Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy

[Quantum Windbag]

Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Doesn't really matter, does it? Bush is not going to be running in 2012.

The point is Obama has shifted from being the answer to our problems to a victim.

If he can get away with this he may have a chance of being re-elected, but it's still a long till the election. Do you think he can get away with it till then?

Nope.

 

[Lovebears65]

When is this problem going to be Obama fault. He has been president almost 3 years and has not kept any promise yet. He can do a speech without a Teleprompter but makes fun of Palin for writing talking points on her hand. He may have went to Harvard ( probably on our tax dollars) but this man has NO common sense!!

 

[Political Junky]

When is this problem going to be Obama fault. He has been president almost 3 years and has not kept any promise yet. He can do a speech without a Teleprompter but makes fun of Palin for writing talking points on her hand. He may have went to Harvard ( probably on our tax dollars) but this man has NO common sense!!

Obviously you didn't.

 

[IndependntLogic]

My original point was that the Dems screamed for personal armor, up-armored Humvees, a total makeover of all military installations, the sky was the limit.

My point was the Dems belly-aching helped bust the bank and raise the debt.

You wanna go off on some tangent all the while calling me a liar.

I think you're smoking something....or just light-headed from all of the fumes of that shit you keep shoveling.

Not to get in the middle a lover's quarrel but both parties have blown enough money to point fingers at.
Bush got us in a couple wars AND lowered taxes concurrently. Oops. He spent money like a drunken sailor.
Seems like Obama is intent on following suit.

Independents have the same reaction whenever we hear one side or the other, talking about how "the other guys are to blame"

Bush signed it so he catches some of the blame.

However, my point was that not only aren't the Dems innocent bystanders, but complacent if not bent on manipulating the system in a malicious manner using the media to badger Bush into making decision he normally wouldn't have. They not only helped spend the money but had raising the debt as a goal.

Sorry boss but you're staring into the spinning circle on that one. Bush had the WH, Senate and Congress. he had high approval ratings and a church erected in his name by FOX. NOTHING he did was due to "Dem pressure". That's just complete bs. He shut the Dems down all day and twice on Sunday. MSNBC wasn't allowed within 500 yeards of Pennsylvania Ave. The guy had more than any pres in history. And he thoroughly destroyed the party I voted for when his dad did things right.
The "victim of those nasty bully Libs" card, doesn't play with Indies.

 

[DaGoose]

Yeah, I'm young enough to know that 28% is less than 70%.
Reagan eliminated tax deductions for mortgages?
When did that happen?
Was it when he raised rates from 70% to 28%? LOL!

Thanks for confirming the fact that all the GOP cares about are what the tax rate is for the WEALTHY. Since I was a blue collar worker raising a family back then I know that Reagan RAISED what I had to pay in taxes.

.

Why don't you let us know what your AGI was in 1980 and in 1988?
Then you can go to this link......


The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

And prove your claim.

First of all, what my AGI was, and is, is none of your business and I don't have to prove shit to you. Looking at your link my tax rate in 1980 was 24% and in 1988 it was 28%.

Second of all you're looking at this way to simply (why doesn't that surprise me?). There's a HELLUVA lot more to this that some abitrary tax rate.

Don't let your love of Reagan blind to to reality, my friend. Like I said, I was working and raising a family during his presidency. I know EXACTLY what was going on.

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt were no longer deductible. An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated (although later partially reinstated, for farmers in 1997 and for fishermen in 2004). The Act, however, increased the personal exemption and standard deduction.

Moreover, interest on consumer loans such as credit card debt were no longer deductible.

An existing provision in the tax code, called Income Averaging, which reduced taxes for those only recently making a much higher salary than before, was eliminated

The Act, however, increased the personal exemption and standard deduction

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) removed the pension plan clause and raised the contribution limit to $2000 or 100% of earned income. The 1986 Tax Reform Act retained the $2000 contribution limit, but restricted the deductibility for households that have pension plan coverage and have moderate to high incomes.

Depreciation deductions were also curtailed

Defined contribution pension contributions were curtailed.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not to get in the middle a lover's quarrel but both parties have blown enough money to point fingers at.
Bush got us in a couple wars AND lowered taxes concurrently. Oops. He spent money like a drunken sailor.
Seems like Obama is intent on following suit.

Independents have the same reaction whenever we hear one side or the other, talking about how "the other guys are to blame"

Bush signed it so he catches some of the blame.

