PDA

View Full Version : 8 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime



mrveggieman
12-28-2011, 08:20 AM
http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-a-horrible-president-1

duane1969
12-28-2011, 10:04 AM
That's funny.

1. Raised taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the rich - It's called Trickle Down Economics. It worked. By the time he left office the unemployment rate was below 6%.

2. It is nice to look at it as raw numbers and make broad sweeping statements, but if you look at the national debt in relation to GDP you see that Reagan was the shining star of the last 40 years.

Yearly Debt during Reagan years - averaged between 32% and 52% of GDP
Yearly Debt during Bush years - averaged between 53% and 65% of GDP
Yearly Debt during Clinton years - averaged between 57% and 68% of GDP
Yearly Debt during George W years - avergaed between 57% and 74% of GDP
Yearly Debt during Obama years - averaging between 86% and 96% of GDP

Who is the "bad" president now?
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

3. Iran/Contra - the American people wanted the hostages returned. It was either this, go to war or let the hostages be killed. What was the better choice?

4. It is easy to look back 30+ years later and criticize Middle East decisions. I wonder how our grandchildren will view the actions of our recent presidents? Was George W wrong to go into Iraq and Afghanistan? Did Obama pull the troops out of Iraq too early? Was killing Osama wrong?

5. The author conveniently leaves out the fact that by the time Reagan left office unemployment was down to 5.5%. He makes a valiant effort to make it look bad by giving the starting numbers (7.5%) and showing what unemployment increased to (nearly 11%), but then shows his left-wing bias by leaving out the low unemployment number that existed when Reagan left office (5.5%). FAIL

6. He didn't ignore AIDS. When he took office AIDS didn't even have a name. By the end of 1986 there had been around 31,000 cases of AIDS reported in the US, making it one of the lowest impact diseases in the US. Compared to the flu or cancer, AIDs was barely a blip on the radar. Expecting Reagan to have some drastic reaction to something that most people thought was a non-issue is just stupid.

In 1988 (during Reagan's presidency) the US Government began an AIDS/HIV education program and the Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic issued a finding that AIDS/HIV drugs were not being made properly available to those who had it.

Saying he ignored AIDS just shows a lack of knowledge about the subject.

7. Since this article was obviously written by a liberal, why is amnesty for illegals a bad thing? Libs need to make up their mind.

Also, Reagan gave amnesty to illegals who wanted to work, not illegals who wanted to have anchor babies and get welfare or join gangs and traffic drugs for the cartels. If they want to work, come on over, there are plenty of lazy Americans who don't want to.

8. Nothing wrong with going after unions. It is happening now. Republicans are going after them now. Occupy people are protesting the wealthy, many of whom made their money thanks to a union.

And 9...clearly the author of this article never heard of Jimmy Carter or he would know who the worst president was.

freethrowtommy
12-29-2011, 04:03 PM
1. Raised taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the rich - It's called Trickle Down Economics. It worked. By the time he left office the unemployment rate was below 6%.


Trickle down is the result of tax cuts at the top, tax cuts on corporations, lower regulations, etc. This in turn will allow business and investors more free reign to invest and conduct business. This prosperity will "trickle-down" as they will need employees to perform labor.


The (tragic) humor is it doesn't work in spite of a fervent movement to execute it. If you look at history: The Progressive tax rate was much higher and look at GDP. There is actually a stronger correlation to say the higher the taxes the better performance of GDP.



If you are a business owner, and you come out with $40,000 less in taxes to pay for one year, it would not necessarily make more sense to hire another person for the sake of having +1 employee. You would really only employ more people if you need more workers to meet some greater demand for your goods. If you need extra workers anyway, and you have been making lots of reductions everywhere else in order to pay for them, a tax break might make it easier but it's never a sure thing when you are trying to make your income, tax, and expenditures add up as a business owner.


Trickle down economics is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in right now. It does NOT work and doesn't create jobs. Why would you hire more if you don't have people buying your products? All tax cuts at the top do is create more money at the top that go into a savings account where it doesn't make BUSINESS sense to hire... more jobs is a magical lie that for some reason people have bought into. It isn't that hard to understand.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loyf7beXgI1qarybjo1_500.jpg

tsjct
12-29-2011, 04:21 PM
Freethrow tommy how much should the top pay in taxes. I am now paying over 40%. How much more should i pay?? 50% of all americans pay ZERO in taxes? Is that fair. Please tell me how much is enough???

habsheaven
12-29-2011, 05:58 PM
Freethrow tommy how much should the top pay in taxes. I am now paying over 40%. How much more should i pay?? 50% of all americans pay ZERO in taxes? Is that fair. Please tell me how much is enough???

