Ronald Reagan was a great man

Experts will tell you nothing of the sort. Even while under the influence of crystal meth. If you want to credit Gorbechev, then remember that he didn't even come to power until 1985, which separates him greatly from the other non-Raygun force you credit, the Afghanis.

Newsflash for you.....one of old Ronnie's famous blusters was "Mr. Gorbechev, tear done this wall".

Gorbechev's policies were an economic screw up, but his policies were strong on promoting what we Americans recognize as freedom (and a Russian version of democracy)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/nov/08/observer-profile-mikhail-gorbachev
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry to burst your bubble, jackass.....but all that rhetoric has been logically and factually disproved on several levels by myself and others in earlier posts. And remember you said Reagan gave US freedom. Since you and I are in the US, your statement is absurd. So now you try to divert your error and lie, which is futile given the chronology of the post. Haven't you learned that by now, genius?

As for the Europeans of the old Soviet bloc...Reagan came in at the END of over 40 years of previous efforts by other administrations...and the FINAL come down was the Soviet Unions waterloo in Afghanistan, which put the financial crippling to terminal. Thank the Afganistanians and Charlie Wilson for that, not Ronnie Raygun. Experts will tell you, if it weren't for that doofus Reagan's posturing and Star Wars, the Soviet Union under Gorbechev's leadership would have folded a LOT sooner. (Star Wars.....a financial pit for a project render moot by the cruise missle a decade earlier).

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it.

Actually, Libby, here's my quote that set you off on your latest hissy fit:

Originally Posted by Southern Man
Reagan did give people what they want most: freedom.

Meaning that Reagan gave a lot of folks freedom, in Europe by winning the Cold War and squashing the soviets and in the US through lower taxes and reduced regulation.

And since you're apparently only concerned about folks of African descent, George W. Bush doled out a tremendous amount of freedom for folks in the African continent by financing initiatives to fight AIDS.

So as usual, Reality trumps your fantasy. Deal with it. :)

So you alter what you originally stated, from a generlized statement to then blather on with the usual revisionist hoopla about Reagan saving the world.

As I and others documented, Ronnie didn't win the cold war....you can thank Afghanistan, Gorbachev and about 40 some odd years of various administratrions for that. Ronnie just took the credit...and dupes like you just lap it up!

Adn the Shrub's AIDS "help" does NOT stand up under close scrutiny...just like his entire administration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/main3873641.shtml

the truth on bush aids africa - Google Search

You're typically willfully ignorant neocon "history" is a joke...just like your attempt at a rational, intelligent discussion.
 
Last edited:
Actually, supply side works every time its implemented:

In 1921 the top marginal tax rate was 73%. The Secretary of the Treasury at that time, Andrew Mellon, managed to convice Congress to pass a series of three tax cuts that reduced that top marginal rate to 25% by the year 1926. While the top rate was being reduced by nearly two-thirds, the bottom tax rates were eliminated altogether. Millions of lower income Americans had their income taxes cut or even eliminated. As a result of those tax rate reductions, the US Treasury increased revenues from earners making more than $50,000 by 63%, from $305 million to $498 million in just five years. At the same time, those earning less than $50,000 had their tax liability reduced by 45%.

By the 1960s, the top marginal rate had once again climbed to a confiscatory 91%. Tax cuts enacted by President Kennedy in 1963 and continued by President Johnson through 1965 reduced that top rate from 91% down to 70%, still ridiculously high, by any measure. At the same time, the bottom rate was dropped from 20% down to 14%. The reduced tax rates benefited nearly nearly every taxpayer. The results were much the same as what was experienced in the 1920s.

...

The Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70% all the way down to 33%. As in previous Supply-Side tax cuts, the real taxes paid by wealthy wage earners increased dramatically, even as rates were reduced. As a proportion of overall revenue, high income earners paid a greater proportion as well. The top ten percent of all wage earners paid almost $200 billion in 1988, compared to about $151 billion in 1981. That is an increase of almost 33%. At the same time, the bottom 90% of all taxpayers found their tax liability reduced by nearly 8% from nearly $162 billion in 1981 to just over $149 billion in 1988.
http://www.theminorityreportblog.co..._supply_side_economic_theory_and_why_it_works

Actually, it doesn't:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/279.html

By the time of the White House debate of early November 1981, it had become overwhelmingly clear that the Reagan Revolution’s original political and economic assumptions were wrong by a country mile. By then the veil of the future has already parted and we were viewing reality from the other side. What we saw invalidated the whole plan—right there and then
The final reckoning is seen in the below table disclosing the $2 trillion error between the Rosy Scenario and the actual economy!