However, my point was that not only aren't the Dems innocent bystanders, but complacent if not bent on manipulating the system in a malicious manner using the media to badger Bush into making decision he normally wouldn't have. They not only helped spend the money but had raising the debt as a goal.

Sorry boss but you're staring into the spinning circle on that one. Bush had the WH, Senate and Congress. he had high approval ratings and a church erected in his name by FOX. NOTHING he did was due to "Dem pressure". That's just complete bs. He shut the Dems down all day and twice on Sunday. MSNBC wasn't allowed within 500 yeards of Pennsylvania Ave. The guy had more than any pres in history. And he thoroughly destroyed the party I voted for when his dad did things right.
The "victim of those nasty bully Libs" card, doesn't play with Indies.

One of the reasons the Dems have so much pull is because of deals they've made with the media which supports them exclusively. For some reason the media kept releasing secrets about what was going on in the Bush WH. They made a mountain out of a molehill with the NSA Data-mining program. They raised hell when it was discovered that a Middle Eastern country was going to provide the scanning machines at our ports. They raised hell about peeling paint and mildew at Walter Reed outpatient facilities. Don't tell me you think the media can't raise hell on their own. Just look at the Casey Anthony trial. That's a prime example.


I'm trying to figure out when this imaginary time was that Bush had complete control of Congress. I don't remember that. From what I remember Congress was split. The only thing that the GOP had full control of was the house and that doesn't solve anything. Nothing they pass gets to the President without the Senate. And FYI, the Senate is part of Congress. Also, somebody got the bright idea during the short time the GOP had control the Senate to share leadership responsibilities with the Dems. So the Dems called for investigations and held hearings even when they weren't in the majority.

So what has happened because of this?
The housing crash started in 07. The banking crisis in 08. Who had Congress then?

Who had it for the last 4 years, up until Jan 2011?

Harry Reid has been Senate Majority leader for close to 5 years. Bill Frist had it for 2 years and before him Tom Daschle. If you look at the Congressional record the GOP has only held the Senate for 3 out of the last 10 years with a gap in between those 3 years.

Now, do you wanna tell me some more of your fantasies?

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry boss but you're staring into the spinning circle on that one. Bush had the WH, Senate and Congress. he had high approval ratings and a church erected in his name by FOX. NOTHING he did was due to "Dem pressure". That's just complete bs. He shut the Dems down all day and twice on Sunday. MSNBC wasn't allowed within 500 yeards of Pennsylvania Ave. The guy had more than any pres in history. And he thoroughly destroyed the party I voted for when his dad did things right.
The "victim of those nasty bully Libs" card, doesn't play with Indies.

Bush Jr and Bush Sr were cut from the same cloth. They were both tax-and-spend liberal Republicans. They both had their hand in destroying the Republican Party.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for confirming the fact that all the GOP cares about are what the tax rate is for the WEALTHY. Since I was a blue collar worker raising a family back then I know that Reagan RAISED what I had to pay in taxes.

.

Why don't you let us know what your AGI was in 1980 and in 1988?
Then you can go to this link......


The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

And prove your claim.

First of all, what my AGI was, and is, is none of your business and I don't have to prove shit to you. Looking at your link my tax rate in 1980 was 24% and in 1988 it was 28%.

Yeah, and the fact that you can't prove it helps your claim.
Let's pretend you're MFJ in 1980, 24% top rate, let's assume you made the most in that bracket, $20,200. Your total taxes would be $3273, or 16.2%.
In 1988, you could make $29,750, an increase of 47%, and only pay 15%.
Yeah, sounds like you got screwed. LOL!

Second of all you're looking at this way to simply (why doesn't that surprise me?). There's a HELLUVA lot more to this that some abitrary tax rate.

Feel free to explain it more fully to me.

Don't let your love of Reagan blind to to reality, my friend. Like I said, I was working and raising a family during his presidency. I know EXACTLY what was going on.

Yeah, that's why you supplied your real AGI numbers to prove your claim. LOL!

