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

[Cammmpbell]

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

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

 

[tjvh]

Bush isn't enough...Now you are blaming Reagan?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

Your naivity is overwhelming. He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and began to quadruple the national debt. Borrowing and funneling the money to the wealthy is exactly what he did.

Bill Clinton came along, raised taxes and straightened things out and then old dumbassed George Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars and doubled the national debt again. You can't cut your income and spend more at the same time. That shit just won't work. Do you run your personal business that way? If you do you are a fool.

 

[Darkwind]

................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......

 

[there4eyeM]

Attacking the RR icon always brings out the bitterest elements. I have never understood this idolatry, but there are those who think he was great. Well, he did represent those behind him very effectively and, as they are identical with the interests behind 'W', the same things were done again only on a more spectacular scale. Pre-emptive war indeed! How un-American can you get?
Of course, the Democrats, in all their glory and courage, went right along with these boobs. The two parties form a dictatorship that has to be thrown out if America is ever to be restored. I'm in serious doubt that will ever happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

In fact, there is a sound mathematical argument that Reagan's policies did exactly that.

1. The deficits did increase dramatically during the Reagan presidency, so borrowing more money during the Reagan presidency is a fact.

2. The effective federal tax rate on the top 1% was about 35% in 1980. It had fallen to about 30% by 1988, so real tax savings for the wealthiest Americans during the Reagan presidency is also a fact.

If, therefore, the wealthy paid lower taxes during the Reagan presidency, but the government fell short of the revenue it needed during the same period, and thus had to borrow,

it is mathematically sound to say that the government borrowed money to give to the wealthy when Reagan was president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

................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......

Yes it is unless you reject the idea that the people are responsible for their government's spending.

Take it to a smaller level. If your school district builds a new high school, let's say, for 10 million dollars, which represents a 10 million dollar increase over the last school budget, but,

your district doesn't raise school taxes, but borrows the money instead,

the taxpayers have been allowed to keep their share of that building cost only because borrowed money was used instead of tax money.

No one has ever paid back the money borrowed during the Reagan years. That debt just keeps getting rolled over, and new debt is added on top of it. The deficit spending during the Reagan years will never be paid off by the taxpayers who lived during the Reagan years.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I am not voting for Reagan this time.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

Your naivity is overwhelming. He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and began to quadruple the national debt. Borrowing and funneling the money to the wealthy is exactly what he did.

Naivity isn't a word. My money doesn't belong to the government, you Marxist pig. Every penny I earn is MINE and when the government cuts taxes that's just less they are stealing from me and everyone else to buy votes from jealous parasites like you.

You can't cut your income and spend more at the same time. That shit just won't work. Do you run your personal business that way? If you do you are a fool.

No shit, Sherlock, yet you support Obama who has done exactly that so shut the fuck up. You have no credibility.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

In fact, there is a sound mathematical argument that Reagan's policies did exactly that.

1. The deficits did increase dramatically during the Reagan presidency, so borrowing more money during the Reagan presidency is a fact.

2. The effective federal tax rate on the top 1% was about 35% in 1980. It had fallen to about 30% by 1988, so real tax savings for the wealthiest Americans during the Reagan presidency is also a fact.

If, therefore, the wealthy paid lower taxes during the Reagan presidency, but the government fell short of the revenue it needed during the same period, and thus had to borrow,

it is mathematically sound to say that the government borrowed money to give to the wealthy when Reagan was president.

No, it isn't mathematically sound. He didn't give the wealthy anything. It was theirs to begin with. He just stole less of it and those tax cuts didn't lessen federal "income." Revenue to the federal government increased radically during the 1980s, but Reagan jacked up spending far beyond the increase and that's the same mistake Bush 43 made.

And as I told our village idiot OP, unless you're pledging to vote out Obama I don't want to hear a peep out of you about deficit spending because NO president before him ever ran up trillion dollar deficits in one year. You people have NO credibility on this topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

In fact, there is a sound mathematical argument that Reagan's policies did exactly that.

1. The deficits did increase dramatically during the Reagan presidency, so borrowing more money during the Reagan presidency is a fact.

2. The effective federal tax rate on the top 1% was about 35% in 1980. It had fallen to about 30% by 1988, so real tax savings for the wealthiest Americans during the Reagan presidency is also a fact.