If you are paying over 40% now you need to fire your accountant. He is doing a terrible job.

freethrowtommy
12-29-2011, 06:07 PM
Freethrow tommy how much should the top pay in taxes. I am now paying over 40%. How much more should i pay?? 50% of all americans pay ZERO in taxes? Is that fair. Please tell me how much is enough???

You are paying 40% of what? There are any number of taxes... sales tax, income tax, capitol gains tax, property tax, corporate tax, inheritance tax, etc. Can you be more specific?

And quit spreading your lie about 50% paying no taxes...
http://www.politicususa.com/en/half-americans-taxes

I trust you will actually read this...

AUTaxMan
12-29-2011, 06:53 PM
You are paying 40% of what? There are any number of taxes... sales tax, income tax, capitol gains tax, property tax, corporate tax, inheritance tax, etc. Can you be more specific?

And quit spreading your lie about 50% paying no taxes...
http://www.politicususa.com/en/half-americans-taxes

I trust you will actually read this...

Income taxes. Don't play the semantics game. We all know that most everybody pays some form of taxes. He is talking about the federal income tax. You know, the biggest and most important one?

AUTaxMan
12-29-2011, 06:56 PM
If you are paying over 40% now you need to fire your accountant. He is doing a terrible job.

You could nickel and dime a few deductions here and there, but if you are a high-salaried employee with few deductions and exemptions, there really isn't much you can do about it. I assume his 40% was combined state and federal.

habsheaven
12-29-2011, 07:05 PM
You could nickel and dime a few deductions here and there, but if you are a high-salaried employee with few deductions and exemptions, there really isn't much you can do about it. I assume his 40% was combined state and federal.

I was under the impression (from him) that he was the boss/owner of his business. If so, he needs to fire his tax accountant. Without even knowing the particulars, he should not be paying over 40% in income taxes.

tsjct
12-29-2011, 08:40 PM
I was under the impression (from him) that he was the boss/owner of his business. If so, he needs to fire his tax accountant. Without even knowing the particulars, he should not be paying over 40% in income taxes.

I do own several businesses and my TAX "IRS" is 37%, State Franchise Tax 3%, I have to match all employees FICA, i can go on and on and on and its OVER 40% i am paying i can promise that. I do not have to but i provide Insurance for all my employees and I pay for that also. I hold out nothing from their checks. I provide company vehicles/Fuel/Etc for my employees. I could just let everyone go and sell of all the inventory from my locations and my family would be just fine but i am not that type of person as i do care about my employees and their families. It does suck however the damn government wants more and more from the ones who pay the most.

habsheaven
12-29-2011, 10:26 PM
I do own several businesses and my TAX "IRS" is 37%, State Franchise Tax 3%, I have to match all employees FICA, i can go on and on and on and its OVER 40% i am paying i can promise that. I do not have to but i provide Insurance for all my employees and I pay for that also. I hold out nothing from their checks. I provide company vehicles/Fuel/Etc for my employees. I could just let everyone go and sell of all the inventory from my locations and my family would be just fine but i am not that type of person as i do care about my employees and their families. It does suck however the damn government wants more and more from the ones who pay the most.

Other than the 37% all the rest are categorized as EXPENSES and you deduct them from your revenues before you pay your taxes.

And again, if you are paying 37% in federal tax, you are paying TOO MUCH. Get a new accountant!

tsjct
12-30-2011, 01:20 AM
Other than the 37% all the rest are categorized as EXPENSES and you deduct them from your revenues before you pay your taxes.

And again, if you are paying 37% in federal tax, you are paying TOO MUCH. Get a new accountant!

I agree it's WAY TO MUCH but it is based off NET INCOME the business makes. My accountant is a ex IRS employee so he protects me very well. I am not one to screw the IRS over and have to pay in the long run. Better to bite the bullet now and not have to worry down the road. This is the reason i believe a FLAT TAX is the only FAIR tax. I know it will never happen as our gov't spends to oblivion and has to have us pay for it.

freethrowtommy
12-30-2011, 11:17 AM
Income taxes. Don't play the semantics game. We all know that most everybody pays some form of taxes. He is talking about the federal income tax. You know, the biggest and most important one?

