He raised taxes 11 times, and almost tripled the deficit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Obama?

No, Reagan.

Yet conservatards still claim his "tax cut philosophy" worked and call Obama a Socialist..

:palm:
 
Dude, the top tax rate of 70% was lowered to 28% under Reagan... Two bills, the first passed just as he came into office. An across the board 23% tax cut. That particular one made some business deductions even larger than before, in 1986 he lowered individual tax rates again (that's where it finally got down to 28% for the top tax rate), that same bill is the one that people are repeating the speech on the "close the loopholes" speech that Obama quoted...

Yes, it actually cut tax rates while it closed some loopholes, and it cut the rate big time. Republicans today offer the same kind of deal... Revamping the IRS code, lowering tax rates while broadening the base and simplifying the code (read: close loopholes).
 
Damocles said:
Dude, the top tax rate of 70% was lowered to 28% under Reagan... Two bills, the first passed just as he came into office. An across the board 23% tax cut. That particular one made some business deductions even larger than before, in 1986 he lowered individual tax rates again (that's where it finally got down to 28% for the top tax rate), that same bill is the one that people are repeating the speech on the "close the loopholes" speech that Obama quoted...

Yes, it actually cut tax rates while it closed some loopholes, and it cut the rate big time. Republicans today offer the same kind of deal... Revamping the IRS code, lowering tax rates while broadening the base and simplifying the code (read: close loopholes).
Click to expand...

Dude, you are being economical with la vérité.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
 
Damocles said:
Dude, the top tax rate of 70% was lowered to 28% under Reagan... Two bills, the first passed just as he came into office. An across the board 23% tax cut. That particular one made some business deductions even larger than before, in 1986 he lowered individual tax rates again (that's where it finally got down to 28% for the top tax rate), that same bill is the one that people are repeating the speech on the "close the loopholes" speech that Obama quoted...Yes, it actually cut tax rates while it closed some loopholes, and it cut the rate big time. Republicans today offer the same kind of deal... Revamping the IRS code, lowering tax rates while broadening the base and simplifying the code (read: close loopholes).
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that your rant rebutted the facts I presented?
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
Are you under the impression that your rant rebutted the facts I presented?
Click to expand...

It simply fleshed out the story, adding facts that underline a different reality. Overall, under Reagan, tax rates didn't just go down, they went down considerably.
 
Damocles said:
It simply fleshed out the story, adding facts that underline a different reality. Overall, under Reagan, tax rates didn't just go down, they went down considerably.
Click to expand...

A "different reality"?

Dance, Damocles, dance.


Emi0l.gif
 
Damocles said:
It simply fleshed out the story, adding facts that underline a different reality. Overall, under Reagan, tax rates didn't just go down, they went down considerably.
Click to expand...

Which explains why the deficit skyrocketed from $700 billion to $3 trillion on his watch. If Obama had done the same the deficit would be more than $40 trillion now.

It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."
Click to expand...


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...29-503544.html
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Which explains why the deficit skyrocketed from $700 billion to $3 trillion on his watch. If Obama had done the same the deficit would be more than $40 trillion now.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't. Under Reagan the revenues remained at an average level, it was the compromise spending that increased the deficit.

chart_reagan_taxes5.top.gif


And the deficit under Obama has tripled. Bush's average deficit was around 480 Billion, Obama's has been 1.4 Trillion. It's like you actually can't understand the math or language... It seems like you are fluent in English, the words go in order and stuff, but meaning seems to slip right on past whatever you consider to be the place your thoughts are processed. The deficit wouldn't be 40 Trillion, you think the DEBT would be that. Do you understand the difference between a deficit and the debt?
 
\(\(=)/)/ said:
"When Reagan became president -- and began to cut taxes -- the federal deficit was 2.5 percent of the national economy. When he left, eight years later, the deficit was 5 percent of the economy."

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-debts-fdr-to-bush/reagans-deficit-dreamscape
Click to expand...

Yes, and that was due to spending not because of lowered revenue. It's like you purposefully refuse to actually understand the reality. Spending went up, and it wasn't republicans who controlled those strings... He made compromise deals, that he often later regretted.

Reality: revenue did not get smaller under Reagan.
Reality: spending did go up under Reagan.

I understand that both happened. Even good is sometimes flawed. The idea that taxes went up during his terms is actually quite funny. I mean the difference between 70% and 28% notwithstanding, taxes overall went down under Reagan.
 
Reagan was a serial tax raiser.


As governor of California, Reagan “signed in to law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled.


As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years.


As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.”


“Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.


