10 years after Reagan’s death: How does Obama's record compare to Reagan's?

[Conservative]

Your original assertion was that because Reagan cut taxes, tax revenue rose by 50% and so did GDP.

A graph of GDP reveals no special increase during the Reagan decade and GDP rose even faster under Clinton. The argument that Reagan increased revenue by 50% in his two terms is hollow. Revenues doubled every decade since the Great Depression. They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. Thus, there was nothing remarkable about Reagan's economic policies. Inflation and population growth increases revenues regardless of tax policy.

My contention has always been that tax cuts putting more money into the hands of the consumers created the economic activity that created the 17 million new taxpayers and thus FIT revenue grew. Your amazing support for bigger govt. and failed liberal economic policies is staggering.
Liberals always claim that tax cuts cut government revenue. That has been a lie with JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and those are the only Presidents in my life time that have actually cut Federal Income Taxes

BEA.gov, shows the increase in GDP which of course you want to ignore because it destroys your narrative. 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion is double or 3.1 trillion to 5.6 trillion is still 80%.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Simple question, has anyone here seen conservitive on the few times he actually says something , other then your mother wears combat boots., have you ever seen anything that he said that is true.

Seems pretty honest to me.

I guess when you resort to the post I am responding to, it means you have no credible discourse for debate.

 

[MTAtech]

My contention has always been that tax cuts putting more money into the hands of the consumers created the economic activity that created the 17 million new taxpayers and thus FIT revenue grew. Your amazing support for bigger govt. and failed liberal economic policies is staggering.
Liberals always claim that tax cuts cut government revenue. That has been a lie with JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush and those are the only Presidents in my life time that have actually cut Federal Income Taxes

BEA.gov, shows the increase in GDP which of course you want to ignore because it destroys your narrative. 2.8 trillion to 5.6 trillion is double or 3.1 trillion to 5.6 trillion is still 80%.

Yes, we understand that you believe what you want to believe. That is not in contention. What is in contention is whether there is evidence to support that belief.

Below is a graph of GDP for the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton Administrations. If one is arguing that tax-rates change GDP, can anyone show us on the graph the points where tax-rates changed? I can't. It also looks like the slope gains were greater under Clinton.

 

[Conservative]

Yes, we understand that you believe what you want to believe. That is not in contention. What is in contention is whether there is evidence to support that belief.

Below is a graph of GDP for the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton Administrations. If one is arguing that tax-rates change GDP, can anyone show us on the graph the points where tax-rates changed? I can't. It also looks like the slope gains were greater under Clinton.

Yes and thank the GOP Congress that implemented the 1997 Tax relief act as part of the Contract with America and Clinton signed it.

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition what you want to ignore is the double dip Reagan inherited and the 4% GDP Growth that Clinton inherited. what Clinton did that was great is retroactively increase taxes, drop GDP growth, and give us a GOP Congress that gave him the Contract with America.

You have a very selective memory and have been indoctrinated well into the failed liberal ideology

 

[mmi]

Reagan's tax cuts were over three years

I think the stimulus (which was about $350 billion in tax cuts out of the, what was it, $800 billion) was spread out over a similar time period.

>>any payroll tax increase went into the SS trust fund which goes back to the people.

Other federal spending "goes back to the people" as well. Stuff like infrastructure projects and research grants and, yes, those horrible SNAP benefits, etc. Now there will be varying returns on investment, but it's not like all the money just gets thrown in a fireplace.

>>You probably better learn what taxes you pay and what those taxes actually were created to fund

Why do you assume that he doesn't know these things?

>>They were FEDERAL INCOME TAX cuts meaning all taxpayers got a tax cut

Yes, but if yer a working class taxpayer coughing up, say, a thousand or two each year in federal income taxes, how much do you benefit from a 25% cut? A few hundred. Welcomed, for sure, but not a whole lot. If yer making $250K and paying, say, $30K a year, that cut gets you about $7500. I'm happy to see people get that money, but my question is could we afford it. Maybe their cut should have been more like half that.

>>Now as a Liberal I am sure that made you extremely unhappy but it sure helped the U.S. economy.

In my view, there is mixed evidence at best on that. It's gotta be stimulative to some degree, but how much? Was it a wise investment?

>>That is leadership, something you don't understand.

Yeah, I'm sure yer really happy to keep repeating that line, but it's BS of course.