Like it was said above, HE IS NOT paying 40% income tax... and if he is, he should take a look at what he is doing.

I know you don't like me, but it was an honest question, so back off. If you are heavy in investments, capitol gains tax is the most important. If you own a business, other taxes are more important. I just wanted him to be more specific with his numbers.

AUTaxMan
12-30-2011, 12:11 PM
Like it was said above, HE IS NOT paying 40% income tax... and if he is, he should take a look at what he is doing.

I know you don't like me, but it was an honest question, so back off. If you are heavy in investments, capitol gains tax is the most important. If you own a business, other taxes are more important. I just wanted him to be more specific with his numbers.

I don't dislike you. You are the one interjecting emotion into this discussion. You played the same old semantics card about republicans claiming that most people don't pay any taxes, when we all know that about 50% of the nation has no federal income tax liability.

Other taxes are more important to many people, but in terms of the national tax discussion, the one that matters the most to the most people is the income tax.

If you just wanted him to clarify his statement, there would have been no need to link the article. You took it as an opportunity to make a political statement of your own, and I responded to it.

freethrowtommy
12-30-2011, 04:09 PM
I don't dislike you. You are the one interjecting emotion into this discussion. You played the same old semantics card about republicans claiming that most people don't pay any taxes, when we all know that about 50% of the nation has no federal income tax liability.

Other taxes are more important to many people, but in terms of the national tax discussion, the one that matters the most to the most people is the income tax.

If you just wanted him to clarify his statement, there would have been no need to link the article. You took it as an opportunity to make a political statement of your own, and I responded to it.

Because saying that 50% pay NO taxes is a talking point that has been spreading incorrectly. I wanted to set him straight on what type of taxes he is talking about. Just saying no taxes is disingenuous to those who don't know better and that kind of information needs to stop. So if you took it as a "political statement" and took issue with it, you should have, only not with me. I don't care which side it is on, be clear with your information if you are going to spread it....





Let me explain—repeat actually—what this means: About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans didn’t pay either income or payroll taxes. Some paid property taxes and, it is fair to say, just about all of them paid sales taxes of one kind or another. So to say they pay no taxes is flat wrong.
However, this class warfare-like rhetoric plays to a perception that the income tax is a chump tax: Only hard-working folks like us pay it. The welfare queens don’t. The super-rich don’t. It is a powerful emotional argument. It is also flat wrong.

AUTaxMan
12-30-2011, 04:32 PM
Not everyone can see through the BS...

My point is that we are (mostly) all intelligent adults here, and we all can see through the BS. He wasn't trying to con anybody. We all knew what he was talking about. Thus, there's no need to resort to that type of rhetoric. Let's address the actual issues instead of nitpicking insignificant points just to "win" an argument.

tsjct
12-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Well freethrow is counting Sales Tax and Property Tax in the 47-50% not paying taxes. If we are talking about all taxes i told you I PAY OVER 40% and if you count the Sales Tax, Property Tax, Inventory Tax on all my inventory, Etc its way over 40%. This was my point and he made it for me. Thanks Freethrow. But close to 50% pay no INCOME tax.

habsheaven
12-30-2011, 08:22 PM
If you count all taxes, I pay over 50% and I have no qualms about doing so.

tsjct
12-31-2011, 11:53 AM
If you count all taxes, I pay over 50% and I have no qualms about doing so.

Why don't you start a TAX ME MORE FUND and start sending extra money to the Government then. The IRS takes personal checks. All you have to do is Write it and send it in. They need the money. I pay enough and do not want to pay anymore. Write that check today!

habsheaven
12-31-2011, 06:17 PM
Why don't you start a TAX ME MORE FUND and start sending extra money to the Government then. The IRS takes personal checks. All you have to do is Write it and send it in. They need the money. I pay enough and do not want to pay anymore. Write that check today!

If I am going to start donating to a government it will be my own thanks. I have no problem contributing to the welfare of my fellow Canadians or the welfare of immigrants that want to live in Canada, but I am not going to send my money outside the country.

AUTaxMan
12-31-2011, 10:49 PM
If I am going to start donating to a government it will be my own thanks. I have no problem contributing to the welfare of my fellow Canadians or the welfare of immigrants that want to live in Canada, but I am not going to send my money outside the country.

i think he thought you lived in the us.

duane1969
01-01-2012, 05:04 PM
If you count all taxes, I pay over 50% and I have no qualms about doing so.

