Reagan; Taxes and Budget Deficit: Revenue 19% of GDP; Spending is 23%; Revenue is sufficient

[maozebong100]

he had no idea what he was talking about lol!

[MrPirate71]

O.K. Genius liberal socialist. Here is a lesson in free market trade. If a product, (let's say a pencil) cost you $1.00. You raise the taxes on the wealthy guy that makes the pencil by Say 10%. Does he absorb the extra cost? HELL NO!!! Now your pencils cost $1.10. The rich do not pay taxes. The working class does. So raising the taxes on the rich will cost the consumer more. Do Not believe Obama and his socialist plans. Don't be so opened minded. Your brain might fall out.

[olzt100]

@MrPirate71 First wrong assumption and typical anti social dogma, all things are not produced or invented by the rich. Fact is most wealthy people are limited in ideas, that is why most have their money invested in other people's ideas that weren't born with a silver spoon. Second, wrong assumption of free market forces, just because the costs goes up does not mean you can sell it at a price that equals the cost increase. Some one will come up with an equal or better product for less.

[DRisLegend200919]

reagan was the last good republican

[ub30f]

Obama's take - Ah, the rich, ah, um, should, ah, pay more, ah, um, ah, private jets, ah, ah ,ah, are a concern, ah, um, since the rich, ah, have more to pay. My ah, plan calls for me to, ah, um, fly to South America, ah, ah, while congress gets to work. I will take ah, um, air force one, ah, at tax payers expense, ah ah, so I can work out a deal with, ah, Hugo. Get that.

[Suprkit]

@ub30f At least the President does not wear a diaper like Reagan had to. Get that?

[ub30f]

@Suprkit  Obama is the diaper - GET THAT?

[Suprkit]

@ub30f No, I think that was Nancy when they were alone in the White House.

[seymourbbest]

Look at the numbers to see if reaganomics worked either for reagan or bush. It didn't. We're still trying to fix the mess Bush created with his tax breaks for the wealthy and unfunded wars. Smoke and mirrors was all reagan ever was.

[olzt100]

@seymourbbest Reagan was the prince of conservatives because he talked a good game. But in fact, most of tax cuts were eliminated in other ways by himself. I'm not a big fan of Reagan, but the primary thing you can put on his record was that he was smart enough to reverse the negative effects of his initial tax schemes instead of making the country go down the tube like his peers of the party today. 

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 Tell me this. What were the top marginal rates for the income tax when Reagan took office and when he left office? Reagan knew that it was not always how much tax was collected, but where and when it was collected. All taxes are not equal. As Reagan stated, some have a more deleterious effect on the economy.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 I'll be happy to oblige. The top marginal rate for Reagan's first term was 50%. Oh yes, and it's been higher! Around the time Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford was building empires, the rate was 70%. How did they become multimillionaires? Loop holes and credits. No one paid the 70% rate and had good sense. And Reagan wasn't a tax professional by trade or training. He was an actor turned politician, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now do you want to hear what my barber says about taxes?

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 You are of course kidding when you imply that Reagan did not study and know the issues as well as or better than any other politician in the country. Maybe you don't know much about him except what you hear in the liberal media, the same media that slandered him on a regular basis. Do you know how long he was "into" the issues that mattered to America? He was no dummy as you imply.

The tax rate was just under 70% when he took office, and 28% when he left.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 You are of course kidding to think that Reagan was an authority on taxes. Tell us where did he study finance, accounting or economics? You are correct about the top marginal rates, but you fail to mention the national debt began to rise until roughly 1986. Reagan took measure to slow that down and also his spending was above average. Also GDP growth began to decline during his years. Under the theory that tax cuts create jobs, the GDP should have been growing, not receding.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Also comparing the lower rates of the Reagan years the higher tax rates of the Clinton and Reagan years, the lowest rate for national unemployment under Reagan was in March, 1989 when the economy achieved a single month of 5.0 unemployment. Clinton had four consecutive months of unemployment lows from Sept. to Dec. 2000 at 3.9 %. The higher tax rates went under 5 % and stayed under 5% from July 1997 until Clinton left office.Bush decreased taxes and unemployment began to rise.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Now the real difference as I have said between Reagan and his peers of today is that Reagan did not let ideology blind him to the point he would sink the nation just to make a few wealthier and happy. In 1982 and 1984 Reagan also signed off on the two largest tax increases in US peace time history. This helped to prevent significant increases in national debt while today's tax cut theorist are unwilling to raise revenue to cut the deficit. Reagan spent but he also taxed.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 The primary stickler for the wealthy was not the marginal income tax rate, which had many loopholes and very few paid that rate. It is the capital gains tax that has the most importance. The nature of investing itself is about accumulation of time and value. Investments can elude annual taxation because investments are not taxed until losses or gains are realized. Lowering the capital gains tax does encourage more investing for the wealthy. Lowering the marginal tax rate cont'd

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 for the wealthy really has little effect to them because they do not pay the marginal rate in most cases any way. Lowering the marginal rate does not encourage them to invest more in anything. They just have more money to "buy" anything and everything.