 

[Trajan]

I would be careful rushing to any judgments ala how the 'people' blame, I think that is begging to wear, and I cannot see him making that argument stick next year say in sept. 2012 with unemployment over 8%..

and his getting into the debt ceiling fight, does not appear, to be working...*shrugs*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-obama-stepped-up-on-debt-ceiling-issue.html

 

[mudwhistle]

I would be careful rushing to any judgments ala how the 'people' blame, I think that is begging to wear, and I cannot see him making that argument stick next year say in sept. 2012 with unemployment over 8%..

and his getting into the debt ceiling fight, does not appear, to be working...*shrugs*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-obama-stepped-up-on-debt-ceiling-issue.html

Well, he's tried to snooker the GOP into giving in so he could use their incompetence against them next year.....and it failed.

Now they're just left with accusations of racism and stonewalling.

Obama can't claim he's trying to nail the rich anymore because he admitted "Nobody's talking about raising taxes this year or next"

 

[IndependntLogic]

Bush signed it so he catches some of the blame.

However, my point was that not only aren't the Dems innocent bystanders, but complacent if not bent on manipulating the system in a malicious manner using the media to badger Bush into making decision he normally wouldn't have. They not only helped spend the money but had raising the debt as a goal.

Sorry boss but you're staring into the spinning circle on that one. Bush had the WH, Senate and Congress. he had high approval ratings and a church erected in his name by FOX. NOTHING he did was due to "Dem pressure". That's just complete bs. He shut the Dems down all day and twice on Sunday. MSNBC wasn't allowed within 500 yeards of Pennsylvania Ave. The guy had more than any pres in history. And he thoroughly destroyed the party I voted for when his dad did things right.
The "victim of those nasty bully Libs" card, doesn't play with Indies.

One of the reasons the Dems have so much pull is because of deals they've made with the media which supports them exclusively. For some reason the media kept releasing secrets about what was going on in the Bush WH. They made a mountain out of a molehill with the NSA Data-mining program. They raised hell when it was discovered that a Middle Eastern country was going to provide the scanning machines at our ports. They raised hell about peeling paint and mildew at Walter Reed outpatient facilities. Don't tell me you think the media can't raise hell on their own. Just look at the Casey Anthony trial. That's a prime example.


I'm trying to figure out when this imaginary time was that Bush had complete control of Congress. I don't remember that. From what I remember Congress was split. The only thing that the GOP had full control of was the house and that doesn't solve anything. Nothing they pass gets to the President without the Senate. And FYI, the Senate is part of Congress. Also, somebody got the bright idea during the short time the GOP had control the Senate to share leadership responsibilities with the Dems. So the Dems called for investigations and held hearings even when they weren't in the majority.

So what has happened because of this?
The housing crash started in 07. The banking crisis in 08. Who had Congress then?

Who had it for the last 4 years, up until Jan 2011?

Harry Reid has been Senate Majority leader for close to 5 years. Bill Frist had it for 2 years and before him Tom Daschle. If you look at the Congressional record the GOP has only held the Senate for 3 out of the last 10 years with a gap in between those 3 years.

Now, do you wanna tell me some more of your fantasies?

There is so much fault in this post, where to begin.

1) The press has not "made a deal with the Liberals / Dems". The press are sharks who will gladly feed on whatever falls in their water. Maybe you didn't notice but the Birther thing, the Muslim thing, the Jeramiah Wright thing, Weinergate etc... were on all CNN 24/7. They go where the story is. I'm sure you don't see it that way though. You seem convinced the press never covered those things because of a "deal". Don't worry, we know you'll come up with a way to say "Yeah but...". It is a predictible inevitibility with the extremes on both sides.
2) That "mountain out of a molehill" to which you refer? Wiretapping and internet monitoring without warrants? Yeah, whats a little systematic, mass violation of US Law by POTUS, anyway? Seems to me I DID see 24/7 coverage about ACORN. Which is good. I'm glad they were disbanded! That Liberal Press really cooked those Conservatives! Oh wait.
3) Not sure how you figure the Casy Anthony trial into all this. A mom killing her little girl and going out to party for a month seems pretty egregious to me and I don't recall their labeling her politics in any way. But I'm sure you see a connection.
4) The housing crisis was all started by the Dem Congress of '06? Hmmm. WHy even bother replying to that? Anyone not drinking the kool-aid would know that there were LOTS of factors that contributed to it long before then. Obviously you don't. It's them dam Dems fault! 100% ! Okay dokey and you betcha.
5) Fantasies? Yeah okay. I'm the one with fantasies. I posit that both parties have contributed to our problems. You "know" the Dems have secret deals with the media, not to report things like Weinergate; that although Bush first lied about and then admitted breaking the law, it was a conspiracy; That Casey Anthony is proof of uh, well something!!!; and that Clinton's policies on individual home loans, followed by Bush's deregulation of the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities market did NOT contribute to the housing crisis - neither did almost a decade of artificial appreciation - Nope! it was ALL the fault of the Dem Congress that took power less than 10 months before it hit!
Um yeah. Talk to me about fantasies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sorry boss but you're staring into the spinning circle on that one. Bush had the WH, Senate and Congress. he had high approval ratings and a church erected in his name by FOX. NOTHING he did was due to "Dem pressure". That's just complete bs. He shut the Dems down all day and twice on Sunday. MSNBC wasn't allowed within 500 yeards of Pennsylvania Ave. The guy had more than any pres in history. And he thoroughly destroyed the party I voted for when his dad did things right.
The "victim of those nasty bully Libs" card, doesn't play with Indies.