Would you have qualms if someone said you still don't pay enough? That is what is happening in America right now. The largest contributors to the tax base are being told that they still do not pay enough.


Because saying that 50% pay NO taxes is a talking point that has been spreading incorrectly. I wanted to set him straight on what type of taxes he is talking about. Just saying no taxes is disingenuous to those who don't know better and that kind of information needs to stop. So if you took it as a "political statement" and took issue with it, you should have, only not with me. I don't care which side it is on, be clear with your information if you are going to spread it....

Saying that paying sales tax is contributing to the tax base is intentional minimalization of reality too.

Arguing some minute irrelevant point just to prove that you are right is just that, arguing a minute irrelevant point. I think that everyone here is intellectual enough to grasp that he was not speaking about sales tax when he said that 50% do not pay taxes.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 10:07 AM
If I am going to start donating to a government it will be my own thanks. I have no problem contributing to the welfare of my fellow Canadians or the welfare of immigrants that want to live in Canada, but I am not going to send my money outside the country.

First of all, I love you for this. It's totally indicative of pretty much every Canadian I've ever met. It makes me kind of curious about America. Why do we equate low taxes with patriotism?

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 10:19 AM
First of all, I love you for this. It's totally indicative of pretty much every Canadian I've ever met. It makes me kind of curious about America. Why do we equate low taxes with patriotism?

Because tax increases reduce freedom. It takes your property and puts it in the government's control. If you have a charitable heart, wouldn't you prefer to do with your money as you wish instead of giving it to some government bureaucrat who will lose some of it, waste some of it, be defrauded of some of it, and then do with the remainder as he wishes in the name of charity?

pghin08
01-04-2012, 10:52 AM
Because tax increases reduce freedom. It takes your property and puts it in the government's control. If you have a charitable heart, wouldn't you prefer to do with your money as you wish instead of giving it to some government bureaucrat who will lose some of it, waste some of it, be defrauded of some of it, and then do with the remainder as he wishes in the name of charity?

I don't think HabsHeaven would say that higher taxes reduces his freedom. Did you ever see those "happiest countries in the world" lists? Many of them have very high tax rates.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 11:42 AM
I don't think HabsHeaven would say that higher taxes reduces his freedom. Did you ever see those "happiest countries in the world" lists? Many of them have very high tax rates.

By definition, it reduces your freedom to control the use of your own property.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 11:52 AM
By definition, it reduces your freedom to control the use of your own property.

But isn't that definition problematic? It begets a "me, me, me" mentality that seems particularly prevalent in our country. Which makes no sense. What does the Statue of Liberty say? Give me your tired, your poor, but don't make us pay for it? Most Americans identify themselves as Christians, but last time I checked, the Bible says that those who oppress the poor will be eternally judged. I just don't get it.

habsheaven
01-04-2012, 11:53 AM
By definition, it reduces your freedom to control the use of your own property.

You are going to have to explain this one to me. I believe you have a skewed view of what FREEDOM really is. Freedom has nothing to do with taxes or money.

Covet
01-04-2012, 11:58 AM
I don't think HabsHeaven would say that higher taxes reduces his freedom. Did you ever see those "happiest countries in the world" lists? Many of them have very high tax rates.

Is everyone in those "happy countries" paying a flat rate across the board or are they sticking it to their middle class?

habsheaven
01-04-2012, 12:00 PM
Is everyone in those "happy countries" paying a flat rate across the board or are they sticking it to their middle class?

No flat rate here. The more you declare as taxable income the higher the rate you pay.:):

pghin08
01-04-2012, 12:02 PM
Is everyone in those "happy countries" paying a flat rate across the board or are they sticking it to their middle class?

nope, they're all graduated income tax rates. i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the government is actually better at spending their money in places like Norway and the Netherlands.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 12:28 PM
But isn't that definition problematic? It begets a "me, me, me" mentality that seems particularly prevalent in our country. Which makes no sense. What does the Statue of Liberty say? Give me your tired, your poor, but don't make us pay for it? Most Americans identify themselves as Christians, but last time I checked, the Bible says that those who oppress the poor will be eternally judged. I just don't get it.

No, the definition is not problematic. Our country has always been about the me, me, me mentality. That is why we have been successful. If I want to be charitable and give to the causes that I support, I have the freedom to do so. Taxing me and spending my money on causes that Washington bureaucrats deem worthy is not my idea of freedom. I am not being less Christian or oppressive of the poor by demanding the freedom to contribute to my church or a local charity as opposed to having the government giving my money to a cause I do not support.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 12:35 PM
You are going to have to explain this one to me. I believe you have a skewed view of what FREEDOM really is. Freedom has nothing to do with taxes or money.