Year Rosy Scenario Actual Economy Error
1982 $ 3,192------$ 3,054----------$ 138
1983 3,598----------3,229------------369
1984 4,000----------3,581------------419
1985 4,398----------3,839------------556
1986 4,812----------4,152------------660
Total $20,000--------$17,855---------$2,145
1982-86
 
Last edited:
Actually, it doesn't:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/279.html

By the time of the White House debate of early November 1981, it had become overwhelmingly clear that the Reagan Revolution’s original political and economic assumptions were wrong by a country mile. By then the veil of the future has already parted and we were viewing reality from the other side. What we saw invalidated the whole plan—right there and then
The final reckoning is seen in the below table disclosing the $2 trillion error between the Rosy Scenario and the actual economy!


As one paragraph in the link ends..." Where we were headed was toward a fiscal catastrophe. "

And THAT being full shit, as history shows, I have to assume the rest of the link is also....
 
As one paragraph in the link ends..." Where we were headed was toward a fiscal catastrophe. "

And THAT being full shit, as history shows, I have to assume the rest of the link is also....

Once again, this jackass reads what he thinks makes him feel good, then stops.....what a dummy.

Thanks for proving my point, you intellectually impotent buffoon. Other folk read the ENTIRE article from the man who was REAGANS economic point man.

"Bravo" indeed ( what a fucking dummy this guy is, folks) :palm:
 
Supply Side Economics, particularly Republican interpretation of it, has no economic validity and has never worked. It is just a rationalization for regresive taxation to artificially redistribute wealth upwards (i.e. reverse socialism) to the most wealthy. Like communism it has never, ever been demonstrated to work.

It's never been tried....it has two parts, reduced taxes, reduced spending.....we've only ever gotten half of that.......
 
It's never been tried....it has two parts, reduced taxes, reduced spending.....we've only ever gotten half of that.......
I actually agree with you there. The true form of supply side economics based on the Laffler (sp?) curve has never, ever been tried. Reaganomics was never really supply side economics but his rationalization for regressive tax cuts for the wealthy. Much of the academic debate of Supply Side vs Demand Side economics is a rehashing of the old chicken vs egg argument.
 
Last edited:
his rationalization for regressive tax cuts for the wealthy.

lame....taxes were progressive before his cuts, they were progressive after his cuts....it's an unavoidable result of simple mathematics......if 10% of the population is paying 80% of the taxes and you cut taxes, that 10% is going to get most of the cut.....

that doesn't make it "regressive"......
 
lame....taxes were progressive before his cuts, they were progressive after his cuts....it's an unavoidable result of simple mathematics......if 10% of the population is paying 80% of the taxes and you cut taxes, that 10% is going to get most of the cut.....

that doesn't make it "regressive"......

Actually, even Reagan's point man on the subject stated that it wouldn't and didn't work...as I told Southie:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Ronald Reagan was a great man
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, even Reagan's point man on the subject stated that it wouldn't and didn't work...as I told Southie:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Ronald Reagan was a great man

and actually, that does nothing to respond to my point......

Sure it does, it makes your "point" irrelevent and essentially erroneous due to the reality of the situation:

[The supply side economic theory and Rosy Scenario, of 1981, called for a $400 billion tax cut benefitting wealthy Americans, which fueled the so-called Reagan Revolution. The chief architects of this strategy, were (among others) David Stockman, then director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Rep. Jack Kemp, and Conservative Publisher, Irving Kristal. The latter two are now on the Dole for President team, responsible for Robert Dole’s economic plan, which calls for a $500 billion tax cut. Ironically, Dole was one of the most outspoken critics of supply side theory in 1982, when he served as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. An excerpt from Stockman’s book, which describes the fiscal catastrophe that resulted from the political machinations of the supply side cabal, is included below.]

You can't call a tax cut "progressive" for the entire population if that tax cut only benefits ONE small section of the population.
 
Last edited:
Sure it does, it makes your "point" irrelevent and essentially erroneous due to the reality of the situation:

[The supply side economic theory and Rosy Scenario, of 1981, called for a $400 billion tax cut benefitting wealthy Americans, which fueled the so-called Reagan Revolution. The chief architects of this strategy, were (among others) David Stockman, then director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Rep. Jack Kemp, and Conservative Publisher, Irving Kristal. The latter two are now on the Dole for President team, responsible for Robert Dole’s economic plan, which calls for a $500 billion tax cut. Ironically, Dole was one of the most outspoken critics of supply side theory in 1982, when he served as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. An excerpt from Stockman’s book, which describes the fiscal catastrophe that resulted from the political machinations of the supply side cabal, is included below.]

