Reagan Cut Taxes....Revenue Boomed

[Siete]

Regan didn't actually cut overall taxes but he cut income tax rates and that trickle down economics resulted in tremendous economic growth.

The filthy ass Liberals hate the idea of less money going into the hands of the government. The dumbasses think is always better to have some stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups, to spend the money earned by the American people rather than the American people themselves. How dumb is that? Then the Liberals wonder why we ridicule them so much for being dumbasses.

When people talk taxes it generally means income taxes. Now read this
The original concept of capitalism is that investors and entrepreneurs are allowed to pursue profits because that's good for everyone. Private ownership and free-market competition drive the creation of wealth, and raise the standard of living. So profit is a means to an end. But under Reagan, we lost sight of this original purpose, profit became the end in itself. This led to the concentration of wealth and slow decline in the standard of living for most people, a trend that continues to this day.

Reagan deregulated many industries, in effect destroying competition and creating oligopolies. For example, his deregulation of airlines resulted in every single airline in the US going bankrupt except two. His deregulation of broadcasting resulted in the entire industry being dominated by a few enormously powerful players, like Disney and Clear Channel.

Under Reagan, money became more powerful in politics than ever before. So powerful that today we don't really have elections, we have auctions. The candidate who spends more money wins about 98% of the time. This has made it easier for powerful corporations to 'buy' politicians.

The concentration of wealth created a whole new class of millionaires, but for each new millionaire there were several hundred new homeless. The poor were demonized and Republican politicians and their mouthpieces in the media directed the public's anger at them for being a drag on the economy, while actually, all along, it was the rich who were really ripping us off. The city of Los Angeles installed a fingerprint system to guard against welfare fraud. The system cost $30 million, and it caught -one- welfare cheat. Meanwhile for the first time in US history corporate fraud and white collar crime cost us more than street crime, did more damage, and even arguably resulted in more deaths.

Reagan's deregulation of the savings and loan industry ended in a debacle that cost Americans $500 billion. I wonder how many Americans realize that the current banking debacle based on subprime mortgages is the THIRD huge financial services disaster in as many decades caused by imprudent Republican deregulation.

Reagan also began (or accelerated) the export of American manufacturing overseas. In fact the US govt. actually subsidizes corporations to move jobs overseas, making investors richer and working people poorer.

Saint Ray Goon hurt America. Enjoy your delusion.

You are confused Moon Bat.

It is not delusional to know that when I got Reagan's income tax cut I spent it in the productive economy instead of sending it to some asshole government weenie to spend for me (on worthless things) and that caused the economy to grow.

Money is always better in the hands of the people that earn it rather than in the hands of the government and the economic boom that came as a result of Reagan's income tax cuts is a great example.

If your point is that the economic boom could have been greater had not Reagan raised taxes in other areas and continued wioth the welfare state then I will agree with you.

Liberals should actually love Reagan. He was at the end of the day a big government progressive. He talked a great Conservative game and kicked the ass of the commies but at the day he increased the size of government, grew the debt, allowed tens of millions of illegals to be legal and continued with the welfare state. Better than any Democrat but not a real Conservative.

We can do better than these Progressive assholes that think we need a $4 trillion a year interventionist welfare state. We can do better than these shitheads that think the government is better at spending the money I make rather than myself.

We simply don't need this massive out of control debt ridden oppressive government. It should be one third to one forth the size of it now. In my lifetime the discussion has never been about actually cutting the size of this filthy ass government. It has only been about slowing the rate of growth and that included the Republicans administrations. The Republicans are always better than the Democrats but that is not saying much seeing that the despicable Democrats set such a low bar.

R better than the L .. ?????

not in terms of adding $$$$$ to the national debt.

dream on though ..

 

[Flash]

[QU


R better than the L .. ?????

not in terms of adding $$$$$ to the national debt.

dream on though ..

You are confused Moon Bat.

Nobody has ever grew the national debt $10 trillion like that dipshit Obama did. He added more debt than all the other Presidents of the US did combined. He is even more if you go back to the the Democrat Congress that was elected in 2006. That Congress was a disaster for this country and it only got worse when Obama was President.