Seriously?

pghin08
01-04-2012, 12:38 PM
No, the definition is not problematic. Our country has always been about the me, me, me mentality. That is why we have been successful. If I want to be charitable and give to the causes that I support, I have the freedom to do so. Taxing me and spending my money on causes that Washington bureaucrats deem worthy is not my idea of freedom. I am not being less Christian or oppressive of the poor by demanding the freedom to contribute to my church or a local charity as opposed to having the government giving my money to a cause I do not support.

I guess there are just a lot of people and countries who feel differently.

duane1969
01-04-2012, 12:52 PM
nope, they're all graduated income tax rates. i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the government is actually better at spending their money in places like Norway and the Netherlands.

Bingo!!!

A lot of this "don't tax me more" movement is based in the fact that the government waste a lot of what it already gets on pork projects. I have no problem with paying taxes, I have a problem with being told that I need to pay more and more to compensate for the reckless spending in D.C.

The government currently spends .75 cents of every tax dollar on military efforts and social programs, yet in total the government spends $2 for every tax dollar that it takes in. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out that there is some serious waste going on when the military, social security, welfare, Medicare and Medicaid are covered with a 25% surplus, yet the government still needs double the current tax income to cover it's budget.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 12:54 PM
I guess there are just a lot of people and countries who feel differently.

And that is a problem, because at it has been demonstrated, government does a terrible job of spending money efficiently.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 01:08 PM
And that is a problem, because at it has been demonstrated, government does a terrible job of spending money efficiently.

There are a lot of people from those "happiest countries" who would probably disagree with you. Ask HabsHeaven if he sleeps better at night knowing that if he were to fall ill tomorrow morning, he wouldn't have to worry about what his medical bills would be.

And I still maintain that there's something inherently un-American and un-Christian about the way we treat those among us with the least.

MadMan1978
01-04-2012, 02:03 PM
Duane I am not at all surprise that you rose in the defense of Reagan, I do respect your opinions but I do not have to agree with them.

Please note, personally think Reagan is the the very worst president I have seen in my life time...I believe he committed illegal acts and should have been held accountable for those actions.

On the other side I find this article not 100% truthfully...


1. Trickle Down Economics- Voo Doo Economics ? Whatever the term you wish to use was a failure! The middle class carried the burden...hence this was the real start of the class wars...

2. The article your source, as unreliable as it is...states what you wish it to state as well as the authors comments...These numbers are skewed to whatever the person wishes to pull from them...so I state yours are wrong...From ever chart I have read show this that the greatest increase by percentage of Federal Debt are by the following presidents...
1. FDR - We all know why and how this happen...The great Depression then World War 2
2. Reagan -The Cold Spending?
3. G.W. Bush

3. Iran/Contra- the link to the and the hostages? Not seeing he connection by you or the article...First arms sale was in 85 while the Hostages were released on Jan 20,1981...I fail to see the how these are in connection...and now for real facts...Reagan Had so little top do with there release but sure took all the credit...note that they were released the day he entered office...in fact they were released about an hour into his first term...

4.Another false statement by the author...The war in Afghanistan was a covert war by the CIA but yes funded by us! Other then the IRAN/Contra mess there is very little direct links to the Reagan

5. I tured 18 in '82 and there were NO jobs! PERIOD! Unemployment was 7.5% when He went into office and ballooned to over 11% your close on the 6% when he left...The Tax cut was and still a way to pay back those rich friends who paid for his campaign...Duane you fail to acknowledge the first 2 years of his term was 2 of the worst years in...Now why did Unemployment fall during the last 6 year ? In fact, it was not till early months of 1987 that the rate was down to 7.5% ...

6. Blaming AIDS on anyone person is just bad press and ignorance...I think Society as a whole missed on this...

7. I am missing the authors point here and he is way off base... In fact I do not remember way this was even done at the time...I am thinking it was to only toughen the laws of that period.

8. Attack the unions? Reagan and the GOP also have attacked the unions! WHY? they do not support the GOP...

9. Again you have missed the point Daune as I fear most Republicans do...I am of the opinion that GW. Bush was the very worst!

a few parting thoughts...I would like to think I remember most of the '80's most from a haze of chemicals but otherwise I do remember a great deal...

