Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
The decades between the post-War 40s and the mid-1980s were the most dynamically productive and prosperous in our history -- all thanks to FDR's New Deal and his constraints on the exploitative policies of the bankers. That era gave birth to an economically healthy and dignified working (middle) class from which your parents and you probably benefited.
That era was brought to an end by the inception of "Reaganomics" and the attending blitz of deregulation which has led to the rise of a monied aristocracy in America and Wall Street's criminal exploitation of Main Street and the near collapse of the national economy.
The New Deal was a failure just like the New Deal Part Deux is a failure. All FDR did was extend the depression for years longer than it would have been. WWII is what gave us the robust economy we had in the 40s and 50s for the reasons I already noted earlier.
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.
In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
The New Deal was a failure just like the New Deal Part Deux is a failure. All FDR did was extend the depression for years longer than it would have been. WWII is what gave us the robust economy we had in the 40s and 50s for the reasons I already noted earlier.
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.
In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Obama Deficit > Reagan budget
Reagan ran the entire government on less than and Obama deficit
Federal revenues roughly double under Reagan.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj48qTwCqic]WILLY WONKA * YOU LOSE GOOD DAY SIR * - YouTube[/ame]
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.
In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Obama Deficit > Reagan budget
Reagan ran the entire government on less than and Obama deficit
Federal revenues roughly double under Reagan.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj48qTwCqic]WILLY WONKA * YOU LOSE GOOD DAY SIR * - YouTube[/ame]
Carter ran the entire government on less than Reagan's deficit.
And Clinton handed Bush a surplus but Bush turned it into the deficit you are crying about now.
The result from Reagan 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.
The New Deal was a failure just like the New Deal Part Deux is a failure. All FDR did was extend the depression for years longer than it would have been. WWII is what gave us the robust economy we had in the 40s and 50s for the reasons I already noted earlier.
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.
In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.
Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams
Reagan ran the entire government on less than and Obama deficit
[/url]
Obama Deficit > Reagan budget
Reagan ran the entire government on less than and Obama deficit
Federal revenues roughly double under Reagan.
WILLY WONKA * YOU LOSE GOOD DAY SIR * - YouTube
Carter ran the entire government on less than Reagan's deficit.
And Clinton handed Bush a surplus but Bush turned it into the deficit you are crying about now.
The result from Reagan 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.
Budget Impoundment Act of 1974 was the game changer
Reagan asked for line item veto, never got it
Democrats lied to Reagan about cutting spending
One Obama deficit > all 8 of Reagans
If so, then US corporations are (or have been) owned, by share-holders not concerned, primarily, for the actual success, of the actual company (or its employees) -- except insofar as the appearance of success buoys their portfolios.
yes, companies are either successful or not. But stock investors don't care about companies, only their summary statistics ("they don't care about Babe Ruth the man, only about his batting average"). Many of those stock-holders may be foreigners.P/E numbers are just marketing ratios that bankers and their credit-agency accomplices put out to fool investors.
Don't realize those high paying union jobs brought up all of our wages?
If so, then US corporations are (or have been) owned, by share-holders not concerned, primarily, for the actual success, of the actual company (or its employees) -- except insofar as the appearance of success buoys their portfolios.
Even the $700 billion bailout package that is fighting for life on Capitol Hill doesnt have the teeth to put a lid on these financial windfalls, experts say.
Over the past two decades, efforts by government officials to rein in the big payouts, including changes to the tax code and calls for more oversight, have actually contributed to the growth in CEO pay now 275 times the salary of the average working stiff, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Government regulators are notoriously ineffective at reining in pay, and oftentimes the unintended consequences caused greater problems, says Charles Elson, an expert on corporate governance at the University of Delaware.
Can wild CEO pay be tamed? Probably not - Economy in Turmoil - MSNBC.com
The problem is in how these guys get those large salaries. It almost seems like it is a rigged game.
Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
But you loved Reagan, right?
Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.
But you loved Reagan, right?
Actually in a democracy the president is not the government so it is not the president that borrows money.
If Reagan had his way government would have been reduced a great deal since he was our most conservative president.
Why blame govt when you could blame the stupid people who did business with Wells?Yea, so shit like this [wells Fargo] can occur?
See here's what libertards don't understand. Before unions we let the markets decide and they decided to not pay shit. It got so bad we organized. So when a libertard says let the market decide he's really saying let business' push the limits and when people are finally fed up, then organize?Why blame govt when you could blame the stupid people who did business with Wells?Yea, so shit like this [wells Fargo] can occur?
Customers are the ultimate regulators unless you want a libNazi policing every transaction you make on the assumption you are too stupid for freedom!! See that, you are a libNazi but lack the IQ to see the implications of your feelings.
