the governments money. The government may be able to successfully loot the money but its not their money until its in their bank account.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Ugh.

I'm not a "cut tax rates at all costs" absolutist, I agree that we need to look at the point of equilibrium where marginal tax rates provide revenues without retarding growth.

However...

It amazes me that so many people think that the government is "giving" money to a taxpayer when they're lowering their tax rates or keeping them low. Have we not yet learned that it's not the government's money to "give"? That arranging for a person to keep more of what they have earned is not "giving" them anything?

I suspect this ties in with the "you didn't build that" stuff. If "you didn't build that", it's not yours, it was "given" to you by the government, so the government can take more of it back.

Tough to solve problems when you can't even agree on facts.

.

Actually, if current tax law puts you under an obligation to pay, let's say for example, 10% of your income to the government,

that IS the government's money. They have, under current law, a legal, legitimate claim to it,

as many a person who may for whatever reason not paid their taxes has found out.

So...

...if you made 50,000 and had a 10% tax rate obligation under current tax law, that $5000 is not 'your money'...

...it is by law the government's money.

If, then, you get a tax CUT, let's to 8%, your tax obligation would fall to $4000, thus,

the government has given back to you $1000 that under previous law belonged to the government. No, it was not 'your money'.

Like it not, those are the facts.

Those are certainly the facts for someone who has a government-centric perspective: The government giveth, the government taketh away.

Under this approach, then, EVERYTHING "belongs" to the government, because it "allows" us to "keep" the money we use to purchase things. And, since the money with which we purchase things belongs to the government, so too do the things we purchase.

I think we all know what the name for such a system is, you may like such a system, but no thanks.

Looks like I was right about the meaning of "you didn't build that".

.

 

[Papageorgio]

.

Ugh.

I'm not a "cut tax rates at all costs" absolutist, I agree that we need to look at the point of equilibrium where marginal tax rates provide revenues without retarding growth.

However...

It amazes me that so many people think that the government is "giving" money to a taxpayer when they're lowering their tax rates or keeping them low. Have we not yet learned that it's not the government's money to "give"? That arranging for a person to keep more of what they have earned is not "giving" them anything?

I suspect this ties in with the "you didn't build that" stuff. If "you didn't build that", it's not yours, it was "given" to you by the government, so the government can take more of it back.

Tough to solve problems when you can't even agree on facts.

.

Actually, if current tax law puts you under an obligation to pay, let's say for example, 10% of your income to the government,

that IS the government's money. They have, under current law, a legal, legitimate claim to it,

as many a person who may for whatever reason not paid their taxes has found out.

So...

...if you made 50,000 and had a 10% tax rate obligation under current tax law, that $5000 is not 'your money'...

...it is by law the government's money.

If, then, you get a tax CUT, let's to 8%, your tax obligation would fall to $4000, thus,

the government has given back to you $1000 that under previous law belonged to the government. No, it was not 'your money'.

Like it not, those are the facts.

It is not the governments money. The government may be able to successfully loot the money but its not their money until its in their bank account.

That is why employers are ordered to pay the employee's taxes before the employee sees it. If employees were required to write a check to the federal government every month, I bet there would be a different take on taxes.

 

[Cammmpbell]

.

Ugh.

I'm not a "cut tax rates at all costs" absolutist, I agree that we need to look at the point of equilibrium where marginal tax rates provide revenues without retarding growth.

However...

It amazes me that so many people think that the government is "giving" money to a taxpayer when they're lowering their tax rates or keeping them low. Have we not yet learned that it's not the government's money to "give"? That arranging for a person to keep more of what they have earned is not "giving" them anything?

I suspect this ties in with the "you didn't build that" stuff. If "you didn't build that", it's not yours, it was "given" to you by the government, so the government can take more of it back.

Tough to solve problems when you can't even agree on facts.

.

Actually, if current tax law puts you under an obligation to pay, let's say for example, 10% of your income to the government,

that IS the government's money. They have, under current law, a legal, legitimate claim to it,

as many a person who may for whatever reason not paid their taxes has found out.

So...

...if you made 50,000 and had a 10% tax rate obligation under current tax law, that $5000 is not 'your money'...

...it is by law the government's money.

If, then, you get a tax CUT, let's to 8%, your tax obligation would fall to $4000, thus,

the government has given back to you $1000 that under previous law belonged to the government. No, it was not 'your money'.

Like it not, those are the facts.

It is not the governments money. The government may be able to successfully loot the money but its not their money until its in their bank account.