You can't call a tax cut "progressive" for the entire population if that tax cut only benefits ONE small section of the population.


The facts of the matter, rather than a guy selling a book to make money....

Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981). reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, enjoyed strong bi-partisan support in the Congress

Stockman’s fiscal catastrophe ? Must have missed it...or more than likely it NEVER happened...
Bottom line...it was a success...
 
You can't call a tax cut "progressive" for the entire population if that tax cut only benefits ONE small section of the population.

if a tax charges a higher rate for higher incomes, it's "progressive"......if, after a tax cut, the higher incomes are still paying higher taxes, it's still progressive......

even if your definition is correct, the tax is still progressive because it reduced the taxes paid by lower incomes by a higher percentage than it did the upper incomes......
 
The facts of the matter, rather than a guy selling a book to make money....

Pub.L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, enacted August 13, 1981). reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50% while the bottom rate dropped from 14% to 11%) and indexed the rates for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, enjoyed strong bi-partisan support in the Congress

Stockman’s fiscal catastrophe ? Must have missed it...or more than likely it NEVER happened...
Bottom line...it was a success...


You evidently miss a lot, my intellectually impotent neocon parrot. Stockman did more than just sell a book, and your myopic regurgitation of the economics leaves out a lot of detail, like this:

But the bottom line on the tax question: is what happened in the Reagan era to government tax revenues overall? Did the amount of taxes extracted from the American people by the federal government go up or down during the Reagan years? The facts are that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut. But how about taxes as a percentage of the national product? There, we can concede that on a percentage criterion, overall taxes fell very slightly, remaining about even with the last year of Carter. Taxes fell from 18.9% of the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%. A large absolute increase in taxes, coupled with keeping taxes as a percentage of national product about even, is scarcely cause for tossing one's hat in the air about a whopping reduction in taxes during the Reagan years.

http://mises.org/story/1544

Hell, if a libertarian could see it, anyone can...except folk like you.
 
Last edited:
if a tax charges a higher rate for higher incomes, it's "progressive"......if, after a tax cut, the higher incomes are still paying higher taxes, it's still progressive......

even if your definition is correct, the tax is still progressive because it reduced the taxes paid by lower incomes by a higher percentage than it did the upper incomes......

Nice try, but your convoluted take isn't what happened under reaganomics. The rich folk got tax breaks, while the middle class and working poor didn't. End of story. Yet the COLA went up as usual.

No matter how you dance around it, Reaganomics didn't "trickle down".
 
Nice try, but your convoluted take isn't what happened under reaganomics. The rich folk got tax breaks, while the middle class and working poor didn't. End of story. Yet the COLA went up as usual.

No matter how you dance around it, Reaganomics didn't "trickle down".

lol.....and all of a sudden we're discussing something completely different......try to focus, Touchie......tax.....progressive.......you've lost it again......
 
Actually, it doesn't:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/279.html

By the time of the White House debate of early November 1981, it had become overwhelmingly clear that the Reagan Revolution’s original political and economic assumptions were wrong by a country mile. By then the veil of the future has already parted and we were viewing reality from the other side. What we saw invalidated the whole plan—right there and then
The final reckoning is seen in the below table disclosing the $2 trillion error between the Rosy Scenario and the actual economy!


It appears that your editorial doesn't prove your point at all. What a surprise. In fact it supports mine, that Supply Side works. :)
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Nice try, but your convoluted take isn't what happened under reaganomics. The rich folk got tax breaks, while the middle class and working poor didn't. End of story. Yet the COLA went up as usual.

No matter how you dance around it, Reaganomics didn't "trickle down".

lol.....and all of a sudden we're discussing something completely different......try to focus, Touchie......tax.....progressive.......you've lost it again......

And as the posts shows, everytime you bring up one aspect of Reaganomics that's proven not to work as you claimed, you switch to some other aspect. Typical neocon tactic....excerpt an item and treat it seperately. Unfortunately, as the posts show...IT'S ALL CONNECTED, AND THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT REAGANOMICS DIDN'T WORK....PERIOD. But please, do continue to regurgitate the same old dodges and arguments as many times as you like....comprehensive history will always be your undoing.
 
Back
Top