Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eisenhower was the last American president we are to have . Hec warned us of the times ahead but we didn't lisen .He saved us from invasion but from the Kennedys on infiltrated us with enemies . Communism and the military complex was our end .
America sat back and allowed it's leaders to bring in non assimulating, anti-American immgrants . Reagan was a ***** whipped old fool who lived with a greedy star gazing pagan ,imo.
The facts of the matter are that Reagan's last term was filled with alzheimer's moments. Michael Deaver, and David Fischer dropped a dime on him. They told the story when he fell asleep while the pope was speaking. The irony is that the pope did a lot more to "Bring Down That Wall" than Reagan did.
His first term was loaded with more effort spent accomplishing tax cuts for the wealthy than anything else. HE QUADRUPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT!!
I agree-- let's spend less. Let's follow the example of the Conservative Party in the UK and drastically cut the biggest discretionary spending of all-- the military budget, especially the wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan.
First side note-- I'm guessing that most of you missed the neat little trick our government pulled WRT Iraq, that instead of "real" American soldiers there, we'll have Blackwater-type mercenaries who undoubtedly will cost much more per soldier, but will let Obama (who I voted for, BTW) (and yes, finally, I am deeply sorry I did) (I should have sat it out) say that we pulled our soldiers out of Iraq.
Second side note-- the lack of a draft means that these wars don't get the same scrutiny that Vietnam did (and which it deserved, being another war of choice to advance US government policies, not to defend the country in any way). I didn't see any thread here about the huge WikiLeaks expose of American and NATO coverups and bungles. Here's the links for the three papers that had the stones to put the information out there--
These documents show that the Afghan war is going very badly. Obama made a huge mistake in going "all in"-- and for what? There are very, very few al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I think the budget figure is something like a billion dollars per al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan.
I believe that this is not about fighting terrorism-- it's about making certain well-connected companies even richer than they already are. It's corporate welfare at its ugliest-- killing young Americans (not to mention Afghans and Iraqis of all ages).
But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It's far better to rail about Social Security and lazy people. That's what you're being told to be mad about.
This country was running a deficit even before Reagan took office. Even with a 91% top marginal rate, only a handful of years ever saw surplus, and even when they did the amount was very small. If we exclude Social Security, the surpluses are even smaller, some even nonexistent. During the brief surplus of 1999-2000, the top marginal rate was only 39.6%. The top rate was 50% for the majority of Reagan's presidency. Democrats have long claimed that Clinton was some kind of economic genius, yet the top tax rate under Clinton was lower than it was for most of Reagan's presidency, and far less than half of what it was in the 50s and 60s.
Also, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, only Japan has a higher rate than we do, even after Reagan cut them:
Sorry, but the author of that article must be stoned out of his mind if he believes anything he typed.
Oi! People really should pay attention to history and the facts, as both are not able to be manipulated when others know the truth:
Reagan dropped the top rate from 70 to 50% (roughly). Then in '86 doubled down again and dropped the top rate to 28%! So, effectively in 6 years Reagan cut 42% of revenue from top earners and raised the tax rates on the bottom tier of tax filers!
Also...riddle me this? How is 39.6% lower than 28%?! Math...numbers don't lie...unless you're an accounting wizard working for....oh, you know...the upper 1% who own corporations and are supposedly the only ones who create jobs...and then destroy them and the people who depended upon those jobs, in order to maximize revenue streams. To their own bank account.
In the 1950's tax rates called for anyone earning more than $300,000 per year to pay 93% of the excess to the IRS.
Before Richard Milhous Nixon did away with the draft and went to an all volunteer army(POOR FOKS) the elite and connected's sons also had to serve and put it on the line.
Ronald Reagan assumed a national debt of less than $1 trillion and cut taxes with half of the unfunded fiasco going to the richest 1% of Americans...then borrowed $3 trillion from foreign banks to cover it.
George W. Bush assumed a nearly balanced budget...cut taxes twice with the upper 1% of taxpayers becoming the benefactors then proceeded to borrow nearly $6 trillion from foreign banks. He garnered a first...the first time our nation ever borrowed from Communist Chinese banks. Now we owe them a trillion dollars.
This nation has gone downhill.
Be careful with your numbers. $300,000 in 1950 is the same as $2.6 million today. If the government defined the upper tax bracket as anyone who made over $2.6 million/year that would be one thing, however the government today is proposing anyone making over $250k/year pay excess in taxes. $250,000 today is the same thing as $28,000 in 1950. In 1950 would you have supported the claim that anyone making over $28,000 was wealthy and should be taxed in excess?
Or are you complaining without having your facts in order?
Here is another idea, if you are poor, if you feel you don't have enough money, WORK HARDER. EARN IT instead of taking it from others.
I don't think the OP was about the draft specifically.
It is about the rich receiving all the benefits of being an American without having to share a proportionate burden of the responsibilities that come with citizenship.
I understand that, but I still don't think we need to tax, tax, tax, our way out of it. If special interests were cut, we would have a much better productive Congress......
In the 1950's tax rates called for anyone earning more than $300,000 per year to pay 93% of the excess to the IRS.
Before Richard Milhous Nixon did away with the draft and went to an all volunteer army(POOR FOKS) the elite and connected's sons also had to serve and put it on the line.
Ronald Reagan assumed a national debt of less than $1 trillion and cut taxes with half of the unfunded fiasco going to the richest 1% of Americans...then borrowed $3 trillion from foreign banks to cover it.