However, historically Republicans have increased debt about the same as the filthy ass Democrats. The Republicans have grew the size of Federal government the same as the filthy ass Democrats. The Republicans have allowed and grew the size of the welfare state the same as the filthy ass Democrats. Just being better does not mean they are good enough since the filthy ass Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Democrats always promise bad government and always deliver bad government.

The Republicans promise good fiscally responsible government but at the end of the day usually delivers about the same crap we would have got from the filthy ass Democrats.

Government is broke and out of control. Just electing Republicans over the filthy ass Democrats won't do much to change it but it is slight step in the right direction.

 

[Siete]

[QU


R better than the L .. ?????

not in terms of adding $$$$$ to the national debt.

dream on though ..

You are confused Moon Bat.

Nobody has ever grew the national debt $10 trillion like that dipshit Obama did. He added more debt than all the other Presidents of the US did combined. He is even more if you go back to the the Democrat Congress that was elected in 2006. That Congress was a disaster for this country and it only got worse when Obama was President.

However, historically Republicans have increased debt about the same as the filthy ass Democrats. The Republicans have grew the size of Federal government the same as the filthy ass Democrats. The Republicans have allowed and grew the size of the welfare state the same as the filthy ass Democrats. Just being better does not mean they are good enough since the filthy ass Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Democrats always promise bad government and always deliver bad government.

The Republicans promise good fiscally responsible government but at the end of the day usually delivers about the same crap we would have got from the filthy ass Democrats.

Government is broke and out of control. Just electing Republicans over the filthy ass Democrats won't do much to change it but it is slight step in the right direction.

DERPPPPPPPPPPPPP DERP DERP DERP ...

I POSTED THE EMPERICAL DATA OF NATIONAL DEBT BY EACH PRESIDENT YOU MORON.

how damn dumb are you anyway ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan’s tax increases

1982: The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP.

The 1982 tax increase was "probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history," said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, agrees.)

This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagan’s tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues.

Bartlett, who reviewed Reagan’s tax record for Tax Notes in 2011, cited a Treasury estimate that the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars.

Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration.

1983: A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administration estimate.

1984: The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. "But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored," Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts.

Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions).

So where does that leave Reagan’s tax record on the whole? It’s mixed.

On one hand, revenues were lower as a share of GDP in his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colbert’s show didn’t prove to have lasting effects on the whole.

A 2006 Treasury Department analysis offers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back.

Reagan’s staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases.


there ya go ..

Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 "safe harbor" leasing provisions,

Rolling back a portion of the 1981 tax cut is "the largest peacetime tax hike, ever"? LOL!

Shit, his 1981 tax cut must have been even better than I thought.

yeah, it was great ... he increased the national debt 189% , more than any other president in history, including 43 and Obama.

sweet huh?

Yeah, $1.6 trillion, outrageous!!!
$9.3 trillion, no big deal. LOL!

 

[sartre play]

Do think Trump is the closest to Reagan, any one old enough to remember the things he did and said while gov of California?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Critics of the Reagan tax cuts today compare the 11.6% growth in federal revenue in 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, with the decline in revenue in 1983. They then declare that the Reagan tax cuts slashed federal revenue. Conveniently missing in that comparison is that the 1980-82 recession, with 10.8% unemployment, reduced federal revenue twice as much as the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Reagan tax cuts would in 1982 and 15% more than its estimate for 1983.

Except there was no 1980-1982 recession. There was a recession in 1980, the shortest recession in history, which still managed 11.6% growth in federal revenue. The Reagan Recession from July 1981 to November 1982, the longest since the Great Republican Depression, created 10.8% unemployment rather than jobs and revenue growth.

The Reagan Recession from July 1981 to November 1982,

What caused that recession?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan Cut Taxes, Revenue Boomed

A great advantage of having been present when history was made is that later you can sometimes recall what actually happened. Such institutional memory is important today in assessing the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, whose effect is now being relitigated in the debate on the Republicans’ proposed tax reform. To refute claims that the Reagan tax cuts slashed federal revenue, in the words of President Reagan, “well, let’s take them on a little stroll down memory lane.”

More to follow.

But, just to say Thank You President Reagan for the man and president you were.

The press was not kind to you while you were in office.

The left wing despises you because you used conservative principles to bring us back from the depression Jimmy Carter had put us in.

And these principles can still be applied today.

Bill Clinton raised taxes and revenue 'boomed'.