-Tax cut and the middle class-Even with the huge federal cuts all other taxes were increased...most at the State and local levels, however, they were overall greater then the federal cuts in the end...A double slap to the middle class...those cuts force a ton of public layoffs i.e. Police, fire and such...which lead to a large increase in the crime rates across the country. we had the same type of economic problems we are facing right now..

Reagan targeted Education and most social programs...the cuts in the federal budget were all targeted on society programs...granted you may believe that spending needed to be cut , however overall spending was not...

Ended the Cold war? Reagan gets the Credit only because he was in office...Fact is we just out spent the other side....and yes we are still paying for it! and now we are paying to eliminate most of the same weapons we build to have as the threat...

-Oil Dependency increased- Although he did decrease the oil tax and tariffs he did nothing to encourage conservation --Everyone wanted cheap oil but they did nothing find the means to end the Dependency on foreign oil...

There is so much more but I think i have had valid points...

ensbergcollector
01-04-2012, 02:49 PM
But isn't that definition problematic? It begets a "me, me, me" mentality that seems particularly prevalent in our country. Which makes no sense. What does the Statue of Liberty say? Give me your tired, your poor, but don't make us pay for it? Most Americans identify themselves as Christians, but last time I checked, the Bible says that those who oppress the poor will be eternally judged. I just don't get it.

i think a lot becomes what you view as oppressing the poor. The bible repeatedly refers to people needing to care for and feed widows and orphans. Those were two groups of people who could not care for themselves. Nowhere does the bible say to care for the unemployed or out of work. In fact, the bible, in referring to men, says if a man does not work he shall not eat.
If tax dollars went to elderly care and care of children I doubt you would hardly any opposition. It is tax dollars going to working age, healthy individuals that people have a problem with.

MadMan1978
01-04-2012, 02:54 PM
i think a lot becomes what you view as oppressing the poor. The bible repeatedly refers to people needing to care for and feed widows and orphans. Those were two groups of people who could not care for themselves. Nowhere does the bible say to care for the unemployed or out of work. In fact, the bible, in referring to men, says if a man does not work he shall not eat.
If tax dollars went to elderly care and care of children I doubt you would hardly any opposition. It is tax dollars going to working age, healthy individuals that people have a problem with.

I hate to disagree...but...

Yes there would be and loud opposition case and point..
Some time ago I had an argument with a person over a town installing seat belts on the School Buses...He was 100% against it...his reasoning was since he did not have any kids attending school why should he be taxed to pay for things like that... I just shook my head

i know that is a narrow view point but someone also have issue with some thing..it is to what degree...

ensbergcollector
01-04-2012, 02:59 PM
I hate to disagree...but...

Yes there would be and loud opposition case and point..
Some time ago I had an argument with a person over a town installing seat belts on the School Buses...He was 100% against it...his reasoning was since he did not have any kids attending school why should he be taxed to pay for things like that... I just shook my head

i know that is a narrow view point but someone also have issue with some thing..it is to what degree...

so you disagree with my use of the word hardly? of course there will always be someone to complain about anything, that's why I didn't say there would be no opposition.

so because there will always be small amounts of idiots that means there would be loud opposition?

duane1969
01-04-2012, 03:02 PM
1. Trickle Down accomplished it's goal of creating jobs by giving tax breaks to the companies. Looking back it is easy to find faults but it did accomplish it's goal.

Some will argue that the jobs were low-paying jobs, I would counter that high-paying jobs are not created by the government. People wanted jobs, they got them.

One thing is for sure, taxing the heck out of corporations and giving welfare checks to the unemployed doesn't create jobs either.

2. That site I referenced is actually trying to paint Reagan as a bad president. I simply looked at the stats and pointed out the aspect that is often overlooked. After Reagan every president has had a national debt that is 65-95% of the GDP. Bashing Reagan because the national debt increased is narrow-sighted as it only looks at one minute aspect.

Also, if you were around then then you know that Reagan had major conflicts with Congress who refused to cut their spending budgets and consistently rejected his budgets that reduced spending. Again, not all Reagan.

Additionally, Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act which exempted several million low income earners from paying taxes which contributed to that increased deficit. Would the better decision have been to make the working poor keep paying taxes?

3. The arms sales are touted as part of a deal to get the hostages released. I don't have the link that I used when I made that post but a little Googling should reveal numerous sources that repeat this info.

Much is made about Reagan attempting to stop the spread of Communism, and that may be true, but Communism was declining not rising in the mid-80's, so it seems a bit odd to try and stop something that is already dying on it's own.

