Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Dad2three]

1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -

Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


2. Tripling the National Debt -

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.



Iran/Contra

Reagan funded Terrorists

Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.



Ignoring AIDS -

By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.



Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants


His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -

The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.

Cut and paste king.. Reagan simplified the tax code, unleased our energy production which help to pulled people out of poverty. People moved into the middle class, upper class. the Reagan economic boom lasted throughout Clinton administrstion. Thank you Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt you are a hack on the democrat party dole

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 Clinton’s 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 years—the 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 Clinton’s 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 America’s 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 2000—the 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



"Clinton’s 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

 

[JoeB131]

I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43. We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.

That's what I remember. That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.

Then what happened? you are now consumed with hate...Not too much demand for people like you id imagine

I explained to you whacks what happened.

I required an expensive surgery, and my employer decided that despite a fantastic work record (by the time I was let go, I had outlasted nearly everyone who was there when I started) I needed to go. But he couldn't fire me, so he reorganized the staff putting me in a position that would phase out in a year. "Good thing I don't have to deal with a union." He said.

That's when I realized that the GOP is very good at looking out for the interests of the rich, but frankly, most of us aren't rich and the rich can take care of themselves.

Incidently, I did get a new job within two weeks of losing that one, and even managed to weather the 2008 total fuckup of the economy reasonably well. But it will be a cold day in hell before I let some other Plutocratic Tool get my vote again.

 

[JoeB131]

Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!

Women in the Taliban?..who knew?

It's pretty obvious that woman is the translator, and not a Taliban leader.

 

[Jroc]

I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43. We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.

That's what I remember. That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.

Then what happened? you are now consumed with hate...Not too much demand for people like you id imagine

I explained to you whacks what happened.

I required an expensive surgery, and my employer decided that despite a fantastic work record (by the time I was let go, I had outlasted nearly everyone who was there when I started) I needed to go. But he couldn't fire me, so he reorganized the staff putting me in a position that would phase out in a year. "Good thing I don't have to deal with a union." He said.

That's when I realized that the GOP is very good at looking out for the interests of the rich, but frankly, most of us aren't rich and the rich can take care of themselves.

Incidently, I did get a new job within two weeks of losing that one, and even managed to weather the 2008 total fuckup of the economy reasonably well. But it will be a cold day in hell before I let some other Plutocratic Tool get my vote again.

You worked for the GOP?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kennedy gave the USSR an option to acquire the Democrat Party, they exercised the option during the Clinton Presidency and now they own it outright

 

[Jroc]

1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -

Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


2. Tripling the National Debt -

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.



Iran/Contra

Reagan funded Terrorists

Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.



Ignoring AIDS -

By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.



Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants


His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -

The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.

Cut and paste king.. Reagan simplified the tax code, unleased our energy production which help to pulled people out of poverty. People moved into the middle class, upper class. the Reagan economic boom lasted throughout Clinton administrstion. Thank you Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt you are a hack on the democrat party dole

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 Clinton’s 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 years—the 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 Clinton’s 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 America’s 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 2000—the 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



"Clinton’s 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

You made it funny again. Clinton inherited what came before him like the fall of the Soviet union and Reagan's economy and tax reform, also in 94 the Republicans congress swept in and Clinton had to work with them. If not his spending would have went out of control. Hillerycare would have been one of the budget busters. You idiot libs rewriting history. Are you on the Clinton payroll?

 

[JoeB131]

[


You worked for the GOP?

I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.

That said, though. My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in it.

It wasn't always this way. Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.

 

[Jroc]

[


You worked for the GOP?

I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.

That said, though. My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in it.

It wasn't always this way. Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.

You blamed the GOP for loosing your job.... if figured you worked for them directly in a paid position and they got rid of you.

 

[thanatos144]

What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.

tapatalk post

Sure, if you leave out the FACT that he tripled US debt, took US from a creditor nation to debtor nation, cut taxes on the rich while taxes on the avg worker increased, funded then cut and ran from terrorists, ignored the regulator warnings from Mr Gray starting in 1984 on the S&L crisis that Poppy Bush inherited, etc, etc, etc

Dem? Look to FDR or Clinton, or OBAMA

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000

Please your just pissed that he spent money on the thing he is constitutionally allowed to spend it on...DEFENSE and because of that brought down the evil empire.....I know it must eat you up that people you see as baby killers get paid well for their work. By the way shithead what Reagan spent is a drop in the bucket compared to what your messiah Obama has spent.

 

[thanatos144]

Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?

Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11

I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43. We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.

That's what I remember. That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.

I think you are a lying piece of communist shit so I believe you dont know what the world was like pre 9-11...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not only do you have to believe that all A-rabs are bin Laden but now add "Reagan gutted revenues" to this list of completely totally wrong things libs are spewing to rewrite the Reagan Legacy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[


You worked for the GOP?

I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.

That said, though. My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in it.

It wasn't always this way. Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.

JoeB a pathological lair.

Sure, Joe. Sure. You werrrked sew harrrrd for Republicans. We believe you.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

five farts in a row from the trolls.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Possible bin Laden sighting

 

[JoeB131]

[
JoeB a pathological lair.

Sure, Joe. Sure. You werrrked sew harrrrd for Republicans. We believe you.

No, guy, I worked hard for my customers and for my co-workers.

And frankly, Mr. "I think Romney was awesome" was usually more of a hinderance than a help.

You know the "Pointy-Haired Boss" from Dilbert. He was THAT guy. Random Acts of Management.

 

[Dad2three]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

Got it, GOP's Congress 'report' on Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich


Look at share of GDP income taxes

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts.

Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.


Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


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.

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

 

[Dad2three]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP). So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. This happens regardless of the tax rates.








Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed. However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending). In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).

In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy. The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top. Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth

 

[Jroc]

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"? How?

Gutted?

Huh?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP). So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. This happens regardless of the tax rates.








Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed. However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserve’s lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending). In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).

In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy. The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top. Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth

Revenues are generally neutral with tax cuts ...People get to keep more of their money, with the same revenue coming in

 

[LA RAM FAN]

[


You worked for the GOP?

I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.

That said, though. My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in it.

It wasn't always this way. Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.

reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.