No, that's not true. They were reported separately, as part of "Not in the Labor Force." And as part of the U-7 measure.

OK, but do you agree that Reagan's U-3 was not influenced by a different classification?

>>The official rate was designated U-5 back then.

Again OK, and I can see where that may have made it tougher on Mr. Reagan politically, but my point is that 1982's U-3 is perfectly comparable to 2015's figure. Do you agree?

The population grew by 32.5% over that period, and more and more women were entering the workforce. Considering women wanting to work probably changed from under 20% to over 50%...

Need to consider more than one variable...

I agree with yer last point, but let me ask pinqy: Does the growth in population play a role here? That stuff about men/women is perhaps more complicated in terms of the way society experienced the rate of unemployment, but you can still make a straight comparison of the figures for civilian labor force, the number of unemployed, and the resulting rate, can't ya?

Actually, I didn't write that

Thanks for disowning me. Do you agree with my point about the U-3 rates being comparable? And specifically, that no matter how you account for discouraged workers, you'd need a very big number like 1.3 million to get it up from 10% to 10.8%?

Reagan [was] working closely with Congress to engage them in the discussion.

McConnell and others made it clear, did they not, that they were going to oppose Obama no matter what.

>>Compare that to now and the lack of leadership Obama has shown.

What chance did the GOP leadership give him.

>>Therein lies the problem and what Obama supporters do not want to discuss or acknowledge.

I'll discuss it. I think yer wrong to say that other liberals won't. I would agree that Mr. Reagan was about as persuasive as you can get, much like Clinton, as another poster noted. Obama is more of a technocrat than a persuader. Wasn't it in the national interest for Republican leaders to recognize Obama's strong victory in the election and work to find a middle ground, as opposed to just "standing strong" and refusing to compromise? What kind of leadership did the GOP show?

You have … been indoctrinated well into the failed liberal ideology

You repeat that slop over and over. I don't think it's worth the server space.

 

[Conservative]

I think the stimulus (which was about $350 billion in tax cuts out of the, what was it, $800 billion) was spread out over a similar time period.

>>any payroll tax increase went into the SS trust fund which goes back to the people.

Other federal spending "goes back to the people" as well. Stuff like infrastructure projects and research grants and, yes, those horrible SNAP benefits, etc. Now there will be varying returns on investment, but it's not like all the money just gets thrown in a fireplace.

>>You probably better learn what taxes you pay and what those taxes actually were created to fund

Why do you assume that he doesn't know these things?

>>They were FEDERAL INCOME TAX cuts meaning all taxpayers got a tax cut

Yes, but if yer a working class taxpayer coughing up, say, a thousand or two each year in federal income taxes, how much do you benefit from a 25% cut? A few hundred. Welcomed, for sure, but not a whole lot. If yer making $250K and paying, say, $30K a year, that cut gets you about $7500. I'm happy to see people get that money, but my question is could we afford it. Maybe their cut should have been more like half that.

>>Now as a Liberal I am sure that made you extremely unhappy but it sure helped the U.S. economy.

In my view, there is mixed evidence at best on that. It's gotta be stimulative to some degree, but how much? Was it a wise investment?

>>That is leadership, something you don't understand.

Yeah, I'm sure yer really happy to keep repeating that line, but it's BS of course.



OK, but do you agree that Reagan's U-3 was not influenced by a different classification?

>>The official rate was designated U-5 back then.

Again OK, and I can see where that may have made it tougher on Mr. Reagan politically, but my point is that 1982's U-3 is perfectly comparable to 2015's figure. Do you agree?



I agree with yer last point, but let me ask pinqy: Does the growth in population play a role here? That stuff about men/women is perhaps more complicated in terms of the way society experienced the rate of unemployment, but you can still make a straight comparison of the figures for civilian labor force, the number of unemployed, and the resulting rate, can't ya?



Thanks for disowning me. Do you agree with my point about the U-3 rates being comparable? And specifically, that no matter how you account for discouraged workers, you'd need a very big number like 1.3 million to get it up from 10% to 10.8%?



McConnell and others made it clear, did they not, that they were going to oppose Obama no matter what.

>>Compare that to now and the lack of leadership Obama has shown.

What chance did the GOP leadership give him.

>>Therein lies the problem and what Obama supporters do not want to discuss or acknowledge.