[seymourbbest]

I'm not talking about taxes and bubbles. I'm talking bottom. When you're in debt you need more revenue(taxes) coming in to you. You can talk theories and cycles and bubbles but the USA has to cut spending and raise taxes. We ran up huge bills under Bush.those have to be paid. Tax cuts during war? Yeah great policy from the retarded cowboy.

[seymourbbest]

Reaganomics didn't work for Reagan and it didn't work for GW Bush. Both times the country was left in economic ruin. When will we learn?

[gopconservative78]

@seymourbbest That communist scumbags like yourself want to create the Gulag's in the United States

[vaibanez17]

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is large enough to take care of itself." --- Ronald Reagan, oops. I guess he was wrong. Yes GOP, your second coming of Jesus Christ was wrong. Look how the deficit exploded under the tax cuts and jobs were not created but lost at as fast a rate as the great depression under the current tax cuts. It's amazing the job growth and deficit reduction under Clinton when we had slightly higher taxes....

[jbranstetter04]

@vaibanez17 OK, let me see, "slightly higher taxes" would have kept us out of the biggest recession, and nearly a depression, since the great depression? Is that what you are telling us? Please explain to us how the Bush tax cuts, which were in affect for over 5 years before the collapse, how they caused the economic collapse? You can't. Reason. Because they did not cause it.

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 bluewavenews com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07­/Bush-Tax-Cut-deficit jpg

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 The economic collapse was due to deregulation over Bush's tenure as President on many financial regulations. When this over-inflated market collapsed, which most of the wealth was not based on any real assets as we now know, we were also in a really deep hole caused by the money we had spent on two wars and the Bush tax cuts. This has left us in today's situation.

[jbranstetter04]

@vaibanez17 It was Clinton who signed the republican passed Glass Seagall Repeal Act, so get off your high horse. The Bush administration actually proposed legislation to real-in Fanny Mae but it was opposed by the democrats in the Senate. Until the collapse the deficit was very manageable, about 450 billion annually. I agree with you that it was a bubble and not real assets. Real estate was artificially inflated along with the stock market. The FED and their low interest had a lot to do with it

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 This whole housing market collapse reminded me way too much of the kind of shady things Enron was doing. I mean, inflate real estate, approve everybody for loans, make profit based on nothing, then when things start going bad, sell the bad assets to investors as assets with a "potential for growth". Are we sure Kenneth Lay really died? I mean, he did "die" during the Bush administration and Ken Lay and Bush were great friends. He was one of W's biggest contributors.

[jbranstetter04]

@vaibanez17 I don't think there's a conspiracy here. I came up with an idea a few days ago. To preface it, our jobs are going overseas with our wealth. The 1990's were a boom because of the advancement of computers and other high tech reasons; it massively increased our productivity, then it was over. So what then? Jobs and wealth still being shipped out. The housing bubble. It increased the wealth of Americans and lead to spending. It worked until it popped. So once again, now what?

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 America can get back to what made this country great: Industry. Stop shipping our stuff over seas where the quality of product is not at it's best. Keep it right here, put a giant Made In America stamp on it and know that you make the best products in the business. GM was dead, got a bailout, paid it back with interest and is now back. They re-invented themselves making better American product and now they are doing great. Their suppliers are also booming again. That's how

[jbranstetter04]

@vaibanez17 It is a lot more complicated than we make it out to be. GM gets a lot of its auto parts from vendors outside of the country. If they did not do this, if they did not get the lowest priced parts to build their vehicles, then how would they sell them to other countries? Also, if you had most everything that we consumed made in the USA, then prices would go sky high. How could we overcome the economic impact of that? Do you want to buy the $30 multimeter or the $180 one?

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 I know for a fact that they get a lot of their steel from steel factories right here in the USA. They get it from a company known as MacSteel which was purchased by Gerdau. Gerdau is a Brazilian corporation, which is the 14th largest steel company in the world. However, the MacSteel factories are here in the US, one in Michigan and one in Fort Smith, AR. The plant in AR, as I know from reading, almost went out, but came back due to economic recovery of companies like GM.

