This exists now. Only for Prog agendas using inflation to pay for a lot of their programs. I will round it out at 20%. They are already going to undercut the real inflation for 2024 COLA social security increases at 3%. They are lying. They need every percentage increase to keep themselves not scaring the world markets more than they have done. Real inflation is much higher.
Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 10 Years
- Thread starter Lord Long Rod
- Start date
Ordinary Guy
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2021
- 2,148
- 2,465
- 1,938
Go there once per quarter, see many of them in Dearborn
SS could be fixed tomorrow if the Demafascist cared, all they'd have to do is get on board with the Nortic model:
www.nationalreview.com
Sweden’s Successful Social-Security Reforms | National Review
If Sweden can do it, so can the U.S.
www.nationalreview.com
It has largely worked, and Sweden’s retirement system is better off than the United States’. The supposed model for the Scandinavian welfare state realized it couldn’t keep spending other people’s money forever and made sensible reforms. If Sweden can do it, so can the U.S.
The beginning of the end for the American middle class was ReaganSS could be fixed tomorrow if the Demafascist cared, all they'd have to do is get on board with the Nortic model:
Sweden’s Successful Social-Security Reforms | National Review
If Sweden can do it, so can the U.S.
It has largely worked, and Sweden’s retirement system is better off than the United States’. The supposed model for the Scandinavian welfare state realized it couldn’t keep spending other people’s money forever and made sensible reforms. If Sweden can do it, so can the U.S.
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...
www.commondreams.org
Republicans love to cut funding. Schools, prisons, poor people, infrastructure. They'll cut cut cut services that help poor and middle people. Never corporate welfare. And their cuts won't solve anything. But they will have saved Rich people more money. And they will NEVER go along with undoing the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax breaks.
The middle class surged under Reagan, in fact Reagan's economy created what we now call the upper middle class...people got richer.The beginning of the end for the American middle class was Reagan
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...
Republicans love to cut funding. Schools, prisons, poor people, infrastructure. They'll cut cut cut services that help poor and middle people. Never corporate welfare. And their cuts won't solve anything. But they will have saved Rich people more money. And they will NEVER go along with undoing the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax breaks.
Middle Class "Shrinking" Upward The graph below shows the percentage of all households in low, middle, and high income categories. During economic decline, household income tends to fall, while during economic progress, household incomes tend to increase. The 1982-89 expansion conforms to the expected pattern of income growth during an economic upturn.
Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6 percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of high income households is another sign of solid income growth. Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989. In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?
Conclusion Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.
Under Xiden a record number of Americans are worse off then before he became President...demafacsit policies at work
Record numbers of people are worse off, a recipe for political discontent: POLL
Record numbers of people are worse off, a recipe for political discontent: POLL
There is record dissatisfaction with Biden and Trump ahead of the 2024 election, according to a new poll.
abcnews.go.com
The problem with your demafascist propaganda is, well...facts....facts cut your lies
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The beginning of the end for the American middle class was Reagan
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...
Republicans love to cut funding. Schools, prisons, poor people, infrastructure. They'll cut cut cut services that help poor and middle people. Never corporate welfare. And their cuts won't solve anything. But they will have saved Rich people more money. And they will NEVER go along with undoing the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax breaks.
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%.
Why do you keep posting this error? He never cut them down to 27% and it wasn't immediate.
Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983
They were already down to 12.5% in 1980, before he was elected.
Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA),
The payroll tax rate was 6.7% when the Greenspan commission recommended changes in 1983.
It's now 7.65%.
I know your source is a commie, but that's not even close to double.
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Because he is LYING.
Tax revenue soared under Reagan after he allowed working men and women to keep more of their hard earned cash...https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEAThe beginning of the end for the American middle class was Reagan
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...
Republicans love to cut funding. Schools, prisons, poor people, infrastructure. They'll cut cut cut services that help poor and middle people. Never corporate welfare. And their cuts won't solve anything. But they will have saved Rich people more money. And they will NEVER go along with undoing the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax breaks.
Blaster
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2022
- 26,163
- 27,706
- 2,288
Thanks for your concern.
Lord Long Rod
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2023
- 7,706
- 8,160
- 2,138
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #230
Thank you for your comment. Believe it or not, I am actually going to pay you a compliment. See, I do not actually believe that you are as stupid as you pretend to be online. I even have my suspicions that you do not even believe the ridiculous nonsense you espouse to others on a regular basis. I know it is fun to act stupid and be snarky. Thanks to the advent of the internet you can now do this with little to no consequence.The beginning of the end for the American middle class was Reagan
Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).