One of the reasons the Dems have so much pull is because of deals they've made with the media which supports them exclusively. For some reason the media kept releasing secrets about what was going on in the Bush WH. They made a mountain out of a molehill with the NSA Data-mining program. They raised hell when it was discovered that a Middle Eastern country was going to provide the scanning machines at our ports. They raised hell about peeling paint and mildew at Walter Reed outpatient facilities. Don't tell me you think the media can't raise hell on their own. Just look at the Casey Anthony trial. That's a prime example.


I'm trying to figure out when this imaginary time was that Bush had complete control of Congress. I don't remember that. From what I remember Congress was split. The only thing that the GOP had full control of was the house and that doesn't solve anything. Nothing they pass gets to the President without the Senate. And FYI, the Senate is part of Congress. Also, somebody got the bright idea during the short time the GOP had control the Senate to share leadership responsibilities with the Dems. So the Dems called for investigations and held hearings even when they weren't in the majority.

So what has happened because of this?
The housing crash started in 07. The banking crisis in 08. Who had Congress then?

Who had it for the last 4 years, up until Jan 2011?

Harry Reid has been Senate Majority leader for close to 5 years. Bill Frist had it for 2 years and before him Tom Daschle. If you look at the Congressional record the GOP has only held the Senate for 3 out of the last 10 years with a gap in between those 3 years.

Now, do you wanna tell me some more of your fantasies?

There is so much fault in this post, where to begin.

1) The press has not "made a deal with the Liberals / Dems". The press are sharks who will gladly feed on whatever falls in their water. Maybe you didn't notice but the Birther thing, the Muslim thing, the Jeramiah Wright thing, Weinergate etc... were on all CNN 24/7. They go where the story is. I'm sure you don't see it that way though. You seem convinced the press never covered those things because of a "deal". Don't worry, we know you'll come up with a way to say "Yeah but...". It is a predictible inevitibility with the extremes on both sides.
2) That "mountain out of a molehill" to which you refer? Wiretapping and internet monitoring without warrants? Yeah, whats a little systematic, mass violation of US Law by POTUS, anyway? Seems to me I DID see 24/7 coverage about ACORN. Which is good. I'm glad they were disbanded! That Liberal Press really cooked those Conservatives! Oh wait.
3) Not sure how you figure the Casy Anthony trial into all this. A mom killing her little girl and going out to party for a month seems pretty egregious to me and I don't recall their labeling her politics in any way. But I'm sure you see a connection.
4) The housing crisis was all started by the Dem Congress of '06? Hmmm. WHy even bother replying to that? Anyone not drinking the kool-aid would know that there were LOTS of factors that contributed to it long before then. Obviously you don't. It's them dam Dems fault! 100% ! Okay dokey and you betcha.
5) Fantasies? Yeah okay. I'm the one with fantasies. I posit that both parties have contributed to our problems. You "know" the Dems have secret deals with the media, not to report things like Weinergate; that although Bush first lied about and then admitted breaking the law, it was a conspiracy; That Casey Anthony is proof of uh, well something!!!; and that Clinton's policies on individual home loans, followed by Bush's deregulation of the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities market did NOT contribute to the housing crisis - neither did almost a decade of artificial appreciation - Nope! it was ALL the fault of the Dem Congress that took power less than 10 months before it hit!
Um yeah. Talk to me about fantasies.