[jbranstetter04]

@vaibanez17 I'm not sure what the answer is. All that I would do for sure is to make sure that all of our military procurements are from the USA. In this way we would at least keep our military industries here and not have to depend on other possibly hostile countries for our defense. What we really need here in America is some innovations to gain us more wealth.

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 All I know for sure is that when a company moves a factory line out of the US, several jobs are lost. Some companies couldn't compete and went out entirely like DHL. Other companies simply cut jobs to save money. It's all b/s. If steel can survive here when China produces it so much cheaper, any manufacturing industry can. As I stated before, GM's comeback helped a lot of supply companies make a comeback. That's trickle down economics, not giving tax cuts to rich people.

[jbranstetter04]

@vaibanez17 I would like someone in the media or elsewhere to do a study on companies that change their production from here to China or other countries. I want to know if they changed the price of their product and what there profit margin was before and after the move. Fluke electrical testing equipment, multimeters etc, were always high priced but they were the best that money could buy and they were made here. Now they are make in China and still cost the same!

[vaibanez17]

@jbranstetter04 Exactly, many items that are now produced in another country and sold back to our market have not seen a drop in price. However, one company that works the production in another country to lower price here scheme is Walmart. Walmart makes everything in another country. A quick look at their clothing brand tags brings back "Made in....India, Bangladesh, Nepal, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Senegal, Nigeria, etc" Most items do not see a drop in price due to foreign production though

[jbranstetter04]

@orgasmicide2 Progressives do not care if they collect more tax, they only care if it is fair. Look up the increase by the democrats of the luxury tax in the 90's and see why it was repealed.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 By using your own logic, Republicans do not care if the tax burden falls disproportionately on another group that may not be able to sustain that rate and have a decent living standard, just as long one group can favorable tax rate over the other. Your logic is that those who earn a lot need not pay a lot in taxes due their earnings. But at the same time we have the incident of those earning much less paying a higher percentage to the federal government..

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 There's a simple solution to the fairness problem, its called the Fair Tax. It will abolish the people controlling income tax and payroll tax. In its place there would be a consumption tax paid by every single person and corporation, and even by visitors to our country. There would be rebates issued to all for the first $25k, 50k, 75k of money spent, so the poor would pay no or very low tax. It would be very progressive, as SS, Medicare and Medicaid would be paid mostly by the rich.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Not totally disagreeing with your statement, but Fair Tax is a misnomer just like Global Warming is to Climate change. Consumption is a function of need or desire. Thus when you throw the tax bill on the high consumers, you risk curbing their appetites for consumpstion and thus lowering the tax revenues. The US needs a steady source or revenues and not a fluctuating one to sustain itself. Can we really run the scale of military size we do from fluctating revenues? Not likely.

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 My State has a sales tax only, and yet we survive. I'm double for the feds doing this because then I would get to keep every dime that I earn, that is until I spend it. That would be great. Think of it as a voluntary tax in a way. I believe that it is no business of the government how much I make or where I make my money, as long as I'm not committing crimes to make it. If our representatives would do their job and balance the budget and then produce a surplus, there'd be no problem.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 A lot of people have misconceptions about the US monetary system. First, that money in your pocket always belongs to the federal government. Your work earns you the right to possess or rent that money to exchange. You never own it. So because you have to do some thing to lay claim to the medium the federal government prints, they do have the right to know what you make because they are the ultimate issuer. Next the federal government is much larger than state governments.

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 You said two things that mean nothing, and you only said two things. Believe me that they would have no right to know how much I earn, and if we got rid of the income tax, they would not try to find out how much I earn. And contrary to what you stated, they would have no authority to find out. As for the size of government, it makes no difference the size, a consumption tax would still work just fine. It would be like saying that a small company cannot ever be a big one.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 By the same logic, all you have said is meaningless. You do not print your own money so who ever prints the money does have the right to know who has it and how much. The problem with the US is education. A Consumption tax would not work because as you may not know, the average person spends most of their income in the economy. But the wealthy spend far less of their income as a percentage. Thus as with low taxes, the wealthy can hoard money and reduce government revenues.

