PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Amazing Speech


Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 07:47 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt1fYSAChxs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt1fYSAChxs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>




Why can't America have a guy that not only talked like that but actually governed that way? He certainly wasn't that guy in the 1980's.

donkhater
01-18-2010, 08:53 PM
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Awesome speech.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 09:01 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt1fYSAChxs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yt1fYSAChxs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>




Why can't America have a guy that not only talked like that but actually governed that way? He certainly wasn't that guy in the 1980's.

What a joke Reagan was. It's too bad he didn't walk the talk. Otherwise he would have won more than 49 states in his bid for re-election.

Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 10:13 PM
What a joke Reagan was. It's too bad he didn't walk the talk. Otherwise he would have won more than 49 states in his bid for re-election.

Saul do you really think Reagan governed like he talked in that speech? He did spend add alot to the nations debt.

patteeu
01-19-2010, 07:44 AM
Saul do you really think Reagan governed like he talked in that speech? He did spend add alot to the nations debt.

A President is not a dictator.

BigRedChief
01-19-2010, 07:47 AM
Ronald Reagan raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan used defict spending.
Ronald Reagan increased the national debt.

Lets not try some revisionist history BS.

patteeu
01-19-2010, 07:50 AM
Ronald Reagan raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan used defict spending.
Ronald Reagan increased the national debt.

Lets not try some revisionist history BS.

You didn't read the thread carefully enough.

The Mad Crapper
01-19-2010, 07:52 AM
Thanks for posting tht, Billay.

BigRedChief
01-19-2010, 07:53 AM
You didn't read the thread carefully enough.Happens alot.:)

Royal Fanatic
01-19-2010, 10:37 AM
Ronald Reagan raised taxes.
Ronald Reagan used defict spending.
Ronald Reagan increased the national debt.

Lets not try some revisionist history BS.
Come on, dude. When Reagan was elected, the top tax bracket was 70%. He reduced it to 28%. Do you really want to hang your hat on the statement "Reagan raised taxes"? He may have signed a bill that included some tax increases, but he was a tax cutter, not a tax raiser. For you to say "Reagan raised taxes" is the worst kind of revisionist history.

He also eliminated the Windfall Profits Tax. Surprisingly enough, the energy crisis quit being a crisis after that. That's something the Democrats can't seem to grasp: that tax increases discourage investment and production.

Did Reagan use deficit spending and increase the national debt? Yes. He dramatically increased defense spending. He was also the guy in charge when the Cold War ended and the USSR disbanded. Not a bad tradeoff in my opinion. However, I'm sure you believe that to be a total coincidence, because in addition to failing to understand the consequences of tax policy, you liberals also fail to understand the consequences of weakness and appeasement.

Reagan was not a perfect President by any means. The Iran Contra affair was a disgrace, he seemed almost senile at the end of his term, and he added what was at the time a significant amount of debt. But on balance, he was one hell of a President.

We need another one like him right about now. Unfortunately, we're stuck with Obama for another 3 years.

patteeu
01-19-2010, 11:11 AM
Happens alot.:)

To all of us at one time or another. :)

BigRedChief
01-19-2010, 12:02 PM
Come on, dude. When Reagan was elected, the top tax bracket was 70%. He reduced it to 28%.I know how to use google too. He increased payroll taxes. The bottom line is that the federal government was taking more taxes out of the pocketbooks of the middle class than the tax cuts put in. The middle class lost money under Reagan.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Chocolate Hog
01-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Like I said the Reagan of the 1980's was different then the one in the 1960's. The 1960's Republican party was great, today they wouldn't allow the likes of Barry Goldwater in the party.

Inspector
01-19-2010, 02:20 PM
The Star Wars bluff was one of my favorite things about Reagan.

Dumbass Russians....ROFL

The Mad Crapper
01-20-2010, 09:59 AM
bump

Royal Fanatic
01-21-2010, 07:31 PM
I know how to use google too. He increased payroll taxes. The bottom line is that the federal government was taking more taxes out of the pocketbooks of the middle class than the tax cuts put in. The middle class lost money under Reagan.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
All you really demonstrated is that you don't understand how tax rates affect tax revenue. When you raise tax rates, economic activity DECREASES. When you lower tax rates, economic activity INCREASES. There is more total income, and more total taxes are paid into the treasury. Lowering tax rates causes total tax revenue to go up. Since you know how to use Google, try searching for Laffer Curve.

As long as people tenaciously cling to the idea that high taxes are good and corporate profits are evil, they'll vote themselves and everybody else into poverty.

KCTitus
01-21-2010, 08:11 PM
Class Warfare...the last weapon in the statist arguments...

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

A rising tide lifts all boats...I guess the real question for BRC, rather than raise payroll taxes to pay for medicare/social security, would you have preferred a reduction or defunding of said programs? I would have.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 08:39 PM
A President is not a dictator.

He is the dictator of new spending.

patteeu
01-22-2010, 05:52 AM
He is the dictator of new spending.

Huh?

BigRedChief
01-22-2010, 07:12 AM
A rising tide lifts all boats...I guess the real question for BRC, rather than raise payroll taxes to pay for medicare/social security, would you have preferred a reduction or defunding of said programs? I would have.I voted for him twice. I still don't regret those votes. Carter? Mondale? Give me a break :doh!:

I would prefer if Washington increases spending in one area that they decrease the spending by that same amount from another area. I'm totally against long term deficit spending.