5. Blaming Reagan for the employment downturn in his first two years is short-sighted. He took over from Jimmy Carter who was a HORRIBLE economic president that left our country's economy in shambles. Carter is the reason we have the term stagflation (stagnant economy and high inflation). Under Carter interest and inflation rates were higher than they had been since WW2. Carter inherited a country in recession and tried to deal with a shortage of jobs by increasing government spending (sound familiar?).

If you look at unemployment numbers when Carter was in office and consider the economic mess that he left behind then it is easy to see why unemployment spiked when reagan took office. Just lookig at raw numbers you see that just before Carter left office it had spiked to nearly 8% and was hovering around 7.5% when Reagan took over. It didn't matter who was president after Carter, unemployment was going to go up.

And finally, at the end of his presidency in 1989 the US was enjoying the longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression and had the lowest start-of-the-year unemplyment rate since 1974. It seems that he was doing something right.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 03:03 PM
i think a lot becomes what you view as oppressing the poor. The bible repeatedly refers to people needing to care for and feed widows and orphans. Those were two groups of people who could not care for themselves. Nowhere does the bible say to care for the unemployed or out of work. In fact, the bible, in referring to men, says if a man does not work he shall not eat.
If tax dollars went to elderly care and care of children I doubt you would hardly any opposition. It is tax dollars going to working age, healthy individuals that people have a problem with.

Great point. However, where do Medicare and Medicaid go? My problem is the fact that there are a lot of people in this country who say "We need to reform Medicare! Reform Social Security!" But when the time comes, they say "Well don't reform it if it doesn't mean I don't get my money!"

I've brought it up a few times on here, but I still find it quite telling. Last year, when asked about "Obamacare", 83% of Tea Partiers said that it should be repealed. Yet when asked about major provisions of the bill (prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against those w/ preexisting conditions, adding more prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients), the majority were in favor of them. So what that says to me is that a lot of Americans are saying, "I want the benefits, but I don't want to pay for them". It seems both decidedly un-Christian and un-American to me.

MadMan1978
01-04-2012, 03:04 PM
wait those idiots were republican too lol
but that is the case and point...

Look at Medicare and the prescription drug issues during the GW years...there was a ton of loud opposition to the whole thing...

ensbergcollector
01-04-2012, 03:09 PM
Great point. However, where do Medicare and Medicaid go? My problem is the fact that there are a lot of people in this country who say "We need to reform Medicare! Reform Social Security!" But when the time comes, they say "Well don't reform it if it doesn't mean I don't get my money!"

I've brought it up a few times on here, but I still find it quite telling. Last year, when asked about "Obamacare", 83% of Tea Partiers said that it should be repealed. Yet when asked about major provisions of the bill (prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against those w/ preexisting conditions, adding more prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients), the majority were in favor of them. So what that says to me is that a lot of Americans are saying, "I want the benefits, but I don't want to pay for them". It seems both decidedly un-Christian and un-American to me.

i think you are attributing things to christians that i don't think fit. just because people like some pieces of obamacare but don't like the whole barrel doesn't mean anything. And again, christians are told to care for widows and orphans. people have said reform social security, not because they don't want to pay for it, but because they don't want it to run out.

ensbergcollector
01-04-2012, 03:09 PM
wait those idiots were republican too lol
but that is the case and point...

Look at Medicare and the prescription drug issues during the GW years...there was a ton of loud opposition to the whole thing...

what was the purpose of saying "those idiots were republicans" ? just curious

pghin08
01-04-2012, 03:38 PM
i think you are attributing things to christians that i don't think fit. just because people like some pieces of obamacare but don't like the whole barrel doesn't mean anything. And again, christians are told to care for widows and orphans. people have said reform social security, not because they don't want to pay for it, but because they don't want it to run out.

Yeah, it does. It means a lot, actually. To me it's indicative of two things:

1. Media grip on the country.

The media, Fox in particular, took hold of Obamacare and deemed it to be "socialized medicine". People said, "Socialism? I hate socialism, so I hate Obamacare". The media tells people what to like and what not to like, often without talking about what it really means. I'll always remember them doing the same thing with Bush's partial privatization of Social Security. All I remember are the talking heads saying "Oh he's trying to eliminate Social Security because he doesn't believe in it, blah blah blah". For younger people, the plan actually made a bit of sense, but you would never know that by how the media covered it.