LOL...most Republicans think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps when in fact they are almost as inept as the criminal Romney. Ate off an ironing board... LOL Ann is almost as big a liar as her Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands husband.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

LOL...most Republicans think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps when in fact they are almost as inept as the criminal Romney. Ate off an ironing board... LOL Ann is almost as big a liar as her Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands husband.

The bottom line is you're nothing but a rotten, bitter old bastard who is jealous that other people busted their asses harder than you did or were smarter than you are and thus had more success. That's your problem that you failed in life. Quit your fucking whining already you pathetic excuse for a man.

 

[Stephanie]

LOL...most Republicans think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps when in fact they are almost as inept as the criminal Romney. Ate off an ironing board... LOL Ann is almost as big a liar as her Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands husband.

The bottom line is you're nothing but a rotten, bitter old bastard who is jealous that other people busted their asses harder than you did or were smarter than you are and thus had more success. That's your problem that you failed in life. Quit your fucking whining already you pathetic excuse for a man.

for sure of that...my gawd hateful and bitter..what a way to get old

 

[Mac1958]

.

Many folks don't want to admit that others busted their ass to become successful (whatever their definition of "success" may be). If they DID admit it, it might require them to look in the mirror.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

It isn't necessary to be a Democrat to see Ronnie for the incredible disaster he was.

 

[Cammmpbell]

LOL...most Republicans think they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps when in fact they are almost as inept as the criminal Romney. Ate off an ironing board... LOL Ann is almost as big a liar as her Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands husband.

The bottom line is you're nothing but a rotten, bitter old bastard who is jealous that other people busted their asses harder than you did or were smarter than you are and thus had more success. That's your problem that you failed in life. Quit your fucking whining already you pathetic excuse for a man.

I'm 78 years old. Worked 41 years for the same company. I was the dept head in a mainframe computer shop for the last 25 years of my career. Between my wife and I we have three IRA's. I have three children, 47, 51 and 53...two of them have masters degrees and the third earns over $100K working for the DOE. I moved to the lake 19 years ago, live in a 4br brick rancher(paid for) and have 220ft. of lake frontage. I have a dock and a well pump in the lake for irrigation. My wife drives a 2009 Lincoln Town Car and I have a 2011 F-150 with the dual turbocharged Ecoboost engine. My Mom just had her 100th b'day the last day of July and I expect to live longer than she does....whatever that turns out to be. Suck on this...............

 

[OODA_Loop]

I'm 78 years old. Worked 41 years for the same company. I was the dept head in a mainframe computer shop for the last 25 years of my career. Between my wife and I we have three IRA's. I have three children, 47, 51 and 53...two of them have masters degrees and the third earns over $100K working for the DOE. I moved to the lake 19 years ago, live in a 4br brick rancher(paid for) and have 220ft. of lake frontage. I have a dock and a well pump in the lake for irrigation. My wife drives a 2009 Lincoln Town Car and I have a 2011 F-150 with the dual turbocharged Ecoboost engine. My Mom just had her 100th b'day the last day of July and I expect to live longer than she does....whatever that turns out to be. Suck on this...............

Yet you ooze hate.

 

[OKTexas]

Another lib who has no clue about economics. You lend to or you borrow from, but you can't borrow to. Just doesn't work that way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

................in the form of tax cuts and ruined the PATCO union was that the beginning of the end for our middle class?

When Reagan Gave Borrowed Money To The Wealthy..........

When you woke up, you were still stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

................in the form of tax cuts and ruined the PATCO union was that the beginning of the end for our middle class?

Do you even understand how the tax system works?

Allowing someone to keep more their money is not giving borrowed money to them......

That's a load of right wing bullshit. Tax cuts for the wealthy is what created this enormous debt. People in this country...all the way up to the 1980's used to share and pay their way...not a bunch of greedy, inept, paper shuffling assholes. Americans used to be patriots. During the second world war every able bodied man under forty years old put on a uniform and served in the military. When we were paying for it any wage earner who made more than $300,000 per year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. That continued through Eisenhower's two terms. Now...with tax rates the lowest they've been in forty years all you can hear from the Republicans is "We Need More Tax Cuts"

I have news for you...."Trickle Down" was a bold faced insult to everyone except the assholes getting the breaks. It didn't work and it never will.

People in this country...all the way up to the 1980's used to share and pay their way..