I'll discuss it. I think yer wrong to say that other liberals won't. I would agree that Mr. Reagan was about as persuasive as you can get, much like Clinton, as another poster noted. Obama is more of a technocrat than a persuader. Wasn't it in the national interest for Republican leaders to recognize Obama's strong victory in the election and work to find a middle ground, as opposed to just "standing strong" and refusing to compromise? What kind of leadership did the GOP show?



You repeat that slop over and over. I don't think it's worth the server space.

Still buying the Obama rhetoric, please tell me how much your family got out of those so called Obama tax cuts?

Do you understand leadership? Democrats controlled the entire Congress for his first two years. What exactly didn't Obama get that he wanted?

 

[mmi]

tell me how much your family got out of those so called Obama tax cuts?

I dunno about the tax cuts in particular, but I'd say the country certainly benefited from his policies. I kept my job and my house. Without them, I'd lose my coonhounds. I'm satisfied.

How much do ya think we got out of the Reagan cuts? Or the Bush cuts?

>>Do you understand leadership?

Do you ever get tired of repeatedly asking stupid, obnoxious questions?

>>Democrats controlled the entire Congress for his first two years. What exactly didn't Obama get that he wanted?

Help in reaching compromises that would have brought the country together. Which side failed in providing leadership there?

 

[Conservative]

I dunno about the tax cuts in particular, but I'd say the country certainly benefited from his policies. I kept my job and my house. Without them, I'd lose my coonhounds. I'm satisfied.

How much do ya think we got out of the Reagan cuts? Or the Bush cuts?

>>Do you understand leadership?

Do you ever get tired of repeatedly asking stupid, obnoxious questions?

>>Democrats controlled the entire Congress for his first two years. What exactly didn't Obama get that he wanted?

Help in reaching compromises that would have brought the country together. Which side failed in providing leadership there?

The reason you don't remember is because you don't see it in your paycheck. You got a $500 rebate which I am sure you spent. Reagan and Bush tax cuts were felt in every paycheck as take home pay increased. Doesn't seem that you understand tax cuts at all or much else.

Seems that you are indoctrinated well. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, those that ignore reality and no concept of leadership

 

[mmi]

Reagan and Bush tax cuts were felt in every paycheck

Yeah, and if ya got $500 for the year, that was ten bucks a week. On the other hand, if you were writing quarterly checks to the IRS for six grand instead of eight, that was more than $150 a week. If Uncle Sam had been able to collect some of that, we wouldn't have run up more than three trillion dollars in current dollar deficits during Reagan's time in office.

>>Seems that you are indoctrinated well. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, those that ignore reality and no concept of leadership

I wanna be clear. Don't think that I'm discouraging you from posting all those repetitive, sneering insults at the end of yer posts. They provide readers with insight into the value of what you have to say.

 

[Conservative]

Yeah, and if ya got $500 for the year, that was ten bucks a week. On the other hand, if you were writing quarterly checks to the IRS for six grand instead of eight, that was more than $150 a week. If Uncle Sam had been able to collect some of that, we wouldn't have run up more than three trillion dollars in current dollar deficits during Reagan's time in office.

>>Seems that you are indoctrinated well. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, those that ignore reality and no concept of leadership

I wanna be clear. Don't think that I'm discouraging you from posting all those repetitive, sneering insults at the end of yer posts. They provide readers with insight into the value of what you have to say.

Really, another $500 a year? You really have no concept as to what rates cuts mean in your paychecks but will when you get your first job. Even if it is $500 extra a year that is more than the one time $500 so called tax cut you got from Obama

You really have been indoctrinated so you won't have to worry about me posting sneering insults as I won't be responding to your fiction laced posts and "Gruber" like statements as this is a waste of time. I assure you that you will grow out of this as I did, but then again, maybe not. Keep believing the liberal rhetoric that the govt. needs a 3.9 trillion dollar budget and thus needs the money more than you and your family.

 

[jbander]

Yeah, and if ya got $500 for the year, that was ten bucks a week. On the other hand, if you were writing quarterly checks to the IRS for six grand instead of eight, that was more than $150 a week. If Uncle Sam had been able to collect some of that, we wouldn't have run up more than three trillion dollars in current dollar deficits during Reagan's time in office.