2. People want the debt to go away without being willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Does the government waste money? You betcha! Is government waste enough to tackle our mounting debt issues? Not a chance! So you know what that means? Americans have to say, "Well, this sucks, but at least we're all in this together." This is one of the reasons I dislike Obama's whole "tax the rich" thing, because it lacks unity, and frankly, logic. If we're going to fix this, we all have to do it together.

Anyone with any business sense will say there are two ways to balance your bottom line: cut expenses and increase revenue. People in this country are quick to say to cut expenses first, and I'm right in line. But what are expenses? In this case, expenses mean benefits. Medicare/Medicaid/SS will account for most of our budget within 10 years. So if you're going to cut what you spend, you have to cut what benefits you give out. So these people that I'm referencing are out there at Tea Party rallies talking about how we need less government and we need to cut spending, but then when asked if they would like more benefits, they say bring 'em on! YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. And that is a country-wide issue. Sure, talking about cutting spending is easy, doing it is another thing. And I'm sorry, but a lot of people in this country just don't have the stomach to do it.

MadMan1978
01-04-2012, 04:51 PM
Great point. However, where do Medicare and Medicaid go? My problem is the fact that there are a lot of people in this country who say "We need to reform Medicare! Reform Social Security!" But when the time comes, they say "Well don't reform it if it doesn't mean I don't get my money!"

I've brought it up a few times on here, but I still find it quite telling. Last year, when asked about "Obamacare", 83% of Tea Partiers said that it should be repealed. Yet when asked about major provisions of the bill (prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against those w/ preexisting conditions, adding more prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients), the majority were in favor of them. So what that says to me is that a lot of Americans are saying, "I want the benefits, but I don't want to pay for them". It seems both decidedly un-Christian and un-American to me.

BINGO!
and we have a winner!

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 05:40 PM
Yeah, it does. It means a lot, actually. To me it's indicative of two things:

1. Media grip on the country.

The media, Fox in particular, took hold of Obamacare and deemed it to be "socialized medicine". People said, "Socialism? I hate socialism, so I hate Obamacare". The media tells people what to like and what not to like, often without talking about what it really means. I'll always remember them doing the same thing with Bush's partial privatization of Social Security. All I remember are the talking heads saying "Oh he's trying to eliminate Social Security because he doesn't believe in it, blah blah blah". For younger people, the plan actually made a bit of sense, but you would never know that by how the media covered it.

2. People want the debt to go away without being willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

Does the government waste money? You betcha! Is government waste enough to tackle our mounting debt issues? Not a chance! So you know what that means? Americans have to say, "Well, this sucks, but at least we're all in this together." This is one of the reasons I dislike Obama's whole "tax the rich" thing, because it lacks unity, and frankly, logic. If we're going to fix this, we all have to do it together.

Anyone with any business sense will say there are two ways to balance your bottom line: cut expenses and increase revenue. People in this country are quick to say to cut expenses first, and I'm right in line. But what are expenses? In this case, expenses mean benefits. Medicare/Medicaid/SS will account for most of our budget within 10 years. So if you're going to cut what you spend, you have to cut what benefits you give out. So these people that I'm referencing are out there at Tea Party rallies talking about how we need less government and we need to cut spending, but then when asked if they would like more benefits, they say bring 'em on! YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH. And that is a country-wide issue. Sure, talking about cutting spending is easy, doing it is another thing. And I'm sorry, but a lot of people in this country just don't have the stomach to do it.

Obamacare made NO fiscal sense. Of course in theory it is a great idea, but the numbers simply didn't work. Also, the mandate is unconstitutional. I like the idea of everyone having free healthcare, but somebody has to pay for it. That is what the Obamacare supporters like to conveniently ignore.

Also, I think you are wrong on your latter point. Tea Party members are not asking for more benefits. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

ensbergcollector
01-04-2012, 05:51 PM
BINGO!
and we have a winner!

but we don't. the things that the majority complain about are things we don't want. republicans complain about the amount spent on welfare programs because they don't want those programs.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 06:10 PM
Obamacare made NO fiscal sense. Of course in theory it is a great idea, but the numbers simply didn't work. Also, the mandate is unconstitutional. I like the idea of everyone having free healthcare, but somebody has to pay for it. That is what the Obamacare supporters like to conveniently ignore.

Also, I think you are wrong on your latter point. Tea Party members are not asking for more benefits. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

This is a page from a larger article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200066170117_page_6.htm