The difference being, deficits soared under Reagan and plummeted under Clinton.

It's true, Newt Gingrich controlled spending better than Tip O'Neil.

 

[12icer]

Yeah Newt and the Republican congress did a good job of fixing the terrible Democrat Budget problem.

 

[12icer]

The thing I see more than anything is the absolute FACT that dimshits don't know anything at all about economics. They are so intellectually lost when it comes to actual revenue growth it is sad if it was not so damn funny to watch them try to back up their statements with a chart that has only a monoplanic view of actual economic cause and effect analysis. Like the GWB days, he did add a lot to the deficit, BUT what was the alternative? No department of homeland security, No relief for the victims of Katrina, No systems and personnel at the airports, No increase in the security of the country? If Clinton had done what he should have after the first failed attempt by the same people to destroy the TWIN TOWERS, a lot of the Department of Homeland security would already have been in place. SO pump out you liberal lies and bullshit, It just proves you are completely without economic knowledge of any type. I doubt you even have savings accounts because you are always overdrawn.

 

[MarathonMike]

Reagan Cut Taxes, Revenue Boomed

A great advantage of having been present when history was made is that later you can sometimes recall what actually happened. Such institutional memory is important today in assessing the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, whose effect is now being relitigated in the debate on the Republicans’ proposed tax reform. To refute claims that the Reagan tax cuts slashed federal revenue, in the words of President Reagan, “well, let’s take them on a little stroll down memory lane.”

More to follow.

But, just to say Thank You President Reagan for the man and president you were.

The press was not kind to you while you were in office.

The left wing despises you because you used conservative principles to bring us back from the depression Jimmy Carter had put us in.

And these principles can still be applied today.

Yep and I was there. He almost put us into a deep recession with that tax cut and then proceeded to raise taxes 11 times but still doubled the debt exploded the deficit and we still fell into a recession George Bush had to raise taxes again to keep us out of and then Bill Clinton oversaw the largest peacetime economic expansion in history by raising taxes again. What exactly was the history that you remembered?

I don't recall the "almost" deep recession you reference. When did that "almost" recession happen? I remember a 180 degree reversal from the disaster of Carternomics to a boom time in hiring, building, manufacturing, stock market, and reigning in Russia. Since you Liberals are so afraid of Russia and walls, I would think you were big Reagan fans. Surely you remember "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"..

 

[Tax Man]

I wonder if any of the dipshits here remember the inflation that was rampant during Fords time as president? Carried over to Carter and then the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries formed OPEC and quit producing oil. Gas was 29.9 cents a gallon and went up to 2 buck or more in a matter of weeks. The Carter team removed the Shah of Iran that was put there by Ike to ensure oil for us.


There was a lot of turmoil at the time. Carter had a plan but could not get it in the news because Saint Ray Goon had the money to keep him off the air.
Jimmy Carter

Energy and the National Goals - A Crisis of Confidence

delivered 15 July, 1979

C-SPAN Real Video Stream of Address

Audio mp3 of Address

click for pdf click for flash

Official President's Speaker Outline.doc


[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]

Good Evening:

This a special night for me. Exactly three years ago, on July 15, 1976, I accepted the nomination of my party to run for President of the United States. I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams, and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you.

During the past three years I’ve spoken to you on many occasions about national concerns, the energy crisis, reorganizing the government, our nation’s economy, and issues of war and especially peace. But over those years the subjects of the speeches, the talks, and the press conferences have become increasingly narrow, focused more and more on what the isolated world of Washington thinks is important. Gradually, you’ve heard more and more about what the government thinks or what the government should be doing and less and less about our nation’s hopes, our dreams, and our vision of the future.

Ten days ago, I had planned to speak to you again about a very important subject -- energy. For the fifth time I would have described the urgency of the problem and laid out a series of legislative recommendations to the Congress. But as I was preparing to speak, I began to ask myself the same question that I now know has been troubling many of you: Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?

It’s clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper -- deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or recession. And I realize more than ever that as President I need your help. So, I decided to reach out and to listen to the voices of America.

I invited to Camp David people from almost every segment of our society -- business and labor, teachers and preachers, governors, mayors, and private citizens. And then I left Camp David to listen to other Americans, men and women like you. It has been an extraordinary ten days, and I want to share with you what I’ve heard.