>>Seems that you are indoctrinated well. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you, those that ignore reality and no concept of leadership

I wanna be clear. Don't think that I'm discouraging you from posting all those repetitive, sneering insults at the end of yer posts. They provide readers with insight into the value of what you have to say.

The regressives are the deficit party, all of the deficit was during regressive presidencies before Obama had to bail us out from the Bush/Regressive recession. We were trillions in debt and these regressives cut taxes and have been the reason for a massive part of Obama's increase in Debt. Democrat add a program and pay for it upfront, as in Obama Care ,regressives just throw it at the deficit. They are the deficit party, add in the fact that during their parties presidencies , the economy is a disaster. add that to their unpaid programs and it is clear what they bring to this country, As far as responding to conservitive. I have seen nothing from him that contributes anything here other then name calling and fantasy. Not one of his comments has had any reality to it.

 

[jbander]

We have to keep in mind the massive tax redistribution from Reagan, one massive tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, then 11 tax increases changing the burden to 95% of the population an adding to the free ride of the few. What kind of mindlessness is it when you massively in debt and lower taxes, that has always been the ultimate joke. If it is done it has to be done as a tool to bail out the economy at the lows, like the Bush/regressive recession and then dumped when we are back on tract. We have to raise federal taxes or cut out a large part of the free ride that business and the wealthy receive. The deficit can be paid off using either practice. My choice would be across the board deductions that at the maximum would only be set to the average household incomes deduction. If middle America gets a mortgage deduction on a $200,000.00 then that is the maximum , so all deductions would continue for the bottom half of the population. That is a level playing field everyone gets the same amount. Of the top ten tax breaks, which equal 1 trillion a year, my quick estimate is that 2/3rds of it is outside the median income. So that would be just in those top ten tax breaks 2/3 of a trillion to use to pay off the debt. Point of fact there are hundreds of these tax breaks.

 

[Conservative]

We have to keep in mind the massive tax redistribution from Reagan, one massive tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, then 11 tax increases changing the burden to 95% of the population an adding to the free ride of the few. What kind of mindlessness is it when you massively in debt and lower taxes, that has always been the ultimate joke. If it is done it has to be done as a tool to bail out the economy at the lows, like the Bush/regressive recession and then dumped when we are back on tract. We have to raise federal taxes or cut out a large part of the free ride that business and the wealthy receive. The deficit can be paid off using either practice. My choice would be across the board deductions that at the maximum would only be set to the average household incomes deduction. If middle America gets a mortgage deduction on a $200,000.00 then that is the maximum , so all deductions would continue for the bottom half of the population. That is a level playing field everyone gets the same amount. Of the top ten tax breaks, which equal 1 trillion a year, my quick estimate is that 2/3rds of it is outside the median income. So that would be just in those top ten tax breaks 2/3 of a trillion to use to pay off the debt. Point of fact there are hundreds of these tax breaks.

Liberalism 101, the Indoctrination of America

 

[Fruityfact]

Liberalism 101, the Indoctrination of America

Quality post.

 

[jbander]

I have no qualms about cutting taxes as a example --
Cut foreign aid in half 17 bil
Eliminate earmarks 14 bil
Cut 250,000 independent contractors 17 bil
eliminating some agencies, cutting research funds for fossil fuels, 30 bil
reduce nuclear arsonal 19 bil
Reduce Military to pre Iraq size 25 bil
Reduce navy and air force fleet 19 bil
Cancel and delay some weapons programs 19bil
reduce noncombat military compensation 23bil

Reduce the tax breaks for employer-provided health ins 41 bil
Reduce social security for those of High income 6 billion
Return estate tax to clinton era levels 50 bil
Return cap gain rates to Clinton era levels32 bil

eleiminate loopholes136 bil
reduce mortgage deduction and others for high income household 25 bil
Banks tax proportionate to their risk taking. 73 bil.
Total 552 bil

2015 shortfall 418 billion and I can easily find more.

 

[Conservative]

I have no qualms about cutting taxes as a example --
Cut foreign aid in half 17 bil
Eliminate earmarks 14 bil
Cut 250,000 independent contractors 17 bil
eliminating some agencies, cutting research funds for fossil fuels, 30 bil
reduce nuclear arsonal 19 bil
Reduce Military to pre Iraq size 25 bil
Reduce navy and air force fleet 19 bil
Cancel and delay some weapons programs 19bil
reduce noncombat military compensation 23bil

Reduce the tax breaks for employer-provided health ins 41 bil
Reduce social security for those of High income 6 billion
Return estate tax to clinton era levels 50 bil
Return cap gain rates to Clinton era levels32 bil

eleiminate loopholes136 bil
reduce mortgage deduction and others for high income household 25 bil
Banks tax proportionate to their risk taking. 73 bil.
Total 552 bil

2015 shortfall 418 billion and I can easily find more.

