Reaganomics !!

[selmaborntidefan]

Incidentally, EVERY DEMOCRAT that runs for election at the national level KNOWS that Reaganomics works.

Look at the progression:

1980 - Jimmy Carter never really said anything about tax policy except that he wouldn't cut taxes until the
budget was balanced.

1984 - Walter Mondale promised to raise taxes

1988 - Michael Do-tax-us wouldn't promise to NOT raise taxes.

All three of them not only lost, they got CLOBBERED. (State count: 44-6, 49-1, 40-10)

1992 - Bill Clinton then channeled his inner Reagan with a twist - "middle class tax cut." Of course,
the moment he got elected he did the exact opposite because THAT'S what a Democrat is - a guy
who thinks YOUR money is HIS OR HER money.

2000 - Al Gore promised another middle class tax cut. Of course, this was hard to pull off since Gore
himself had cast the TIE-BREAKING VOTE in the Senate to RAISE TAXES, but Gore was never one to
let hypocrisy stand in the way of good election year politics. Bush promised a tax cut for "everyone
who pays taxes."

2004 - Kerry promised a middle class tax cut.

2008 - Obama promised a middle class tax cut.

Now here's the problem - if the liberal nuts I just gave you (who either won or barely lost as opposed to
getting creamed on election day) ACTUALLY HAD ANY INTENTION of lowering taxes, NOTHING could have
stopped them.

They KNOW that promising tax cuts gets votes. Thus, they're more than willing to lie for the greater good
(in their view) of empowering themselves.

Fact is, Reagan pushed every Democrat since he left to promise to cut taxes.

 

[Bamaro]

Incidentally, EVERY DEMOCRAT that runs for election at the national level KNOWS that Reaganomics works.

Look at the progression:

1980 - Jimmy Carter never really said anything about tax policy except that he wouldn't cut taxes until the
budget was balanced.

1984 - Walter Mondale promised to raise taxes

1988 - Michael Do-tax-us wouldn't promise to NOT raise taxes.

All three of them not only lost, they got CLOBBERED. (State count: 44-6, 49-1, 40-10)

1992 - Bill Clinton then channeled his inner Reagan with a twist - "middle class tax cut." Of course,
the moment he got elected he did the exact opposite because THAT'S what a Democrat is - a guy
who thinks YOUR money is HIS OR HER money.

2000 - Al Gore promised another middle class tax cut. Of course, this was hard to pull off since Gore
himself had cast the TIE-BREAKING VOTE in the Senate to RAISE TAXES, but Gore was never one to
let hypocrisy stand in the way of good election year politics. Bush promised a tax cut for "everyone
who pays taxes."

2004 - Kerry promised a middle class tax cut.

2008 - Obama promised a middle class tax cut.

Now here's the problem - if the liberal nuts I just gave you (who either won or barely lost as opposed to
getting creamed on election day) ACTUALLY HAD ANY INTENTION of lowering taxes, NOTHING could have
stopped them.

They KNOW that promising tax cuts gets votes. Thus, they're more than willing to lie for the greater good
(in their view) of empowering themselves.

Fact is, Reagan pushed every Democrat since he left to promise to cut taxes.

Wow, thats an epic spin! All he showed is that you can pander to the voters to curry votes by promising something for nothing.

 

[92tide]

I went to the JFK Library this past summer and even JFK in all his Democratic glory proposed tax CUTS during his administration. I honestly don't think JFK would be welcome in the modern DNC.

i'm middle/upper middle class and my taxes have gone down since obama has been in office.

and i still have all of my guns

 

[Tide1986]

i'm middle/upper middle class and my taxes have gone down since obama has been in office.

That "temporary" FICA tax rate reduction has been awesome hasn't it?

 

[Black Warrior]

I went to the JFK Library this past summer and even JFK in all his Democratic glory proposed tax CUTS during his administration. I honestly don't think JFK would be welcome in the modern DNC.

We weren't in the middle of two wars at the time and he was proposing tax cuts across the board, not just for the super rich. Let's have a little perspective please...

 

[Black Warrior]

My vitriol? lol. I addressed your talking points. You keep going on about "facts" but I have seen nothing of any substance presented by you. "Bush lied, Kids died" is falling on deaf ears at this point.

