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.
The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."
Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"
The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"
The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.
I expect you will be bitterly disappointed in the results though.
I would have preferred a complete candidate but a Newt or Mitt will be enough along with a Republican majority in both Houses.
You can only get away as Democrats with giving the treasury away, hiring all these government union employees who turn around and donate hundreds of millions to Democrats so long. The people are getting it.
In the city I am at right now the local paper announced the 900+ city employees are set up with retirements that exceed 3 million each. Not sustainable and neither is an entitlement mentality with only a beer wallet.
I would have preferred a complete candidate but a Newt or Mitt will be enough along with a Republican majority in both Houses.
You can only get away as Democrats with giving the treasury away, hiring all these government union employees who turn around and donate hundreds of millions to Democrats so long. The people are getting it.
In the city I am at right now the local paper announced the 900+ city employees are set up with retirements that exceed 3 million each. Not sustainable and neither is an entitlement mentality with only a beer wallet.
This is the Repulbican's election to lose, and they seem intent on doing just that.
Well, unless we're just talking about IRONY instead of POLICY, then I guess the OP doesn't fall flat on its face.
But if the true intent of this thread is to talk about POLICY, then one would have to look at 1985 tax rates and discuss the merits of Reagan's rally-calll based on the context of the fiscal situation at the time compared to today's fiscal situation. Today's Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich to pay for their "hands off my bloated spending habits" approach to governing. Put in context, this is starkly different than Reagan touting the closure of tax loopholes in an effort to offset the lower taxes on the Middle Class. Nowhere have I seen Democrats asking for lower taxes on the Middle Class in today's tax policy discussions, only higher taxes on the rich to pay for their spending habits.
My guess is that none of the Leftists are in any hurry to discuss policy because it would likely throw the OP flat on its face.
Well, lets see, the president has gotten most everything he wanted passed....had congress for 2 years....and we are in such a great place now huh....
And yes, Bush started it....so lets get that out of the way right now...
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.