Are you high? Because this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[IndependntLogic]

One of the reasons the Dems have so much pull is because of deals they've made with the media which supports them exclusively. For some reason the media kept releasing secrets about what was going on in the Bush WH. They made a mountain out of a molehill with the NSA Data-mining program. They raised hell when it was discovered that a Middle Eastern country was going to provide the scanning machines at our ports. They raised hell about peeling paint and mildew at Walter Reed outpatient facilities. Don't tell me you think the media can't raise hell on their own. Just look at the Casey Anthony trial. That's a prime example.


I'm trying to figure out when this imaginary time was that Bush had complete control of Congress. I don't remember that. From what I remember Congress was split. The only thing that the GOP had full control of was the house and that doesn't solve anything. Nothing they pass gets to the President without the Senate. And FYI, the Senate is part of Congress. Also, somebody got the bright idea during the short time the GOP had control the Senate to share leadership responsibilities with the Dems. So the Dems called for investigations and held hearings even when they weren't in the majority.

So what has happened because of this?
The housing crash started in 07. The banking crisis in 08. Who had Congress then?

Who had it for the last 4 years, up until Jan 2011?

Harry Reid has been Senate Majority leader for close to 5 years. Bill Frist had it for 2 years and before him Tom Daschle. If you look at the Congressional record the GOP has only held the Senate for 3 out of the last 10 years with a gap in between those 3 years.

Now, do you wanna tell me some more of your fantasies?

There is so much fault in this post, where to begin.

1) The press has not "made a deal with the Liberals / Dems". The press are sharks who will gladly feed on whatever falls in their water. Maybe you didn't notice but the Birther thing, the Muslim thing, the Jeramiah Wright thing, Weinergate etc... were on all CNN 24/7. They go where the story is. I'm sure you don't see it that way though. You seem convinced the press never covered those things because of a "deal". Don't worry, we know you'll come up with a way to say "Yeah but...". It is a predictible inevitibility with the extremes on both sides.
2) That "mountain out of a molehill" to which you refer? Wiretapping and internet monitoring without warrants? Yeah, whats a little systematic, mass violation of US Law by POTUS, anyway? Seems to me I DID see 24/7 coverage about ACORN. Which is good. I'm glad they were disbanded! That Liberal Press really cooked those Conservatives! Oh wait.
3) Not sure how you figure the Casy Anthony trial into all this. A mom killing her little girl and going out to party for a month seems pretty egregious to me and I don't recall their labeling her politics in any way. But I'm sure you see a connection.
4) The housing crisis was all started by the Dem Congress of '06? Hmmm. WHy even bother replying to that? Anyone not drinking the kool-aid would know that there were LOTS of factors that contributed to it long before then. Obviously you don't. It's them dam Dems fault! 100% ! Okay dokey and you betcha.
5) Fantasies? Yeah okay. I'm the one with fantasies. I posit that both parties have contributed to our problems. You "know" the Dems have secret deals with the media, not to report things like Weinergate; that although Bush first lied about and then admitted breaking the law, it was a conspiracy; That Casey Anthony is proof of uh, well something!!!; and that Clinton's policies on individual home loans, followed by Bush's deregulation of the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities market did NOT contribute to the housing crisis - neither did almost a decade of artificial appreciation - Nope! it was ALL the fault of the Dem Congress that took power less than 10 months before it hit!
Um yeah. Talk to me about fantasies.

Are you high? Because this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Pray tell, please be so kind as to point out the fallacies in my reasoning!

 

[shintao]

When is this problem going to be Obama fault. He has been president almost 3 years and has not kept any promise yet. He can do a speech without a Teleprompter but makes fun of Palin for writing talking points on her hand. He may have went to Harvard ( probably on our tax dollars) but this man has NO common sense!!

You must be the 20watt bulb in the 100watt box.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is so much fault in this post, where to begin.