But just to humor you:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

Any New Yorker will tell you what a National Inquirer type paper the NY Post is. It's about as valid as Fox News and both are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Please tell me why no other newspaper printed this story. What a laugh. THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ. NONE !!

 

[Black Warrior]

Here BW, read...

Reagan's Tax Revolution: A Big Boost for Families and the Poor

Please ! THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION???? The biggest Republican shill organization in America. The folks that have Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife on payroll at a half a million a year. THAT Heritage Foundation. All I can say is BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....cough.....cough.....

 

[Black Warrior]

Fair enough. They had a majority in any case, but they did not even try.
And the idea that tax policy impacts on the overall performance of the economy would be an implicit acceptance of the Republican position.
My point is this, Democrats talk a good game, but when they have the power to effect substantive change in income tax policy, they choose not even to try. One could reasonably conclude that, as a party, the Democrats would rather have the political issue then fix the policy. Having the issue helps them fire up people like Black Warrior (the Tidefans member, not any racial connotation) in the party.

I'm not sure where you were at the time but we had some HUGE issues on our plate. The First 100 Days of the Obama administration were knocking them down at a pretty good clip while trying to garner Republican cooperation to work on issues our country was having and is still having. The Republicans turned up their noses and said "no thanks" and have done nothing but obstruct progress since the day Obama took office. Nevertheless, he was able to accomplish a great deal. Please click here... http://3chicspolitico.com/president-obamas-accomplishments/ Looks like to me he's been kicking butt in spite of republican resistance....

 

[Black Warrior]

Here's some more Reaganomics for you, along with some of his other disastrous policies. I really hope you'll join in dispelling the myth that Reagan was some kind of savior because nothing could be further from the truth...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/30/the-last-refuge-of-failure-is-myth-the-real-ronald-reagan/

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/02/06/the-disastrous-legacy-of-ronald-reagan-in-charts/

Here's a cute one on How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...id-the-Groundwork-for-the-Death-of-Capitalism

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...16_1_ronald-reagan-messenger-jack-kinstlinger

And one of my personal favorites: The Myths of Reaganomics http://mises.org/daily/1544

I'm away from home for a few days. I'll give ya'll time to digest this and I'll get back with you.....

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Wow, thats an epic spin! All he showed is that you can pander to the voters to curry votes by promising something for nothing.

It isn't spin, it's a fact of life.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

i'm middle/upper middle class and my taxes have gone down since obama has been in office.

and i still have all of my guns

Your taxes have only gone down because of a change in witholding - that's why folks are warning about Taxmageddon
conveniently after folks like you have put the Empty Suit in for a second term.

And in light of the fact that:

a) the cost of home energy has gone up
b) the cost of gas has gone up
c) the cost of food has gone up
d) the cost of health care has gone up

I seriously doubt if you're making the same wage you made in 2008 that you're any better off. You may
be literally paying "less" in taxes, but you're spending it other places just to stay alive.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Here's some more Reaganomics for you, along with some of his other disastrous policies. I really hope you'll join in dispelling the myth that Reagan was some kind of savior because nothing could be further from the truth...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/30/the-last-refuge-of-failure-is-myth-the-real-ronald-reagan/

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/02/06/the-disastrous-legacy-of-ronald-reagan-in-charts/

Here's a cute one on How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...id-the-Groundwork-for-the-Death-of-Capitalism

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...16_1_ronald-reagan-messenger-jack-kinstlinger

And one of my personal favorites: The Myths of Reaganomics http://mises.org/daily/1544

I'm away from home for a few days. I'll give ya'll time to digest this and I'll get back with you.....

The sure sign of an inability to formulate an argument - after picking a fight on the Internet, simply:

a) dismissing ANY contrary evidence as spin
b) posting links and saying you're going out of town (as if the info on the link is valid)


Nice one - you just lost your argument.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

We weren't in the middle of two wars at the time and he was proposing tax cuts across the board, not just for the super rich. Let's have a little perspective please...

Hmm. So you are now on the record as saying the Cold War was NOT a war.

OK.

 

[RollTide2U]

Hmm. So you are now on the record as saying the Cold War was NOT a war.

OK.

cl
LOL...good point Selma. BW is a walking, typing liberal Democrat talking point. You have a great deal of patience.

