posted
it would be an interesting comparison if there was anything to compare...
mind you i voted for Reagan twice...
but Reagan cut taxes 25% across the board in the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, so in order for Obama to campare to that percentage? he would have had to cut taxes from the (avg) 30% they were when he took office to 22.5%... however, whne you cut taxes from 50% an up you still get more bang for your buck...
simply put? Obama could not possibly cut taxes the way Reagan did because they weren't high enough to begin with...
now, add to that the fact that Reagans budgets were actually cut by the Democratic Congress when he presented them, and the fact that Reagan did increase Govt spending not cut it, which increased the deficit by huge amounts...
the most significant issue around Reaganomics is that RONALD REAGAN beleived in TAXING THE RICH!
it was his specific policies and applications that increased the percentage of tax paid to the Govt by the wealthy and h eincreased the percentage by a significant margin...
the amount of mythology about Reagan is incredible...
i left college and enlisted under Carter to go tIran and pay them back... Reagan "chose" not to...
I was in the Navy when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed, Reagans response was to withdraw...
quite frankly? he is not the man htta i though i was voting for, nor was he the man that people remember him to be.. i voted for him twice and voted for Bush Sr twice too, even tho i had been tempted to vote for Perrot, and Bush Sr made me a bit nervous when he invaded a third world country because he felt like it... i don't think that anybody actually beleives invading countries to put their presidents in jail is moral... they may beleive it's OK to do because you are able... but it is not moral to ask people to die because you don't like somebody.. nobody will convince me of that.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
anybody know the model of this little baby? I'm not sure it isn't a bb gun... the scope looks a little weak.. it could be .22 but if it is i don't reconise the model
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The difference this time Glass when Reagan cut taxes there was a need to and a surplus in the country. When Reagan did what he called ringing the inflation out we could recover.
This time around we do not have a problem of over production we have had an economic collapse not brought on by the same reasons. It is a different sittuation the results are pretty much the same but repairing it takes a different method
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
"anybody know the model of this little baby? I'm not sure it isn't a bb gun... the scope looks a little weak.. it could be .22 but if it is i don't reconise the model"
_________________________________________________
Looks like a California model probably 28 calipers, needs a little more sun to shoot real straight, but might do okay in a pinch.
posted
The difference this time Glass when Reagan cut taxes there was a need to and a surplus in the country.
A surplus would be nice again. The only problem there, it doesn't go to bring down our country's debt.
When was the last time that our internal/external national debt actually decreased over 1 presidents 4 yr. term? Not in my lifetime.
Reagan wanted to control spending, Congress had his nuts in a sling since Reagan wanted to increase military spending to secure our republic. Congress only approved the military spending if they could spend as well.
posted
Reagan campaigned on it, but he did not even try.... it was not just defense that he increased spending. Remeber that Reagan refused to invade Iran after we got the hostages back, a mbig mistake, and refused to respond to the Marine Barracks bombing... He was nothing like the Bushes
here's a very interesting view on Reaganomics: US National Debt Graph: What They Never Tell You
Reagan got elected by telling the country the debt was "out of control." Compared to national income, it was the lowest in 50 years. He probably didn't know. But his supply-side economists did. They lied to America. In 1981 Reagan's supply siders wrote the tax cuts for the rich and his budgets. The Senate was Republican, and Reagan got the Southern Dems in the House to vote for him. All Republicans and a few Dems voted for the budget. The national debt had its worst year since 1945. The next year it got worse, and for 20 out of 20 years, the supply siders raised the debt relative to our ability to pay. Is this just Republicans vs. Democrats? Not quite, see: voodoo economics.
-Reagan-Not-Congress It's a terrible thing to scare America about its debt when we're doing great and then send the debt through the roof for no reason. So the supply siders invented another lie — Congress did. As this graph shows, Congress changed the presidents' budgets only a tiny bit and more down than up — by $16 billion over Reagan's eight years. And over those eight years Reagan increased the debt by $1,860 billion. Blaming that on the tiny budget reduction by Congress is just political nonsense. More+Documentation.
i know alot of people like to remember Reagan fondly, i voted for him twice, but i just don't think the image of man and the facts of the man match up.... he was hollywood to the bone...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
keep in mind that supply side economics (Reaganomics) absolutely REQUIRES you to run a debt because that increases monetary supply and allows for borrowing at the best rates and (supposedly) offers the safest route in terms of not risking your Capital...
keep in mind too that back in reagans day? a home mortgage went as high 17% for a 30 year fixed... the moneylenders loved him.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