There are some good suggestions here but then you go again and promote class warfare, penalizing the producers, and showing jealousy for the rich. Tell me what is preventing you from becoming one of those evil rich people? Let's start with attitude.

 

[Frodly]

No it didn't, Reagan's numbers included discouraged workers and Obama's didn't. That is another liberal myth and lack of understanding of the changes made to the unemployment numbers. There is nothing Obama has done that is better than either Bush or Reagan so suggest you get the facts and stop letting the left make a fool out of you

Reagan is arguably the worst president in American history. Is Obama as bad has he is? I would say no, simply because Reagan and his ideas caused all these problems. Obama has simply followed in the path Reagan laid down and failed to fix all the problems Reagan created.

The right wing obsession with Reagan is one of the more insane and idiotic aspects of American politics. He was charming and likable (he was a great performer of politics), otherwise he was terrible and represents so much of what they claim to hate. He increased the size of government, he was the greatest 8 year deficit spender in American history (FDR beat him, but only by having extra terms), he passed amnesty. He destroyed the American economy long term and led the ideological push towards the capitalist paradise we now live in. Unfortunately it is terrible for everyone else, but a corporate puppet like Reagan didn't care.

In the end I guess I do understand. The right wing cult of worshipping monetary success is part of why he is loved. He made the rich richer and everyone else poorer. To most of us, that is bad. Not to the right though. But more importantly, he was the master of political performance and platitudes. Platitudes make conservatives feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you tell them about how great they are and how great America is, your competence as a leader is irrelevant. Make people feel good with nice sounding words, no matter how untrue, and they will overlook mountains of disastrous policy making.

 

[jbander]

There are some good suggestions here but then you go again and promote class warfare, penalizing the producers, and showing jealousy for the rich. Tell me what is preventing you from becoming one of those evil rich people? Let's start with attitude.

Contribute or don't reply, your like the rest of the regressives you offer nothing. You are a producer , that's a laugh, your a intellectual burden on sociality, you offer hate and elitism from the lowest level of our society. You are simply a burden on good people.

 

[Conservative]

Reagan is arguably the worst president in American history. Is Obama as bad has he is? I would say no, simply because Reagan and his ideas caused all these problems. Obama has simply followed in the path Reagan laid down and failed to fix all the problems Reagan created.

The right wing obsession with Reagan is one of the more insane and idiotic aspects of American politics. He was charming and likable (he was a great performer of politics), otherwise he was terrible and represents so much of what they claim to hate. He increased the size of government, he was the greatest 8 year deficit spender in American history (FDR beat him, but only by having extra terms), he passed amnesty. He destroyed the American economy long term and led the ideological push towards the capitalist paradise we now live in. Unfortunately it is terrible for everyone else, but a corporate puppet like Reagan didn't care.

In the end I guess I do understand. The right wing cult of worshipping monetary success is part of why he is loved. He made the rich richer and everyone else poorer. To most of us, that is bad. Not to the right though. But more importantly, he was the master of political performance and platitudes. Platitudes make conservatives feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you tell them about how great they are and how great America is, your competence as a leader is irrelevant. Make people feel good with nice sounding words, no matter how untrue, and they will overlook mountains of disastrous policy making.

That is absolutely ridiculous and based upon total ignorance. Did Gruber interview you before making his statement?

 

[Conservative]

Contribute or don't reply, your like the rest of the regressives you offer nothing. You are a producer , that's a laugh, your a intellectual burden on sociality, you offer hate and elitism from the lowest level of our society. You are simply a burden on good people.

Learn what your taxes fund and get back to me. Stop with the foolish and ignorance comments that focus on personal attacks. If I could possibly stop my contributions to people like you I would do it.

 

[Frodly]

That is absolutely ridiculous and based upon total ignorance. Did Gruber interview you before making his statement?

Great response!! I rarely post anymore at these kinds of forums, and when I do, people like you remind me almost immediately why I don't. Since you aren't interested in debate, I will just post the way you do. Here is my response filtered through an algorithm meant to simulate your posts.