 

[MattinBama]

I'm away from home for a few days. I'll give ya'll time to digest this and I'll get back with you.....

Don't worry, we'll be able to see the smoke from the fires you set in the distance.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Any New Yorker will tell you what a National Inquirer type paper the NY Post is. It's about as valid as Fox News and both are owned by Rupert Murdoch. Please tell me why no other newspaper printed this story. What a laugh. THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ. NONE !!

Clearly you didn't click on the link. Because if you did, you would have seen that the "article", all two paragraphs, gave a link to another site (wired, I believe) that led to wikileaks. And here I was under the impression that wikileaks was the bastion of truth and justice, exposing the illegal actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh wait, the leaked cables and other assorted documents simply backed up what the US has been saying publicly the whole time? How inconvenient.

Am I saying that leftover chemical weapons from the Gulf War that Saddam and later insurgents were trying to reuse equals the "WMD" that we invaded to destroy? No. But to simply dismiss out of had the evidence that we do have of Iraqi violation of UN sanctions is pretty partisan. I also find it amusing that you refuse to consider that maybe our intelligence guys, Congress, the President, and the British were seeing what they wanted to see, a worst case scenario. After 9/11 this was a pretty paranoid world. But no, it must of course be a nefarious plot to kill muslin children and steal their oil.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

The Republicans turned up their noses and said "no thanks" and have done nothing but obstruct progress since the day Obama took office. Nevertheless, he was able to accomplish a great deal..

Ok, a little truth and perspective here would be helpful. The first two years of the Obama term the democrats held a clear majority. There was nothing standing in their way of passing any legislation they wanted. The things they didn't pass were either issues they didn't deem important or issues they wanted to keep available to run on at a later date. Nothing stood in their way but themselves. When they voted together they couldn't be stopped. They didn't even have enough cooperation amongst themselves to pass obamacare and had to back door it through in the reconciliation process. So blame those democrats that wouldn't tow the party line, not republicans because for two years they were simply along for a ride.

As for the republicans standing in the way of Obama after the midterm elections they were doing exactly what they were elected to do. They all ran on a platform of stopping the Obama agenda. They won on that platform and are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

 

[Bodhisattva]

And one of my personal favorites: The Myths of Reaganomics http://mises.org/daily/1544

Wait. What? You are the lamest of big government-apologizing, no-intellectual-foundation hacks on this board, and you claim your favorite criticism of the Reagan administration is the POV of the Austrian School? The near anarcho-libertarians? The economic philosophy that criticizes Reagan not because he deregulated too little and lowered taxes too much, but just the opposite? So, you are proposing laissez faire economics and an end to big government? You are a student of Bastiat? That's funny because this is largely my POV, and I've never seen you in any of the meetings.

Amazing you can argue something and be 180 degrees wrong and at the same time completely upside down on your definitions.

Um, actually, no it's not. This is what happens when stubborn ideology meets lack of intelligence. You're very common in that way.

I'm away from home for a few days. I'll give ya'll time to digest this and I'll get back with you.....

See if you can find a clue while your gone, m'kay? Or don't and continue to entertain.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

We weren't in the middle of two wars at the time and he was proposing tax cuts across the board, not just for the super rich. Let's have a little perspective please...

So then you must have favored the Bush 2001 tax cuts that were across the board when there was no war, right?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Ok, a little truth and perspective here would be helpful. The first two years of the Obama term the democrats held a clear majority. There was nothing standing in their way of passing any legislation they wanted.

That was my basic point earlier.

The things they didn't pass were either issues they didn't deem important or issues they wanted to keep available to run on at a later date, or stuff only the most die hard ideologue who wanted to lose his job would be dumb enough to try.

FIFY

Nothing stood in their way but themselves. When they voted together they couldn't be stopped. They didn't even have enough cooperation amongst themselves to pass obamacare and had to back door it through in the reconciliation process. So blame those democrats that wouldn't tow the party line, not republicans because for two years they were simply along for a ride.

Bingo.

As for the republicans standing in the way of Obama after the midterm elections they were doing exactly what they were elected to do. They all ran on a platform of stopping the Obama agenda. They won on that platform and are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

They're doing half of what they were elected to do - the other half was to reign in spending, which ain't gonna happen.