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 No they don't have a right to know if we had no income tax!! They would have no way of knowing if there was not an income tax! Can you get it through your head? It is our government and therefore it is our money. Tell me how with no income tax they will find out how much money I make? What law is it that they will pass over the objections of the People? Forgive me if I'm a little intense about this subject.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Guess what? Without an income tax, they could not provide you with a defense or other services. Have you comtemplated the vast differences in American society from the time when the US Constitution was written and now? People were agrarian when the constitution was written. Unfortunatley, the modernities that we take for granted makes life much more complicated than at that time. Frankly, anyone that wanted to leave the system at that time could if they really tried hard enough.

[DRisLegend200919]

@olzt100 i think we should get rid of the sales tax

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Now if you want to argue that the government has gotten away from the people, then you would be correct. But there is no way the US could maintain the collossal military it has without an income tax. Now if people want to really go back to the good old days when small government was feasible, then that also requires a relatively small population and a more self sufficient society. We are well beyond that stage now.

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 We got off topic. What I was telling you is that the income tax would be replaced by a national sales tax commonly known as the "Fair Tax". It would replace the income tax and the payroll taxes. It would be a 23% sales tax on everything: Food; services; housing etc. There would be an exemption on what it takes it takes to live, so you would be getting a rebate check in the mail at the beginning of every month to cover the tax on your living expenses. This would cover "big government".

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Dude, it won't work. It's variable revenues based on consumption. High taxes on food would kill a lot of people or drive them to crime. The wealthy do not spend their income in proportion to average people. All a consumption tax would do is make average people buy only neccesities, which would greatly affect the wealthy and their investments. A progressive flat rate tax based on income is far superior because one can actually limit income better than one can limit needs.

[jbranstetter04]

@olzt100 Even though I somewhat explained it above, you still don't know what the fair tax is. I'm familiar with it, but I'm no expert on it. All people would get a "deduction" for living expenses, which means that at the beginning of every month they would receive a check in the mail covering the sales tax on the first $50,000 (divided by 12 months) of their spending, to be used to cover the sales tax. Therefore it would drive no one to crime or starvation.

[jbranstetter04]

...People would spend just like always, like they do in my "sales tax" only state. Do you realize that people do not spend as much, as is happening now, when they do not earn as much, so it makes no difference in tax collection. One reason for our budget deficit is because of the lack of revenue resulting from joblessness, so that is no argument against this tax. Everyone spends money, so this tax you would not be able to get out of no matter how many tax lawyers you hire.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 The fair tax will not work because it will not raise enough revenues. Just like the corporations shifted jobs overseas to reduce labor costs, the wealthy, many who have homes in different countries, can shift the majority of their consumption to countries with lower prices.So who picks up the tab on the shortfall? In a economy where business can lay off at will, a consumption tax in the country with the most expensive military would likely break the bank.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 You were forgiven. Since you claim it is your money but you don't print it, how would you check how much is in circulation and where it is in approximation? A society is a shared agreement with mutual benefits thus something has to be at moderately partial in monitoring society. People as individuals tend not to be moderately partial. Here is an amusing point, why are you bashful about the money you make? It not like its any use to you if you just keep it.

[olzt100]

@jbranstetter04 Now on to what is meaningless and relevant. If you like, you can print your own money if you feel the government has no need to know how much you make. And you can also not pay your taxes if you choose not to. But I think most people realize what will happen to you in the long run. So good luck in your decisions on what is and is not meaningless. I hope you know better lawyers than Wesley Snipes.

[RickAJarvis]

Reagan's budget proposals from '81 to '89 were all lower than the ones passed by Congress except one; Reagan's 1984 budget was 1.2% higher. If Congress, controlled by the Democrats, had passed his budgets, in 1990, we would have had a budget surplus. Conversely, under Clinton, the Congress was controlled by Republicans (many of whom were in their early term) and the U.S. had a surplus. Therefore, you must see that Congress decides the budget, and usually, GOP=responible, while DEM=reckless.

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis Clearly something is missing from your ideas. Clinton and the republicans took the surplus from social security to help balance the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors my friend. Clinton and the repubs also deregulated wallstreet and signed on to nafta which has destroyed our country.

[RickAJarvis]

@newave123456. And Obama and the Democrats regulated Wallsteet and have made this the longest economic malaise since the Great Depression (which was also caused by regulation). As for Clinton and the GOP, you could be right. However, whenever taxes have been lowered and spending decreased, there has been economic growth. For example, when we had a small, inactive government in the 1920's, we had the Roaring Twenties, a period of immense growth. When Hoover began regulating, we had the Depression

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis Yes, but there is one area where I respectfully disagree. That is taxes. Taxes used to be 91% on the riches Americans and that is when we experienced the MOST growth. That was the Roosevelt era. If you don't believe me, google it. You can find all the information about what FDR did, how he implemented it and how he cut poverty in half with the "new deal" agenda.