First of all, I got a lot of personal advice. Let me quote a few of the typical comments that I wrote down.

This from a southern governor: “Mr. President, you are not leading this nation -- you’re just managing the government.”

“You don’t see the people enough anymore.”

“Some of your Cabinet members don’t seem loyal. There is not enough discipline among your disciples.”

“Don’t talk to us about politics or the mechanics of government, but about an understanding of our common good.”

“Mr. President, we’re in trouble. Talk to us about blood and sweat and tears.”

“If you lead, Mr. President, we will follow.”

Many people talked about themselves and about the condition of our nation. This from a young woman in Pennsylvania: “I feel so far from government. I feel like ordinary people are excluded from political power.”

And this from a young Chicano: “Some of us have suffered from recession all our lives.”

“Some people have wasted energy, but others haven’t had anything to waste.”

And this from a religious leader: “No material shortage can touch the important things like God’s love for us or our love for one another.”

And I like this one particularly from a black woman who happens to be the mayor of a small Mississippi town: “The big shots are not the only ones who are important. Remember, you can’t sell anything on Wall Street unless someone digs it up somewhere else first.”

This kind of summarized a lot of other statements: “Mr. President, we are confronted with a moral and a spiritual crisis.”

Several of our discussions were on energy, and I have a notebook full of comments and advice. I’ll read just a few.

“We can’t go on consuming forty percent more energy then we produce. When we import oil we are also importing inflation plus unemployment.”

“We’ve got to use what we have. The Middle East has only five percent of the world’s energy, but the United States has twenty-four percent.”

And this is one of the most vivid statements: “Our neck is stretched over the fence and OPEC has a knife.”

“There will be other cartels and other shortages. American wisdom and courage right now can set a path to follow in the future.”

This was a good one: “Be bold, Mr. President. We may make mistakes, but we are ready to experiment.”

And this one from a labor leader got to the heart of it: “The real issue is freedom. We must deal with the energy problem on a war footing.”

And the last that I’ll read: “When we enter the moral equivalent of war, Mr. President, don’t issue us BB guns.”

These ten days confirmed my belief in the decency and the strength and the wisdom of the American people, but it also bore out some of my longstanding concerns about our nation’s underlying problems.

I know, of course, being President, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That’s why I’ve worked hard to put my campaign promises into law, and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people, I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy.

I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might.

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways.

It is a crisis of confidence.

It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea which founded our nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything else -- public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We’ve always believed in something called progress. We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.

Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom; and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.

In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.

As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.

These changes did not happen overnight. They’ve come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy.

We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the Presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.

We remember when the phrase “sound as a dollar” was an expression of absolute dependability, until ten years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our nation’s resources were limitless until 1973 when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.

These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed.

Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal Government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests.

You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don’t like it, and neither do I. What can we do?

First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.

One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this way: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America.”

We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world wars and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.

We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years ago put a man on the moon. We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the unity and confidence of America.

We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path -- the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.

Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.

In little more than two decades we’ve gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It’s a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation.

The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.

What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.

Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977-- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over four and a half million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I’m announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace two and a half million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation will issue up to five billion dollars in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so average Americans can invest directly in America’s energy security.

Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank which will help us achieve the crucial goal of twenty percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans, to Americans. These will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.

Point four: I’m asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation’s utility companies cut their massive use of oil by fifty percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.

We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.

Point six: I’m proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I’m proposing tonight an extra ten billion dollars over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate ways of rebuilding our nation’s strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.

So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.

You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on earth. We have the world’s highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation’s problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act.

We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively, and we will; but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Twelve hours from now I will speak again in Kansas City, to expand and to explain further our energy program. Just as the search for solutions to our energy shortages has now led us to a new awareness of our nation’s deeper problems, so our willingness to work for those solutions in energy can strengthen us to attack those deeper problems.

I will continue to travel this country, to hear the people of America. You can help me to develop a national agenda for the 1980s. I will listen; and I will act. We will act together.

These were the promises I made three years ago, and I intend to keep them.

Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science. But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources -- America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.

I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.

In closing, let me say this: I will do my best, but I will not do it alone. Let your voice be heard. Whenever you have a chance, say something good about our country. With God’s help and for the sake of our nation, it is time for us to join hands in America. Let us commit ourselves together to a rebirth of the American spirit. Working together with our common faith we cannot fail.