If, therefore, the wealthy paid lower taxes during the Reagan presidency, but the government fell short of the revenue it needed during the same period, and thus had to borrow,

it is mathematically sound to say that the government borrowed money to give to the wealthy when Reagan was president.

No, it isn't mathematically sound. He didn't give the wealthy anything. It was theirs to begin with. He just stole less of it and those tax cuts didn't lessen federal "income." Revenue to the federal government increased radically during the 1980s, but Reagan jacked up spending far beyond the increase and that's the same mistake Bush 43 made.

And as I told our village idiot OP, unless you're pledging to vote out Obama I don't want to hear a peep out of you about deficit spending because NO president before him ever ran up trillion dollar deficits in one year. You people have NO credibility on this topic.

If you don't understand math, I guess it's futile to try to carry on a conversation about math with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

Your naivity is overwhelming. He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and began to quadruple the national debt. Borrowing and funneling the money to the wealthy is exactly what he did.

Naivity isn't a word. My money doesn't belong to the government, you Marxist pig. Every penny I earn is MINE and when the government cuts taxes that's just less they are stealing from me and everyone else to buy votes from jealous parasites like you.

You can't cut your income and spend more at the same time. That shit just won't work. Do you run your personal business that way? If you do you are a fool.

No shit, Sherlock, yet you support Obama who has done exactly that so shut the fuck up. You have no credibility.

You're an anarchist. That's rather demented.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

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

You have convinced me not to vote for Ronald Reagan this election.

Well done.





Twit.

 

[bripat9643]

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

There's your first mistake, asshole. A tax cut isn't "giving money to the wealthy." It's their money to begin with.

 

[FJO]

In fact, there is a sound mathematical argument that Reagan's policies did exactly that.

1. The deficits did increase dramatically during the Reagan presidency, so borrowing more money during the Reagan presidency is a fact.

2. The effective federal tax rate on the top 1% was about 35% in 1980. It had fallen to about 30% by 1988, so real tax savings for the wealthiest Americans during the Reagan presidency is also a fact.

If, therefore, the wealthy paid lower taxes during the Reagan presidency, but the government fell short of the revenue it needed during the same period, and thus had to borrow,

it is mathematically sound to say that the government borrowed money to give to the wealthy when Reagan was president.

No, it isn't mathematically sound. He didn't give the wealthy anything. It was theirs to begin with. He just stole less of it and those tax cuts didn't lessen federal "income." Revenue to the federal government increased radically during the 1980s, but Reagan jacked up spending far beyond the increase and that's the same mistake Bush 43 made.

And as I told our village idiot OP, unless you're pledging to vote out Obama I don't want to hear a peep out of you about deficit spending because NO president before him ever ran up trillion dollar deficits in one year. You people have NO credibility on this topic.

If you don't understand math, I guess it's futile to try to carry on a conversation about math with you.

President Obama was bragging to Jay Leno that he does not understand mathematics beyond the Seventh Grade Level.

 

[bripat9643]

Your naivity is overwhelming. He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and began to quadruple the national debt. Borrowing and funneling the money to the wealthy is exactly what he did.

Naivity isn't a word. My money doesn't belong to the government, you Marxist pig. Every penny I earn is MINE and when the government cuts taxes that's just less they are stealing from me and everyone else to buy votes from jealous parasites like you.

You can't cut your income and spend more at the same time. That shit just won't work. Do you run your personal business that way? If you do you are a fool.

No shit, Sherlock, yet you support Obama who has done exactly that so shut the fuck up. You have no credibility.

You're an anarchist. That's rather demented.

You're a moron.

 

[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.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Reagan never gave borrowed money to the wealthy. Negged for lying.

Your naivity is overwhelming. He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and began to quadruple the national debt. Borrowing and funneling the money to the wealthy is exactly what he did.

No one is buying the liberal propaganda that a tax cut constitutes income redistribution.

Bill Clinton came along, raised taxes and straightened things out and then old dumbassed George Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars and doubled the national debt again. You can't cut your income and spend more at the same time. That shit just won't work. Do you run your personal business that way? If you do you are a fool.

Cutting taxes doesn't constitute cutting government revenues. Raising taxes doesn't benefit the economy. That claim is too idiotic for words.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

They aren't that stupid. However, thieves always find a way to justify their plunder.