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis Oh yeah, and about Obama. He gave into to big pharma, big banks, big military industrial complex, and big oil. He is anything but a socialist. He is a corporatist who is helping to lead this country right into its next GOD awful phase. Fascism.

[RickAJarvis]

@newave123456 How can you say that the Roosevelt era was "economic growth?" We were the Great Dpression. The unemployement rate alone was staggering (not to mention our debt). The only growth that came was from the public sector, not from the private, precisely because of those exhorbibant taxes. Poverty is cut by taxing the wealthy? Why don't we shoot the poor; that will decrease their numbers. As for Obama, fascism and socialism are one and the same with one one difference:nationalism/interna­t

[RickAJarvis]

@newave123456 Further, Roosevelt's "cutting poverty" created what know now as "generational welfare." He immediately helped but in the longterm hurt us by having the gov't spend more and overstep its bounds. The New Deal trampled the Constitution on a regualr basis. When the SC tried to reign it in, FDR wanted to start packing the courts. Not only did he have no regard for teh Constitution, he worsened our economy (through Keynesian/Socialistic/Fascisti­c spending). We got out of GD because WWII.

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis Well in actuality, during the "roaring 20's" we did not have a functioning middle class. We had a very large disparagement in rich and poor. The first great depression was not based on regulation because we did not have any. Bank regulation came after the great depression. I think your timeline is a little funny. The middle class keeps the country running, not the rich. I due hope you recognize that.

[RickAJarvis]

@newave123456 Yes, teh rich got richer. But the poor didn't get poorer. Americans, even at the lowest rank, had more luxuries than almost any other nation. The farming regulation came in before the October Crash, and the massive government programs followed it. Yes, the middle class is vital, but I don't see them creating jobs at the same pace as the 'wealthy.' If we lowered taxes and cut spending, creatinga more stable economy, we would experience more job and income growth.

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis Small business makes up the most job creation in the US and not the uber rich. Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world and the reason why is because the middle class is dwarfed by the rich only 5 to 10 times. Not 300 times like america. The only way to make a strong economy is to protect certain industries from trade. In america ceo's mistake for cutting cost as making a profit. They should try making great products that people must have.

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis Lastly Trade needs to be changed as well. Big companies no longer want to work by competing in the market place. They pay to make rules in congress, then start new corps overseas. Then send products back to america with virtually no import taxes. And lets not forget that they also dont pay there fair share in taxes AND receive subsidies to boot. They are lazy and I wish we had real visionaries in business like we used too. Who cared about america and not the all mighty dollar!

[RickAJarvis]

@newave123456 Let me ask you a question: what, exactly is your definition of rich? As for Germany, it has one of the highest debts in the world!What I propose would that all people pay 10%, no more, no less. Is that unfair? One final question: would you support proectionism over free trade? If so, then you would have us back when we payed excessive prices for low quality goods. If we force our corporations to end their overseas corps, wouldn't we hurt ourselves as well?

[newave123456]

@RickAJarvis I have a suggestion for you. Please watch a movie called "executive suite". I believe it was made in the 50's. It was a big hollywood movie. There's a speech at the end of the movie that details what happened to ceo's mindsets.  And to answer your question... no. If we stopped the companies from shipping jobs overseas we'd go back to the US economy circa 55 to 60's. Our economy used to be self sustaining. With practically no importation of finished goods. 90% raw materials.

[RickAJarvis]

@newave123456 Know where I could see the movie? But to counter your assertion, it would turn into the mediocrity of the late 60's and early 70's, and we would have to open trade again for competition. And what would happen if those companies lost their internation branches? They would lose income; when they lose enough, they cut jobs here. What we should do is get rid of incentives, both to export and import jobs. Our two incentives should be a low corporate tax rate and a competitive freemarket

[zz4guy]

siddown and shuddup you cunt. All taxes are harmful.

[terryooooooo]

The Reagan deficits were for a totally different reason than Obama's

Reagan believed in smaller government. His plans were to cut spending and cut taxes. The problem is that the Democrat Congress cut the taxes because it was popular, but they never cut the spending. Thus the deficits.

Obama believes in larger governemnt and is just spending recklessly out of control. There is no comparison between the two situations whatsoever

[highwater03]

@terryooooooo

Reagan believed in smaller government? lol

[Goldman3040]

Worst President of the 20th century.