Thank you and good night.

 

[gipper]

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Damn right it did. It was an investment and we realized our greatest state. It's not Reagan's fault our debt has increased 18 trillion off his watch.

THE NATIONAL DEBT is the sum total of FEDERAL DEFICITS left by ALL presidents.

And your Messiah is the Debt King!!! You must be so proud.

 

[Tax Man]

I don't recall the "almost" deep recession you reference. When did that "almost" recession happen? I remember a 180 degree reversal from the disaster of Carternomics to a boom time in hiring, building, manufacturing, stock market, and reigning in Russia. Since you Liberals are so afraid of Russia and walls, I would think you were big Reagan fans. Surely you remember "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"..

I do remember the recession of the Ray Goons. Seems that so many filed for bankruptcy because business tanked and no one had money. I know as his presidency took all my money and savings. Also did in a few other contractors I worked with. As for the Wall the Pope had more to do with it coming down than Gorby or the monkey boy.

 

[MarathonMike]

I don't recall the "almost" deep recession you reference. When did that "almost" recession happen? I remember a 180 degree reversal from the disaster of Carternomics to a boom time in hiring, building, manufacturing, stock market, and reigning in Russia. Since you Liberals are so afraid of Russia and walls, I would think you were big Reagan fans. Surely you remember "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"..

I do remember the recession of the Ray Goons. Seems that so many filed for bankruptcy because business tanked and no one had money. I know as his presidency took all my money and savings. Also did in a few other contractors I worked with. As for the Wall the Pope had more to do with it coming down than Gorby or the monkey boy.

Uh ok so Reagan's presidency took all your money. How exactly did he do that? Did his storm troopers come to your house and shake you down? I've lost money in my life too, I just didn't blame whoever was president at the time.

 

[Siete]

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Damn right it did. It was an investment and we realized our greatest state. It's not Reagan's fault our debt has increased 18 trillion off his watch.

THE NATIONAL DEBT is the sum total of FEDERAL DEFICITS left by ALL presidents.

And your Messiah is the Debt King!!! You must be so proud.

as I said, debt transfers from one president to the next, its a running sub total of all presidents ..

so now the god damn debt belongs to Donald Fucking TRUMP.

handle it bitch ...

 

[Tax Man]

I don't recall the "almost" deep recession you reference. When did that "almost" recession happen? I remember a 180 degree reversal from the disaster of Carternomics to a boom time in hiring, building, manufacturing, stock market, and reigning in Russia. Since you Liberals are so afraid of Russia and walls, I would think you were big Reagan fans. Surely you remember "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"..

I do remember the recession of the Ray Goons. Seems that so many filed for bankruptcy because business tanked and no one had money. I know as his presidency took all my money and savings. Also did in a few other contractors I worked with. As for the Wall the Pope had more to do with it coming down than Gorby or the monkey boy.

Uh ok so Reagan's presidency took all your money. How exactly did he do that? Did his storm troopers come to your house and shake you down? I've lost money in my life too, I just didn't blame whoever was president at the time.

When the president enacts with the help of congress laws that allow people to be ripped off and makes the economy go into reverse it does take money from those who need a strong economy to make money to make payments. And to me he was not to blame but the cause of the problems for so many Americans.

 

[Siete]

I don't recall the "almost" deep recession you reference. When did that "almost" recession happen? I remember a 180 degree reversal from the disaster of Carternomics to a boom time in hiring, building, manufacturing, stock market, and reigning in Russia. Since you Liberals are so afraid of Russia and walls, I would think you were big Reagan fans. Surely you remember "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"..

I do remember the recession of the Ray Goons. Seems that so many filed for bankruptcy because business tanked and no one had money. I know as his presidency took all my money and savings. Also did in a few other contractors I worked with. As for the Wall the Pope had more to do with it coming down than Gorby or the monkey boy.

Uh ok so Reagan's presidency took all your money. How exactly did he do that? Did his storm troopers come to your house and shake you down? I've lost money in my life too, I just didn't blame whoever was president at the time.