Conservative Republicans have elevated Reagan to the political equivalent of sainthood. His is the spirit they invoke as they resist every attempt to close the deficit by raising revenues through higher taxes.


He is seen as the champion of smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, the man who single-handedly pulled America out of the dumps and reignited the maps in the shining city on the hill. He belongs on Mount Rushmore.

Alas, that is the myth that Reagan worshippers have so fervidly embraced, and most of it is untrue.




http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

http://www.theroot.com/views/what-would-reagan-do
 
Damocles said:
Actually it doesn't. Under Reagan the revenues remained at an average level, it was the compromise spending that increased the deficit.

chart_reagan_taxes5.top.gif


And the deficit under Obama has tripled. Bush's average deficit was around 480 Billion, Obama's has been 1.4 Trillion. It's like you actually can't understand the math or language... It seems like you are fluent in English, the words go in order and stuff, but meaning seems to slip right on past whatever you consider to be the place your thoughts are processed. The deficit wouldn't be 40 Trillion, you think the DEBT would be that. Do you understand the difference between a deficit and the debt?
Click to expand...

I meant to say debt not deficit, it was a simple mistake unlike you who doesn't understand the difference between its and it's. Any way here are the figures for all presidents from Carter to Obama.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I meant to say debt not deficit, it was a simple mistake unlike you who doesn't understand the difference between its and it's. Any way here are the figures for all presidents from Carter to Obama.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Click to expand...

Actually I do understand the difference between it's and its... "its" denotes ownership (genitive case), "it's" is a contraction. It is a rare circumstance and I am embarrassed for a brit who doesn't understand it. Seriously, that is really embarrassing, even after I gave you a dictionary entry showing that I was correct in usage and that you are flat wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it

it
[it]   Origin Like this word?
it
1    [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun

its
[its]   Origin Like this word?
its
   [its] Show IPA
pronoun
the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective): The book has lost its jacket. I'm sorry about its being so late.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its

Now please, get yourself a better grammar coach because you don't have this one right.
 
Unfortunately, Reaganomics did not work. When Reagan became president -- and began to cut taxes -- the federal deficit was 2.5 percent of the national economy. When he left, eight years later, the deficit was 5 percent of the economy.


Interest payments on the debt jumped to $169 billion in 1988 from $69 billion in 1981. At the time, those were astonishing numbers, and they have exploded since.


That’s where we are now. The leaders of Reagan’s party -- he would be a left-wing Republican now -- seem to truly believe that they, and they alone, know the secret other politicians have sought: reduce the deficit, balance the budget and save the Republic.


That’s quite a reversal from only a few years ago when Vice President Richard Cheney said that, politically, Reagan had proved that deficits don’t matter. After all, Reagan ran up more debt than any of his predecessors and easily won re-election. This time they matter mightily, at least until 2012. Politically.





http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-debts-fdr-to-bush/reagans-deficit-dreamscape
 
Damocles said:
Actually I do understand the difference between it's and its... "its" denotes ownership (genitive case), "it's" is a contraction. It is a rare circumstance and I am embarrassed for a brit who doesn't understand it. Seriously, that is really embarrassing, even after I gave you a dictionary entry showing that I was correct in usage and that you are flat wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it

it
[it]   Origin Like this word?
it
1    [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun

Now please, get yourself a better grammar coach because you don't have this one right.
Click to expand...

You said "Right, 1912 called and want it's idioms back", unless American English is different to English English that means "Right, 1912 called and want it is idioms back"
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You said "Right, 1912 called and want it's idioms back", unless American English is different to English English that means "Right, 1912 called and want it is idioms back"
Click to expand...

Um.. No I didn't. I used "its" and you tried to correct me with the contraction.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I refer you to post #319

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...lieving-Homosexuality-Is-Wrong&highlight=1912
Click to expand...

Direct link to post 319: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ng-Homosexuality-Is-Wrong&p=881611#post881611

Note, you later quote my post making its red and adding an apostrophe. Then I linked to the correct dictionary reference...

This is going round and round. I can clearly understand the difference between the two, but when I am pedantic, I try to be correct.
 
Damocles said:
Direct link to post 319: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ng-Homosexuality-Is-Wrong&p=881611#post881611

Note, you later quote my post making its red and adding an apostrophe. Then I linked to the correct dictionary reference...

This is going round and round. I can clearly understand the difference between the two, but when I am pedantic, I try to be correct.
Click to expand...

OK, so how come when I looked a few minutes ago it was there and then it magically disappeared. I also refer you to post #320 where Low has apparently made the same mistake according to you. If you are going to cover up then you need to a more thorough job.
 
Last edited:
Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit.


During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.”


Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously.


Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut.


Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.





http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top