1) The press has not "made a deal with the Liberals / Dems". The press are sharks who will gladly feed on whatever falls in their water. Maybe you didn't notice but the Birther thing, the Muslim thing, the Jeramiah Wright thing, Weinergate etc... were on all CNN 24/7. They go where the story is. I'm sure you don't see it that way though. You seem convinced the press never covered those things because of a "deal". Don't worry, we know you'll come up with a way to say "Yeah but...". It is a predictible inevitibility with the extremes on both sides.
2) That "mountain out of a molehill" to which you refer? Wiretapping and internet monitoring without warrants? Yeah, whats a little systematic, mass violation of US Law by POTUS, anyway? Seems to me I DID see 24/7 coverage about ACORN. Which is good. I'm glad they were disbanded! That Liberal Press really cooked those Conservatives! Oh wait.
3) Not sure how you figure the Casy Anthony trial into all this. A mom killing her little girl and going out to party for a month seems pretty egregious to me and I don't recall their labeling her politics in any way. But I'm sure you see a connection.
4) The housing crisis was all started by the Dem Congress of '06? Hmmm. WHy even bother replying to that? Anyone not drinking the kool-aid would know that there were LOTS of factors that contributed to it long before then. Obviously you don't. It's them dam Dems fault! 100% ! Okay dokey and you betcha.
5) Fantasies? Yeah okay. I'm the one with fantasies. I posit that both parties have contributed to our problems. You "know" the Dems have secret deals with the media, not to report things like Weinergate; that although Bush first lied about and then admitted breaking the law, it was a conspiracy; That Casey Anthony is proof of uh, well something!!!; and that Clinton's policies on individual home loans, followed by Bush's deregulation of the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities market did NOT contribute to the housing crisis - neither did almost a decade of artificial appreciation - Nope! it was ALL the fault of the Dem Congress that took power less than 10 months before it hit!
Um yeah. Talk to me about fantasies.

Are you high? Because this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Pray tell, please be so kind as to point out the fallacies in my reasoning!

Here ya go Sparky...

1. Nonsense. Nobody said jack about Rev. Wright until Fox broke the story.
2. Nonsense. Still happening BTW. 24/7 coverage of ACORN? Palease.. and BTW.. they are NOT gone... see their WEB Site.
3. Ok, I'll concede this one... not sure either.
4. Nonsense... Google "redlining", Jimmy Carter", as well as Bawney Fwank and Maxine Waters telling us all was well as Bush called for reforms.
5. You don't think the MSM is in the tank for Obama? Talk about fantasies.

 

[DaGoose]

Why don't you let us know what your AGI was in 1980 and in 1988?
Then you can go to this link......


The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

And prove your claim.

First of all, what my AGI was, and is, is none of your business and I don't have to prove shit to you. Looking at your link my tax rate in 1980 was 24% and in 1988 it was 28%.

Yeah, and the fact that you can't prove it helps your claim.
Let's pretend you're MFJ in 1980, 24% top rate, let's assume you made the most in that bracket, $20,200. Your total taxes would be $3273, or 16.2%.
In 1988, you could make $29,750, an increase of 47%, and only pay 15%.
Yeah, sounds like you got screwed. LOL!

Second of all you're looking at this way to simply (why doesn't that surprise me?). There's a HELLUVA lot more to this that some abitrary tax rate.

Feel free to explain it more fully to me.

Don't let your love of Reagan blind to to reality, my friend. Like I said, I was working and raising a family during his presidency. I know EXACTLY what was going on.

Yeah, that's why you supplied your real AGI numbers to prove your claim. LOL!

I posted more than one link that explains why I, a blue collar middle class man raising a family, paid more in taxes under Reagan. Here they are again. This time please don't pretend that you didn't see them. As I said before.....I WAS THERE.

Ultimately*, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantia*l raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan's tax policies, blue-colla*r Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in."”

geekman: Taxes actually increased for the middle class under Reagan. Check

Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more major tax increases during his administration. By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut. These tax increases were most enacted as part of budget deals that cut domestic discretionary spending. Compared to today's Republicans, Reagan was a model of fiscal responsibility.

Fox's Asman Unable To Acknowledge That Reagan Raised Taxes | Media Matters for America

There is no realistic way for "Trickle-Down" economics to work to increase the income of the working classes of America. In fact I am certain that the developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this and that "Trickle-Down" has in fact worked as intended. This means that the intent behind implementing "Trickle-Down" was to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working class Americans....David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director.

Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

.

 

[Londoner]

1930's-1970's Tax and regulatory policy are used to ensure that the middle class is given a share of economic growth. Capital is taxed in order to provide benefits and programs to the middle and lower classes. Profits did not flow narrowly to share holders and CEOS. Instead of a culture of golden parachute bonuses, more of the surplus (profits) were distributed to the middle class so that they could drive the economy through consumption.