[AtlasShruggery]

@Goldman3040

Yes, clearly Reagan was the worst. president of the 20th century. He was easily the most corrupt, too. More Reagan appointees were convicted of crimes related to their offices than any other president.

Republicans have spent 20 years and millions of dollars trying to spin Reagan as some kinda war hero and economic genius instead of the corrupt Hollywood airhead that Reagan actually was.

[Goldman3040]

All you have to look at is the colossal failure that the War on Drugs was. It was totally unsubstantial from a fiscal point of view and created the prison-industrial complex that is corrupting the American political system to this day. That alone is enough to declare Reagan's presidency a monumental failure.

[olzt100]

@Goldman3040 Actually the war on drugs was another effort of big government spending. The size in government in Regards to spending increased under the Reagan administration. So in this video what is he speaking about? He is speaking in the increase in government spending versus the tax revenue. Does anyone see the utter hypocrisy? Reagan never reduced government spending. Clinton did reduce government spending and mostly by cutting defense spending.

[TheUrbanRecluse]

@Goldman3040 Reagan reignited War on Drugs, Nixon was first to introduce it.

[nafaidni]

"If you dont, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom... until... we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you dont do this and I dont do this,One of these days, you and I, are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrens children what it once was like in America, when men were free"

Ronald Reagan on Medicare, 1962? :S

[AtlasShruggery]

"I don't worry about the deficit" - Ronald Reagan

"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

[USAiluvU]

" I don't worry that I'm a libtard" - AtlasShruggery

"obama taught me that I & wall street matter but not the individual" - AtlasShruggery

"Yes we can" - obama and Bob the Builder

Our gov is spending like mad. They are going to bankrupt this great country & your head is stuck in obamas ass u neolibtard.

[AtlasShruggery]

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles" - Ronald Reagan

"If you've seen one tree you've seen them all" - Ronald Reagan

"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

"We did not repeat did not trade arms for hostages" - Ronald Reagan (after he was caught trading missiles for hostages to the Iranian ayatollahs)

"The best minds are not in government"

Not on Reagan's government THAT'S for sure.

[USAiluvU]

@atlasshruggery

I believe in global warming cause I am a retard and I like to be controlled by government Atlas Shruggary

If youve seen one libtard youve seen them all USAiluvu

Ive been in 57 states obama

"The best minds are not in government" I actually like that one u assless piece of shruggery.

[nafaidni]

USAiluvU

I believe reality is false because science has a liberal bias.

I am good in foreign policy because I am located near a foreign nation.- Sarah Palin

There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. -Bush

I don't think government is a good thing, but I am in it to get my paycheck just by saying "no". -Every conservative politician.

[USAiluvU]

nafaidni - I believe libtards like u r false bc they believe in mm global warming usailuvu.

Im good in foreign policy bc I apologize for the USA obama.

There r weapons of mass destruction bill Clinton, hellary Clint, albright, bush, cheney, blair, kerry, & on and on.

I don't think government is a good thing, but I am in it to get my paycheck just by saying "no". thank u every conservative politician. We need more of u to say NO to all this spending & expansion of the fed gov.

[alpha11110]

@AtlasShruggery

"As government expands, liberty contracts" - Ronald Reagan

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan

As far as the tree thing goes, he was referring to the gases released by the decay of dead trees. And to the extent of the facts quote, that was one of his joking remarks/comebacks. He was known for those.

[AtlasShruggery]

"I don't worry about the deficit" - Ronald Reagan

"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

[philWynk]

Ooooooo--- QUOTE MINING!!!! I love it. Doesn't matter what the US Constitution says, if we can find a quote or two to fit our preconceptions, we can switch our minds off and pretend the world is what we want it to be!!!

How fun. How... intellectually sound.

How old are you? 11?

[AtlasShruggery]

The purpose of the quotes was to demonstrate the rank hypocrisy of RepubliCons who are now suddenly mindful of the deficit.

Exactly where does the Constitution address the issue of the deficit? Please be specific.

The truth is that Ronald Reagan pontificated for his entire career about balancing the federal budget but Reagan never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress in his eight years as president.

Ronald Reagan was the biggest fraud ever foisted upon the American people.

[philWynk]

The Republican party has changed over the years, but has consistently stood for greater fiscal responsibility than their contemporaries in the Democratic party.

The quotes, in context, indicate that these guys did not think that a TEMPORARY deficit would harm the economy. They both still favored fiscal responsibility. Cheney in particular, recognized that war spending required occasional deficits.

