quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

You know, Reagan SOAKED the rich in taxes, and the rich were happy to pay. But then, those were slightly different times. America was in the process of climbing out of a recession and becoming prosperous again. The last President we had that really understood economics was Clinton. Bush Jr? Not so much...

But as bad as Bush Jr. may have been, Obama is actually worse. He can add the reception of his 2012 budget presented in May 2011 to the ever growing list of historic Obamafail. Anyone know what other President ever presented a budget and was unanimously voted down by a Senate controlled by his own party?

The reality is that the economy under Obama is stagnant. As much as he would like to believe it, he is not Reagan, or Kennedy, or Lincoln. Obama is just not that smart and not even in the same league.

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


All this BS Obama mouths off about "taxing the rich, making them pay their fair share, etc." Is just that. Political Bullshit. Anyone who managed to pass even high school math can be shown that even if you took ALL this years income, from everyone who made a million dollars or more, it would not make a dent in the national debt.

So the Obama bullshit of "taxing the rich" even 100% of their yearly income won't help. The only way to get a lot of revenue is to raise taxes on everybody. that means YOU and me. Of course, Obama hopes you didn't pass math class, and don't know this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

If former President Ronald Reagan is considered by the conservatives masses to be the 'avatar' of conservative policy. And they consider President Barack Obama to be anti-conservative (that is to say, onyone left of far-right is a socialist). Then how do both US Presidents seek the same thing? Either the conservatives are not 'old school conservative' as they make themselves out to be, or Ronald Reagan was a liberal, commie, facist, socialist in disguise?

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

What is "money", and where does it come from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

What is "money", and where does it come from?

Money is a means to determine a fair distribution of goods and services produced by a society, and to encourage efficient production of those goods and services (producing the items people want, in the most efficient quantities).
Unfortunately, it is very susceptible to concentration, devaluation, and diversion. For example, the Financial Services industry (investment banks) now consumes 20% of the goods and services produced in the US. What do you get for 20 cents of every dollar you make?
Government taxes in the US are also about 20%. Health care is 12%, meaning we live off less than half our paycheck, which is also shrinking as wealth is concentrated.
The combination of concentration and diversion of wealth has just about turned the US into a third world nation, and will yet if we don't find a way to save the middle class...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

What is "money", and where does it come from?

The combination of concentration and diversion of wealth has just about turned the US into a third world nation, and will yet if we don't find a way to save the middle class...

quote:

As much as he would like to believe it, he is not Reagan, or Kennedy, or Lincoln. Obama is just not that smart and not even in the same league.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

You know, Reagan SOAKED the rich in taxes, and the rich were happy to pay. But then, those were slightly different times. America was in the process of climbing out of a recession and becoming prosperous again. The last President we had that really understood economics was Clinton. Bush Jr? Not so much...

But as bad as Bush Jr. may have been, Obama is actually worse. He can add the reception of his 2012 budget presented in May 2011 to the ever growing list of historic Obamafail. Anyone know what other President ever presented a budget and was unanimously voted down by a Senate controlled by his own party?

The reality is that the economy under Obama is stagnant. As much as he would like to believe it, he is not Reagan, or Kennedy, or Lincoln. Obama is just not that smart and not even in the same league.

-SD-

While I don't argue the point that Obama is 'worse", it's important to note that Regan (not evenly my favorite Prez) lowered taxes (during his entire 8 years) from as high as 70% down to as low as in the teens, tethered.

I would hardly see Reagan cutting taxes by as much as s third as "soaking the rich", indeed, I would see it as exactly the opposite. Furthermore, I would submit that the highest 1% (in 1983) paid 17% of the taxes, and reaped 96% of the (income/taxable) rewards....now they pay roughly 9% of the taxes, the rest coming from add ones, SSI among others....and they're reaping a far greater % of the known wealth.

Conjecture, hypebole and simply making up facts don't an aegument make.

Facts do.

Until then, I'll pay what's due, when it's due, and nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

You know, Reagan SOAKED the rich in taxes, and the rich were happy to pay. But then, those were slightly different times. America was in the process of climbing out of a recession and becoming prosperous again. The last President we had that really understood economics was Clinton. Bush Jr? Not so much...

But as bad as Bush Jr. may have been, Obama is actually worse. He can add the reception of his 2012 budget presented in May 2011 to the ever growing list of historic Obamafail. Anyone know what other President ever presented a budget and was unanimously voted down by a Senate controlled by his own party?

The reality is that the economy under Obama is stagnant. As much as he would like to believe it, he is not Reagan, or Kennedy, or Lincoln. Obama is just not that smart and not even in the same league.

-SD-

While I don't argue the point that Obama is 'worse", it's important to note that Regan (not evenly my favorite Prez) lowered taxes (during his entire 8 years) from as high as 70% down to as low as in the teens, tethered.

I would hardly see Reagan cutting taxes by as much as s third as "soaking the rich", indeed, I would see it as exactly the opposite. Furthermore, I would submit that the highest 1% (in 1983) paid 17% of the taxes, and reaped 96% of the (income/taxable) rewards....now they pay roughly 9% of the taxes, the rest coming from add ones, SSI among others....and they're reaping a far greater % of the known wealth.

Conjecture, hypebole and simply making up facts don't an aegument make.

Facts do.

Until then, I'll pay what's due, when it's due, and nothing more.

You might want to take a quick look at the history books. Yes, Reagan decreased taxes and made some of the deepest and most relevant tax cuts in American History in 1981 and 1986. However, 2 months after the 1986 tax cuts, he raised taxes on the wealthy by about 2/3. Whether you want to call that reform or a new tax, the fact remains that the most wealthy Americans were given a tax break and then in less than one fiscal quarter their taxed were increased again to a significant level by closing loopholes in the tax code. Whatever you want to call it, he no longer allowed the rich to pay less than they had before, which, by any logical understanding means he made them pay more than they had before. Whatever you choose to calll it is pure semantics.

Yes, I realize we are talking about an extremely short span of time. But that tax increase/reform in 1986 is the instance the Obama regime is referring to. It is important to know exactly what it it and why it's allowed them to key into it as a tax increase though. The fact that the left doesn't understand the distinction is moot. Conservatives understand exactly what happened there and I have never had anyone misunderstand me on this point until now.

It is not conjecture or hyperbole to say that the rich were not really all that upset about it. Under Reagan, corporate America thrived, and the rich made money hand over fist. That was because of another aspect of this that the left refuses to understand. The primary reason Reagans tax policies were so successful was that Reagan was pro-success. He supported regulations that made it easier for small business to start and grow. However, he also supported de-regulating industries that were suffering under burdensome government intervention. By encouraging people to make more money, it didn't matter how much you were taxed, because you would never be taxed disproportionately to your wealth.

Essentially, what Reagan said to America was "I will tax you according to what you make (keep in mind that his administration introduced the variable tax scale) but I will not stop anyone from making as much money as they want to make."

No matter how much he wants to claim he is somehow channeling Ronald Reagan, Obama's policies are anti-personal success and anti-business. That's a real distinction a between liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives understand that in order to harness the wealth of a nation, you have to nurture wealth and success. Liberals seem to think that they can achieve the same goals by punishing success and rewarding failure. Since American economics depend entirely on the success of industry and generating personal wealth, Obama only shows his historic and unprecidented ignorance by claiming his Buffet Rule is in line with Reaganomics.

-SD-