Federal receipts in FY 1981 were $599 billion. In FY 1989, after the top rate was cut from 70% all the way down to 28%, Federal receipts were $991 billion.

Now...with tax rates the lowest they've been in forty years

In the late 1980s, the top rate was 28%. Now it's 35%.

35% is higher than 28%. Education in this country isn't what it used to be.

Liberals, never too smart to begin with, are dumber than ever.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Do you even understand how the tax system works?

Allowing someone to keep more their money is not giving borrowed money to them......

That's a load of right wing bullshit. Tax cuts for the wealthy is what created this enormous debt. People in this country...all the way up to the 1980's used to share and pay their way...not a bunch of greedy, inept, paper shuffling assholes. Americans used to be patriots. During the second world war every able bodied man under forty years old put on a uniform and served in the military. When we were paying for it any wage earner who made more than $300,000 per year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. That continued through Eisenhower's two terms. Now...with tax rates the lowest they've been in forty years all you can hear from the Republicans is "We Need More Tax Cuts"

I have news for you...."Trickle Down" was a bold faced insult to everyone except the assholes getting the breaks. It didn't work and it never will.

People in this country...all the way up to the 1980's used to share and pay their way..

Federal receipts in FY 1981 were $599 billion. In FY 1989, after the top rate was cut from 70% all the way down to 28%, Federal receipts were $991 billion.

Now...with tax rates the lowest they've been in forty years

In the late 1980s, the top rate was 28%. Now it's 35%.

35% is higher than 28%. Education in this country isn't what it used to be.

Liberals, never too smart to begin with, are dumber than ever.

ROTFLMAO!!!

You've been watching too much Fox News:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a load of right wing bullshit. Tax cuts for the wealthy is what created this enormous debt. People in this country...all the way up to the 1980's used to share and pay their way...not a bunch of greedy, inept, paper shuffling assholes. Americans used to be patriots. During the second world war every able bodied man under forty years old put on a uniform and served in the military. When we were paying for it any wage earner who made more than $300,000 per year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. That continued through Eisenhower's two terms. Now...with tax rates the lowest they've been in forty years all you can hear from the Republicans is "We Need More Tax Cuts"

I have news for you...."Trickle Down" was a bold faced insult to everyone except the assholes getting the breaks. It didn't work and it never will.

People in this country...all the way up to the 1980's used to share and pay their way..

Federal receipts in FY 1981 were $599 billion. In FY 1989, after the top rate was cut from 70% all the way down to 28%, Federal receipts were $991 billion.

Now...with tax rates the lowest they've been in forty years

In the late 1980s, the top rate was 28%. Now it's 35%.

35% is higher than 28%. Education in this country isn't what it used to be.

Liberals, never too smart to begin with, are dumber than ever.

ROTFLMAO!!!

You've been watching too much Fox News:

Federal receipts in FY 1981 were $599 billion. In FY 1989, after the top rate was cut from 70% all the way down to 28%, Federal receipts were $991 billion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Ugh.

I'm not a "cut tax rates at all costs" absolutist, I agree that we need to look at the point of equilibrium where marginal tax rates provide revenues without retarding growth.

However...

It amazes me that so many people think that the government is "giving" money to a taxpayer when they're lowering their tax rates or keeping them low. Have we not yet learned that it's not the government's money to "give"? That arranging for a person to keep more of what they have earned is not "giving" them anything?

I suspect this ties in with the "you didn't build that" stuff. If "you didn't build that", it's not yours, it was "given" to you by the government, so the government can take more of it back.

Tough to solve problems when you can't even agree on facts.

.

Actually, if current tax law puts you under an obligation to pay, let's say for example, 10% of your income to the government,

that IS the government's money. They have, under current law, a legal, legitimate claim to it,

as many a person who may for whatever reason not paid their taxes has found out.

So...

...if you made 50,000 and had a 10% tax rate obligation under current tax law, that $5000 is not 'your money'...

...it is by law the government's money.

If, then, you get a tax CUT, let's to 8%, your tax obligation would fall to $4000, thus,

the government has given back to you $1000 that under previous law belonged to the government. No, it was not 'your money'.

Like it not, those are the facts.

In your example/illustration you forgot to mention that when the government reduced the tax rate from 10% to 8%, they changed the law. Thus, only $4,000 of your earnings lawfully belonged to the government, according to the law, so in effect they gave you nothing. That $1,000 belong to you.

Like it or not, those are the facts.

?? You owed 5000 now you owe 4000. They gave you back 1000 that was theirs under the previous law.