Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
Reagan and bin Laden
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
two birds of a feather reagan and Obama.No wonder Obama liked reagan so much,he reminded him so much of himself,someone who betrayed the middle class,sent jobs overseas,got us into the worst debt ever,was a mass murderer,and shit on the black people.definetely two birds of a feather.
No wonder Reagan was hiis idol and no wonder he said in his inagural address he wanted to be just like him. He must have gone to the same acting school reagan did.Just like reagan was so good at,the american people in their gullability are falling for Obamas phony acting just like they got taken in by reagans acting.some things never change.
Sure, you probably believe that crap
Reagan 'simplified' it by gutting revenues by giving tax cuts to the rich, that's why he tripled US debt!
Ronnie gets credit for Clinton's good economy huh? lol... How about the recession Poppy Bush inherited BECAUSE Ronnie ignored regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
President Clintons Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression.
Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight yearsthe most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993
Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt
President Clintons Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in Americas history.
Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000the lowest level since 1966.
To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:
Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction.
"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994
"Clintons 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
Business Week, May 19, 1997
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
Afghanistan under Soviet rule
Afghanistan under Taliban rule
Wow. Such freedom. So Liberated.
We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.
Brzezinski told Al Qaedas forefathers the Mujahadin:
We know of their deep belief in god that theyre confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over-there is yours and youll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and youll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)
Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research
GROW A BRAIN BUBBA
agent censores handlers are going to get desperate now trying to think up new lies to tell him to post now after you took him to school just then especially with that photo.
while having fun trying to watch them weasel out of this picture of reagan,its going to be fun watching these agents try and weasel out of this picture of Bush hanging out and partying with saudi's as well.I would say these pics of reagan and Bush we have posted Dad speak a thousand words wouldnt you?
The Atlantean Conspiracy: The 9/11 Inside Job (part 3)
I would say from these photos in this link of mine that little Bush went down the same roadpath that daddy Bush did when he was VP under reagan.I would say daddy Bush introduced junior to all these loveable guys at some point when he was the VP the fact that he was also friends with these pals of Ronnies wouldnt you?
these trolls no doubt are going to have to check with their handlers and spend some time on the computer going back and forth with them on what kind of lies to come up and post next to try and get around these facts of ours I guarantee.
Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
Reagan and bin Laden
The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.
This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
He sure has followed in Reagans footsteps.His role model sure had a huge influence on him no doubt.He learned very well from the master how to betray the american people and give them the middle finger.He studied reagan very well and did an EXCELLENT job of following in his footsteps.