By contrast, the Dem party simply thinks that money grows on trees. They're not the same.

[AtlasShruggery]

Nice try, little GOPer.

80% of our national debt has been run up under just three presidents - Reagan, Bush and Junior Bush. All Republicans.

George W. Bush was exactly what Ronald Reagan woould have been like if Reagan had had a Republican Congress to do his bidding like Junior Bush did.

[philWynk]

"The truth is that Ronald Reagan pontificated for his entire career about balancing the federal budget but Reagan never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress in his eight years as president."

Mandated spending made a balanced budget in year 1 impossible. He did submit a plan that, if followed for 7 years, would have brought the budget into balance in the 7th year (which Dems in Congress trashed.) He also shrunk govt spending as a % of GDP. His changes spurred growth for 20 years.

[AtlasShruggery]

More revisionist history. Where'd you get that, Faux News?

Even Reagan's Budget Director David Stockman admitted Reagan's "plan" was bogus. Remember how your RepubliCons excoriated him for admittting it? And you GOPers controlled the Senate until the 1982 midterms. Why didn't you do anything then?

Can you name one single budget year that corrupt Hollywood airhead Ronald Reagan submitted a balanced budget to Congress? Just one? Of course not. Because it never happened.

[zaurakdigis]

The problem with his speech is he grew the deficit greatly. He debunked his own argument. He forced Bush to raise taxes. His supply economics has failed to do what he said. Bush 43 left office with a 14 trillion dollar deficits. Deficits grow with tax cuts. Reagan set a deficit record until Bush 43 broke it. Clinton reduced the deficit and increased taxes and also increased jobs.

[philWynk]

Zaur, this is what we're discussing here. The President's proposals would not have grown the deficit at all; they would have ended the deficits by 1987 if they'd been approved by Congress. Congress REWROTE Reagan's budget proposals. Reagan opposed this, shutting down the government twice.

The deficits were the result of hostile compromises between Reagan and Tip O'Neill, House Speaker. Reagan opposed overspending, O'Neill had no objection to deficits. Whose fault?

[AtlasShruggery]

A lecture on fiscal responsibility from Ronald Reagan, the biggest spendthrift in American history. What a hypocrite.

[jbranstetter04]

Let's say for the sake of argument that he was. Well not anymore. It is now Obama who is "the biggest spendthrift in American history". Reagan was responsible for slowing the future growth rate of government, but that is history now that Obama is in charge.

[AtlasShruggery]

C'mon, George W. Bush was just Ronald Reagan with a Republican Congress, bad hair & no acting lessons. Eighty percent of our national debt was run up under just 3 presidents, all Republicans.

I see your You Tube page quotes Abe Lincoln. Here's another Lincoln quote for you: "Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of Labor and could not have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration."

[jbranstetter04]

And now Obama is on the way to doubling that debt, and you are OK with that I presume.

I disagree with Lincoln on that one. Capital can come from invention, it is not always from labor. So I'm saying that some of it will be from labor, but the majority of it will be from invention. Therefore capital is not only the fruit of labor. The man wasn't perfect, but he was close.

[MrTabby5000]

@jbranstetter04

hey buddy just look at history,the debt did not go down under reagan,it went up.

[benedicteducation]

Are you completely high? Government takeover of business is all that happened and Reagan warned against the things we are doing now. To compare the 2 men is like Jordan to Pippen, Obama just doesn't stack up.

[highwater03]

@jbranstetter04

Three biggest spenders in history were all Republican: Nixon, Reagan, and your Messiah Bush.

[jbranstetter04]

@highwater03 Is that adjusted for inflation?

[ed200634]

What about the massive new spending of Comrade Obama? It's only when welfare spending goes up is that fiscally responsible. Admit it. You just like massive welfare and massive tax hikes.

[highwater03]

@ed200634

This video said Reagan if I'm reading correctly...............

[RickAJarvis]

@highwater03 Dmes overspent, not Reagan. Nixon and Bush, yeah, I agree with.

[highwater03]

@RickAJarvis

He didn't veto any spending did he? lol

[RickAJarvis]

@highwater03 he needed to nogotiate. He wanted to cut taxes and lower spending, but seeignhe could do only one, he sought cutting taxes, because that would spur growth.

[highwater03]

@RickAJarvis

Ever heard of veto power?

[highwater03]

@RickAJarvis

And where does the budgetary process begin? lol

That's right, the executive branch.