The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...
Republicans love to cut funding. Schools, prisons, poor people, infrastructure. They'll cut cut cut services that help poor and middle people. Never corporate welfare. And their cuts won't solve anything. But they will have saved Rich people more money. And they will NEVER go along with undoing the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax breaks.
A virtuous man, or woman, of honor knows that there are a number of things that must be collectively valued highly in order to maintain a civil society. These things consist of matters such as honesty, having a strong work ethic, being productive, and tolerance of diversity of opinions and ideas. Too many people today choose to live without virtue and a sense of honor. But it is our duty to seek a virtuous life if we are to effectively live in peace with one another. This requires, inter alia, education on a myriad of topics fueled by a natural curiosity and drive to better oneself and, therefore, society in general.
Such a heightened and enlightened consciousness cannot be found on the internet. Cyberspace is a dark, virtueless morass of social toxicity that is the antithesis to virtue. I acknowledge this, and I have some some time now. Therefore, I begrudge nobody their words and thoughts in the cyber world. I expect nothing from them. They are nothing, and they are of no consequence to me. Their value, if any, is what you choose it to be.
In order to stave off the inevitable nihilism associated with internet socializing, I choose to accept faith in the belief that nobody can really be as stupid and ignorant as you appear to be from the comments you publicly make. Most assuredly you are merely saying what you say in order to derive some sort of pleasure from a deviant fetish you harbor based on watching people respond to your bullshit.
Lord Long Rod
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2023
- 7,706
- 8,160
- 2,138
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #231
I just ignore this poster. He's dumber than shit.
Lord Long Rod
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2023
- 7,706
- 8,160
- 2,138
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #232
In other words, "WAAAAHAHHAHAHHHHHHH!!!" ( <----- Bitch tears).
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,932
- 2,288
No, that was JFK, actually. And the looting of Social Security began with Eisenhower.
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,932
- 2,288
Yes, inflation and printing massive amounts of hot money creates bubbles and then the math challenged claim it raised revenues, never mind the costs of the collapses and bailouts that follow these bubbles; just blame those on 'govt'. too. lol
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,932
- 2,288
Reagan raised taxes 8 times, taxes that fell mostly on working people, so yeah, 'revenues soared'. lol
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,932
- 2,288
^^^lol Todd needs a GoFundMe page, so he can go back and finish 6th grade, especially the math and reading classes.
The current middle class may have surged under Reagan but his policies would fuck the future middle class. For example, Reagan bailed out Ford. My dad worked for Ford. It got Reagan a second term. My dad worshipped Reagan. But my dad was in a union. He didn't realize Reagan's actions would lead to jobs like his going to mexico. My dad didn't realize back then Reagan was the start of breaking unions and turning a blind eye to illegal employers.The middle class surged under Reagan, in fact Reagan's economy created what we now call the upper middle class...people got richer.
Middle Class "Shrinking" Upward The graph below shows the percentage of all households in low, middle, and high income categories. During economic decline, household income tends to fall, while during economic progress, household incomes tend to increase. The 1982-89 expansion conforms to the expected pattern of income growth during an economic upturn.
Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6 percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of high income households is another sign of solid income growth. Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989. In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?
Conclusion Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.
Under Xiden a record number of Americans are worse off then before he became President...demafacsit policies at work
Record numbers of people are worse off, a recipe for political discontent: POLL
Record numbers of people are worse off, a recipe for political discontent: POLL
There is record dissatisfaction with Biden and Trump ahead of the 2024 election, according to a new poll.
The problem with your demafascist propaganda is, well...facts....facts cut your lies
I told you that since 1978 to now, CEO pay went up 1322% and our pay went up 18%. Reagan is the beginning of that. Wake up fool.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I told you that since 1978 to now, CEO pay went up 1322% and our pay went up 18%.
You lied.
I'm glad Thom Hartmann provides sources to his claims.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Zone1 Let's actually DISCUSS the origins and intent of the "Due Process Clause" of the Constitution.
- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 19
-
Zone1 Hegseth announces he’s ending Pentagon involvement in Trump initiative empowering women championed by Ivanka Trump and Rubio- Started by NewsVine_Mariyam
- Replies: 10
-
Why we have to counter the BIASED and anti-American MSM especially CBS News!
- Started by healthmyths
- Replies: 12
