Reagan raised corporate, and cap gains taxes. I suggest we do it again.Reagan cut taxes, jobs increased.
The public sector added 1.5 million jobs under Reagan. It shrunk under this POTUS.No the private sector expanded.
Reagan raised corporate, and cap gains taxes. I suggest we do it again.
The public sector added 1.5 million jobs under Reagan. It shrunk under this POTUS.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/reagan-versus-obama-jobs_554830.htmlLet’s look at the job numbers. The pit of Reagan’s recession came in December 1982, when 99,032,000 people had jobs. Fourteen months later, employment had risen to 103,824,000, or job growth of 4,792,000. That really is impressive. It beats Obama’s record over a similar period—starting from the nadir of jobs—by 3,179,000 jobs.
There’s another yardstick for comparing Reagan and Obama: what’s called the “labor force participation rate.” It’s the percentage of Americans 16 years old or older who have jobs. Under Reagan, the low point was 63.5 percent in September 1981, down from 63.9 percent when he took office. Under Obama, it was 64.2 percent last month, down from 65.7 percent in January 2009.
This means just what you think it does. Percentage-wise, more people left the workforce under Obama than Reagan.
I've already told you...Reagan increased public sector hiring, while the public sector was decimated when Obama took office.This means just what you think it does. Percentage-wise, more people left the workforce under Obama than Reagan.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
I've already told you...Reagan increased public sector hiring, while the public sector was decimated when Obama took office.
From '88....Reagan increased spending.
[/I][/COLOR]
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
As you've already been taught...Reagan put everything on the credit card. You're prob. too young to remember the Savings and Loan bailout.
A blog from '11? Really?The Obama increased federal jobs at almost twice the rate that private jobs declined: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/federal-workforce-continues-to-grow-under-obama-budget/
A blog from '11? Really?
What did Reagan inherit? What did Obama? And what was the aftermath of 8 years of Reagan's policies?You complain about Reagan, yet, since "debt doesn't matter", Debt vs. GDP matters, look at the Reagan years (FY 81-88) vs. the Obama years (FY 09-present).
View attachment 2138
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2012USp_14s1li111mcn_H0f
Argument? You aren't even offering credible data."When you can't defeat the argument, attack it's messenger."
What did Reagan inherit? What did Obama? And what was the aftermath of 8 years of Reagan's policies?
Maybe you should ask your parents?
Again, you're attacking the source instead of presenting facts that dispute the argument.Argument? You aren't even offering credible data.
A blog from '11? Really?
[h=1]American Households On Foodstamps Climb To New Record[/h]
I hope all the pinhead Democrats on this board are personally helping set these records....
http://tinyurl.com/mmc4xgk
What did Reagan inherit? What did Obama? And what was the aftermath of 8 years of Reagan's policies?
Maybe you should ask your parents?
You complain about Reagan, yet, since "debt doesn't matter", Debt vs. GDP matters, look at the Reagan years (FY 81-88) vs. the Obama years (FY 09-present).
View attachment 2138
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1980_2012USp_14s1li1191370_1046cs_H0f
I bring it up only to highlight the growing disparity in wealth distribution in the US. If the trend lines continue, the richest one percent will own damned near everything, and everyone else will be SOL, which is apparently how you and the rest of the GOP wants it to be... Which I think is particularly stupid for you given where you will end up.