The idea that my post is absolutely ridiculous is absolutely ridiculous. Only total ignorance could make a person unaware of how utterly true my post was. Did Sowell interview you before blah blah glah..... http://i.imgur.com/u3lWw.gif

 

[jbander]

Reagan is arguably the worst president in American history. Is Obama as bad has he is? I would say no, simply because Reagan and his ideas caused all these problems. Obama has simply followed in the path Reagan laid down and failed to fix all the problems Reagan created.

The right wing obsession with Reagan is one of the more insane and idiotic aspects of American politics. He was charming and likable (he was a great performer of politics), otherwise he was terrible and represents so much of what they claim to hate. He increased the size of government, he was the greatest 8 year deficit spender in American history (FDR beat him, but only by having extra terms), he passed amnesty. He destroyed the American economy long term and led the ideological push towards the capitalist paradise we now live in. Unfortunately it is terrible for everyone else, but a corporate puppet like Reagan didn't care.

In the end I guess I do understand. The right wing cult of worshipping monetary success is part of why he is loved. He made the rich richer and everyone else poorer. To most of us, that is bad. Not to the right though. But more importantly, he was the master of political performance and platitudes. Platitudes make conservatives feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If you tell them about how great they are and how great America is, your competence as a leader is irrelevant. Make people feel good with nice sounding words, no matter how untrue, and they will overlook mountains of disastrous policy making.

Well said and very true , the redistribution of wealth from Reagan’s presidency is massive, he achieved exactly what he wanted to and he may have done it because he believed in trickle down , I dought it but it is the only hope for respect for him historically, Every dime increase in the wealth of this rich nation has gone to the top since his presidency and not the slightest amount of trickle down.. He is noted for one massive tax cut and then Democrats have gone after the rest of his party by saying He saw the light and raised taxes 11 times. but in closer observation of those 11 tax increases, most where to move the tax burdan from the top to the bottom 90-95%. What has always amazed me about the regressive party is how can so few control so many against their best interest. Part of it has to do with being connected full time to Fox news and Rush the bumbler. That I have a hard time understanding. I best guess is it's one of those instance when the blind is leading the blind but I'm not sure.

 

[jbander]

Learn what your taxes fund and get back to me. Stop with the foolish and ignorance comments that focus on personal attacks. If I could possibly stop my contributions to people like you I would do it.

contribute to me , that's funny tell me one sentence of yours that contributed to this debate.

 

[Conservative]

Great response!! I rarely post anymore at these kinds of forums, and when I do, people like you remind me almost immediately why I don't. Since you aren't interested in debate, I will just post the way you do. Here is my response filtered through an algorithm meant to simulate your posts.

The idea that my post is absolutely ridiculous is absolutely ridiculous. Only total ignorance could make a person unaware of how utterly true my post was. Did Sowell interview you before blah blah glah..... http://i.imgur.com/u3lWw.gif

Then before making posts like this suggest you do research. I have backed up my claims with verifiable results and I quite frankly get tired of doing it over and over again especially when people like you show up. The results don't support your point of view or that ridiculous post but then again apparently in your world perception is reality whereas actual results don't exist

 

[Conservative]

Well said and very true , the redistribution of wealth from Reagan’s presidency is massive, he achieved exactly what he wanted to and he may have done it because he believed in trickle down , I dought it but it is the only hope for respect for him historically, Every dime increase in the wealth of this rich nation has gone to the top since his presidency and not the slightest amount of trickle down.. He is noted for one massive tax cut and then Democrats have gone after the rest of his party by saying He saw the light and raised taxes 11 times. but in closer observation of those 11 tax increases, most where to move the tax burdan from the top to the bottom 90-95%. What has always amazed me about the regressive party is how can so few control so many against their best interest. Part of it has to do with being connected full time to Fox news and Rush the bumbler. That I have a hard time understanding. I best guess is it's one of those instance when the blind is leading the blind but I'm not sure.

Aw, yes, redistribution of wealth which is probably why Reagan won 49 states in 1984. I see your jealousy in all your posts and suggest if you truly want to see the problem look in the mirror. You obviously have no idea what your taxes fund for if you did you would realize that that every tax Reagan raised was a use tax so if you don't use the services you don't pay the taxes. Guess that reality escaped you as well