Because the middle class had money to spend, the capitalist had to add jobs and innovate in order to capture that money. Consequently America saw it's greatest economic growth in the 50s and 60s, during the height of New Deal fiscal policies.

HOWEVER, During the long golden age of capitalism, the owners of capital began to resent the high wages and benefits of the American worker. They became fixated on human-rights-abusing countries because of their cheap (sweatshop) labor and lack of regulations. American capital wanted a more "disciplined" labor force. For these reasons, American capital captured the Republican party. Their goal was lower taxes, less regulation, and cheap labor. They wanted to cut the American worker out of the loop.

1970's: Oil shock & Inflation . When the economy stumbled, movement conservatism convinced the nation that the cause was high taxes, regulations, and high labor costs. Reagan said that if we lighten the burden on capital -- if we give corporations cheaper operating conditions > more profit -- a utopia would trickle down to the middle class.

We listened. We rolled back taxes and regulations - and freed capital to go to the 3rd world for cheaper labor.

How did we take care of consumption once the Reagan Revolution lowered the wages of consumers? We turned to debt. The credit industrial complex was born. Starting with Reagan, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. We began to loan the middle class the money they formerly made in wages and benefits.

When the money failed to trickle down as promised, the Reagan Revolution quietly put the nation on Master Cards & Visas

The more we drove down wages, cut programs, and slashed entitlements, the more we had to sustain consumption through debt. The owners of capital leant their workers money at 18% so that the economy could continue to expand. (wow, just wow)

Of course, what happens when you need more and more debt to keep the economy going? Where did the Reagan Revolution turn to make up for the fact that real money was not trickling down to the middle class consumer?

Enter George Bush and the most dangerous ATM ever created
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]‪Home Ownership and President Bush‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

The story of the last 30 years is the story of how America tried to replace wages and middle class programs with debt.

(The money never trickled down as promised, so we borrowed it)

(America swallowed poison in 1980)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, what my AGI was, and is, is none of your business and I don't have to prove shit to you. Looking at your link my tax rate in 1980 was 24% and in 1988 it was 28%.

Yeah, and the fact that you can't prove it helps your claim.
Let's pretend you're MFJ in 1980, 24% top rate, let's assume you made the most in that bracket, $20,200. Your total taxes would be $3273, or 16.2%.
In 1988, you could make $29,750, an increase of 47%, and only pay 15%.
Yeah, sounds like you got screwed. LOL!
Feel free to explain it more fully to me.Yeah, that's why you supplied your real AGI numbers to prove your claim. LOL!

I posted more than one link that explains why I, a blue collar middle class man raising a family, paid more in taxes under Reagan. Here they are again. This time please don't pretend that you didn't see them. As I said before.....I WAS THERE.



geekman: Taxes actually increased for the middle class under Reagan. Check

Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more major tax increases during his administration. By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut. These tax increases were most enacted as part of budget deals that cut domestic discretionary spending. Compared to today's Republicans, Reagan was a model of fiscal responsibility.

Fox's Asman Unable To Acknowledge That Reagan Raised Taxes | Media Matters for America

There is no realistic way for "Trickle-Down" economics to work to increase the income of the working classes of America. In fact I am certain that the developers of the theory of "Trickle-Down" economics were fully aware of this and that "Trickle-Down" has in fact worked as intended. This means that the intent behind implementing "Trickle-Down" was to benefit the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working class Americans....David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director.

Trickle Down economics was a Trojan Horse

.

I posted more than one link that explains why I, a blue collar middle class man raising a family, paid more in taxes under Reagan.

Yawn.
Without real numbers, your whines don't constitute proof of your claims.

By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut. These tax increases were most enacted as part of budget deals that cut domestic discretionary spending

Yeah, and then the cuts never happened.
I don't think we'll fall for that trick again.

 

[Antiderivative]

I am lovin' how rw kooks are defending the atrocious economic policies of Bush.

Lets bury us in debt and wage useless wars while lowering taxes. What sort of ******* idiot does that? What sort of idiots support that?

I swear these people hate American and are not even human.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am lovin' how rw kooks are defending the atrocious economic policies of Bush.

Lets bury us in debt and wage useless wars while lowering taxes. What sort of ******* idiot does that? What sort of idiots support that?

I swear these people hate American and are not even human.

I agree, Bush spent way too much.
Time to cut spending now.