[RickAJarvis]

@highwater03 Actually, no. The president can propose a budget, as Reagan did (which, if we followed, would have lead to a surplus in 1989). but Congress has final say. Congress can pass the presidents proposal, modify it, or simply overlook it. And what about Obama? He's spent more than every president combined (and there's more to come).

[highwater03]

@RickAJarvis

"And what about Obama? He's spent more than every president combined (and there's more to come).

First of all, that's not true. Second, this is a red herring argument.

[philWynk]

Take a lesson in American government, child: Congress holds the purse strings. Reagan sent budgets to Congress that would have brought the national budget into balance by 1987, and House Speaker Tip O'Neill pronounced them "DOA" and loaded them up with welfare spending. Reagan shut down the government TWICE trying to keep Congress from passing those inflationary budgets. Reagan's not a hypocrite, you just don't know the facts.

[AtlasShruggery]

You Lie!

Can you provide any credible support for those claims? Of course not. You're just regurgitating one of the many Reagan myths that the RepubliCons have spent 20 years and millions of dollars trying to promote.

Take a lesson in hiistory, child. I lived through the idiocy of Reagan and his Trickle Down Reaganomics. Corrupt Holywood airhead Ronald Reagan never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress despite pontificating about it for his entire career. Reagan was a fraud.

[philWynk]

Dude!!! Calm down, you'll get spittle all over your monitor!!!

Anybody with access to a library can check out the accuracy of what I wrote. I know it's true because I lived through it; I was in my late 30s when Reagan was elected, and I remember my dad (a Dem) railing against that "immoral" Reagan for shutting down the government (he didn't say the same about Clinton in the 90s for some reason...)

Repeat after me, and take a lesson: "Congress holds the purse strings..."

[nbros6]

On the contrary!!! Congress makes proposals, the PRESIDENT SIGNS THE BILLS. THIS IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKS. THE BLAME IS ON THE PRESIDENT ACCEPT OR REJECT.

[philWynk]

So, what you're saying is, Congress and the President have to work together... so it's the President's fault? Oh, that's logical, that is...

Actually, you've only got 2/3 of the process, and you've got part of that wrong. The President proposes the budget. The Congress passes the actual bill. The President signs or fails to sign the bill. The Congress can override the President's veto (failing to sign is equivalent to a veto -- it's called a "pocket veto.")

[nbros6]

If you read your repeat after me quote this is the only response nessassary. Yes the President can use it's veto power and the congress can over ride any bil with a majority vote. If you want to make a point make sure the you use all sides ot the argument.

[ed200634]

@AtlasShruggery Yes, if only we had finished the job of gutting the military, we'd be living in paradise.

[dodopoptart]

TY!!! hepled me with my homework

[bicycle111]

Great President, wish he was still here, Obamination is to come!!

[ExcellentAmerican]

It's funny, when ever he moves his hand you can hear all of the camera shutters going off, they must want the best shot.

[ourearthhome]

The problem dear ones is that all the hype about taxes and the great economic surge under this guy hides the fact that during his administration the percentage of wealth owned by the folks at the top went up significantly and the percentage owned by the bottom half of people went down. He did not start the trend nor has it changed since his time. The real measure of whether an economy is working well is when it expands at the same time that more people get to share in it.

[beeyo56]

we don't live in a communist/socialist state idiot. go preach your commie bullshit elsewhere.

[ourearthhome]

Whatever is taxed is socialized. What kind of socialist are you? Or are you the kind of person who is against all taxes, period. If you do think some form of taxation is necessary then what should we tax? Should we tax earned incomes from labor and capital investment all of which taxes socialize what is true private property or might we tax the value of land created by all of us, a tax that penalizes no one's effort and causes no disincentive except to land speculation and urban sprawl?

[pspguy28]

You need to check your facts. Wages for the lowest salaried workers INCREASED 6% annually on average during the 1980's after falling 5% annually throughtout the 70's.

[ourearthhome]

pspguy28: and wages are up since then? Did not the percentage of wealth owned by the top few percent increase dramatically during the great hoaxer's reign? And what is the relevance of your comment to whether we should be taxing wages and other earned incomes at all in the first place when there is so much income from unearned income the taxation of which does nothing but discourage things we don't want like land speculation, urban sprawl and fight of capital to other countries?

[RonPaulGeorgeRingo]

Reagan was decent on taxes, but a disaster on spending. (Even the "liberal" congress spent less than he asked for.)

The Reagan brand of credit card conservatism is destined for the ash heap of history.

Governing by MASSIVE deficit spending (Reagan/Bush/Bush) is NOT leadership.

Write in Ron Paul.