When the president enacts with the help of congress laws that allow people to be ripped off and makes the economy go into reverse it does take money from those who need a strong economy to make money to make payments. And to me he was not to blame but the cause of the problems for so many Americans.

most anyone in the oil business, and automotive industry agrees with you ..

even with dirt cheap gas you couldnt give away big Cadillacs or Lincolns ...

 

[imawhosure]

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Hey, Bosephus, lol. Did the income to the treasury rise or not.........that is the only question. What they spent is NOT important. You are the quintessential phony-baloney. Saying that they spent MORE has nothing to do with how much they took in. You are a MARXIST, no doubt, and a Stalinist to boot!

 

[Siete]

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981. See Did Reaganomics Work?

• FY 1989 - $255 billion.
• FY 1988 - $252 billion.
• FY 1987 - $225 billion.
• FY 1986 - $297 billion.
• FY 1985 - $256 billion.
• FY 1984 - $195 billion.
• FY 1983 - $235 billion.
• FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Hey, Bosephus, lol. Did the income to the treasury rise or not.........that is the only question. What they spent is NOT important. You are the quintessential phony-baloney. Saying that they spent MORE has nothing to do with how much they took in. You are a MARXIST, no doubt, and a Stalinist to boot!

here ya go dipshit ..

Cost of Tax Cuts as a Percentage of GDP

According to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO, the Bush tax cut is projected to amount to 1.5 percent of GDP in 2010.(11) These figures should be compared to an adjusted Reagan tax cut of 2.1 percent of GDP.

The Bush tax cut thus is not that much smaller than the adjusted Reagan tax cut. The Bush tax cut would cost 1.5 percent of GDP in 2010; the adjusted Reagan tax cuts cost about 2.1 percent of GDP. The Bush tax cut appears to be only modestly smaller than the Reagan tax cuts, amounting to more than 70 percent of the cost of the adjusted Reagan tax cut, rather than being a small fraction of the Reagan tax cut.

Table 2


Percentage of GDP
ERTA 1981 5.6%
Minus: 40 percent adjustment for impact of inflation on baseline 2.2%
Equals: ERTA cost against indexed baseline 3.4%
Minus: TEFRA 1982 increase 1.2%
Equals: Net cost of Reagan tax cuts (as % of GDP) 2.1%

```````````````
The Legacy of the Reagan Tax Cut

Even if the Bush tax cut represented only a modest proportion of the properly measured Reagan tax cut, the basic logic of the comparison would be problematic. The Reagan tax cut does not represent a valid basis for evaluating what size tax cut is fiscally responsible.

Even with the subsequent tax increase in 1982, the 1981 tax cut imposed a damaging fiscal legacy on the nation. The unified budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980 to $221 billion in 1986 and a peak of $290 billion in 1992. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit (adjusted for the economy's business cycle) rose from 0.7 percent in 1980 to a peak of 4.8 percent in 1986.

Some advocates for the Bush tax proposal have argued that the Reagan tax cuts were not a cause of the large budget deficits during the 1980s. Rather, they argue, the problem arose because of large spending increases. This argument is not supported by the evidence. CBO produces estimates of revenues and outlays that adjust for the state of the business cycle. These figures indicate that, adjusted for the state of the business cycle, revenue fell from 19.4 percent of GDP in 1981 to 16.9 percent of GDP in 1986 and 17.3 percent in 1987. Outlays rose from 19.9 percent of GDP in 1981 to 21.7 percent in 1986 and 20.6 percent in 1987. Between 1981 and 1987, revenues fell three times as much as a percentage of GDP as spending increased. (Revenues declined by 2.1 percent of GDP while outlays increased by 0.7 percent of GDP.) Furthermore, all of the increase in outlays relative to GDP was due to interest outlays, which themselves mostly reflected the tax cuts. Excluding interest, outlays actually fell: Non-interest outlays fell from 19.7 percent of GDP in 1981 to 19.4 percent in 1986 and 18.8 percent in 1987. These data clearly demonstrate that the Reagan tax cuts played a substantial role in the budget deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s

The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01


bite my butt.

 

[Political Junky]

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.[1]



Contents
[1Iran–Contra affair

• 2Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging

• 3Lobbying scandal

• 4EPA scandals

• 5Savings & loan crisis

• 6Operation Ill Wind

• 7Wedtech Scandal

• 8Debategate

• 9See also

• 10Notes
  <more>