George W. Bush assumed a nearly balanced budget...cut taxes twice with the upper 1% of taxpayers becoming the benefactors then proceeded to borrow nearly $6 trillion from foreign banks. He garnered a first...the first time our nation ever borrowed from Communist Chinese banks. Now we owe them a trillion dollars.
This nation has gone downhill.
.....................and Obama is adding $1.4 trillion per year to the debt.
If the government were shrunk back down to what they're supposed to do, spending would shrink accordingly. That includes wandering around and starting up sh*t in other countries.
Oi! People really should pay attention to history and the facts, as both are not able to be manipulated when others know the truth:
Reagan dropped the top rate from 70 to 50% (roughly). Then in '86 doubled down again and dropped the top rate to 28%! So, effectively in 6 years Reagan cut 42% of revenue from top earners and raised the tax rates on the bottom tier of tax filers!
Also...riddle me this? How is 39.6% lower than 28%?! Math...numbers don't lie...unless you're an accounting wizard working for....oh, you know...the upper 1% who own corporations and are supposedly the only ones who create jobs...and then destroy them and the people who depended upon those jobs, in order to maximize revenue streams. To their own bank account.
You need to learn how to read, friend. I said it was at 50% for the majority of Reagan's presidency. Which it was, 6 years out of 8 is a majority. The 28% rate did not arrive until 1988. The lower rungs did not have their taxes raised, their rate was at 11-14%! The middle class range never paid more than 22%, and during the 1986 reform a blanket rate of 15% was created, so the middle class received another tax cut at that point. Not to mention the fact that in 1986 personal exemptions were expanded and standard deductions were first introduced, effectively exempting most of the working poor from income taxes and part of the middle class. Before Reagan took office the middle class tax rates were in the 20% to 30% ranges. That is a 50% reduction in the middle class tax rate under Reagan.
Sorry, but you can try all you want to drag Reagan's name through the mud, but you aren't going to be able to pull it off using changes to the tax code, the evidence is simply not there. The fact remains that Clinton's top rate was no where near where it was before Reagan took office, yet surplus was achieved by the year 2000. Nor can you ignore the fact that even with a 91% top rate and a 70% top rate, the federal government was still running deficits.
Last edited by Frankie117; 07-26-2010 at 09:20 AM..
You need to learn how to read, friend. I said it was at 50% for the majority of Reagan's presidency. Which it was, 6 years out of 8 is a majority. The 28% rate did not arrive until 1988. The lower rungs did not have their taxes raised, their rate was at 11-14%! The middle class range never paid more than 22%, and during the 1986 reform a blanket rate of 15% was created, so the middle class received another tax cut at that point. Not to mention the fact that in 1986 personal exemptions were expanded and standard deductions were first introduced, effectively exempting most of the working poor from income taxes and part of the middle class. Before Reagan took office the middle class tax rates were in the 20% to 30% ranges. That is a 50% reduction in the middle class tax rate.
Sorry, but you can try all you want to drag Reagan's name through the mud, but you aren't going to be able to pull it off using changes to the tax code, the evidence is simply not there. The fact remains that Clinton's top rate was no where near where it was before Reagan took office, yet surplus was achieved by the year 2000. Nor can you ignore the fact that even with a 91% top rate and a 70% top rate, the federal government was still running deficits.
Semantics. I said in 6 years, since the 2nd tax cut was enacted in 1986 not 1988 he slashed 42% of revenue from the top earners. NO ONE disputed whether or not it was for a majority of his Presidency. So obviously YOU might want to re-think your thoughts, as they're clearly wrong. As you attempt to mask your obfuscation by saying the lower rung rates were as wide as 11-14%, then throw in your "blanket rate" of they changed to 15%. THAT'S A TAX INCREASE! So, even though you've tried to hide it, you yourself confirm the fact that Reagan DID indeed double down and cut the top rate from 50 to 28%, and INCREASE the bottom rate to 15% And while personal exemptions and standard deductions were increased, other more damaging cuts were also taking place. For example the ability to not be able to deduct interest from personal loans or credit cards were eliminated by TRA86. The deduction on home interest were severely limited by requirements, as well as other real estate tax shelters. This was ALSO clearly an attack on Small Business owners as well.
And obviously there were deficits, however NONE of those deficits with the exception of dire economic recession/depressions were anywhere near the level or increase after the 1980's. So while you continue to attempt to play semantics the truth and facts show that Reagan and his voodoo economics clearly and significantly hurt and crippled the United States. Total Spending in United States 1900-2009 - Federal State Local
As you can clearly see, deficits go from roughly 73 billion to 120 billion in '81-'82. Debt goes from 789 Billion to 924 Billion. That's 135 BILLION dollars in 1 fiscal year!Debt in a 10 year period starting in 1980 goes from 711 Billion to 2.19 TRILLION!!!
Your semantics are exposed for the fallacies they are here. For sure there were budget deficits, for sure there was debt. But NO WHERE near the disaster that Reagan was and has had on our economy and security that has lead us down and has put us into the dire straights that we're now working out of. I don't have to drag Reagan's name through the mud, the facts, history and the results clearly do that for him. Other than W, Reagan was the worst thing to happen to this country. The Tea Party and other's clearly avoid and stick their heads in the sand when faced with the truth and facts on this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
