More Embarrassment

[rbpls]

Same old story from you guys! It is the Republican's and Bush's fault. I have a news flash for you, Obama and the Democrats own this economy that they said they would fix. Bush and the Republicans are not in the majority. Obama and the Democrats are and they have made a mess of it.

 

Stated more honestly, you can't refute what I said with truthful information. I did not say it was all Bush's fault or all the republicans fault. I said it is impossible that it could be the fault of people who were not in office when it started. Kind of simple really.

 

Present day, we do have folks who hope things get worse before November so their party will gain. Question: why is love of party over country acceptable in some circles?

 

Rub the sleep out of your eyes. The mess was really really bad before Obama took office. It had started and was accelerating before we voted in 2006. Again, just history.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Well Read

[NewsJunky]

Stated more honestly, you can't refute what I said with truthful information. I did not say it was all Bush's fault or all the reupublicans fault. I said it is impossible that it could be the fault of people who were not in office when it started. Kind of simple really.

 

Present day, we do have folks who hope things get worse before November so their party will gain. Question: why is love of party over country acceptable in some circles?

 

Rub the sleep out of your eyes. The mess was really really bad before Obama took office. It had started and was accelerating before we voted in 2006. Again, just history.

 

I have no sleep in my eye but it appears you do. You are still advocating for the Party who has not brought good change to America. I am going to guess it is because you believe in the Socialist agenda that they are putting firmly in place.

 

You bet I am against that and I have to go with the only Party that seems to be standing against it right now. I don't love a particular Party but I do very much distrust and dislike the direction the Democrat/Socialists are shoving this great country and it's people. I will not help them to accomplish that goal. They are destroying the things that made America great and the opportunity that it's citizens have always enjoyed to reap the rewards of their sweat and effort.

[Cathyhelms]

Trying to warn people about the lies and methods used by this Chicago thug before the election, were totally ignored. Now that he is doing exactly as we said, it becomes a desire (by those of us that knew) that we want him to fail.

 

We tried to tell you electing him would only make things worse, what is happening now is a result of his inexperience and far left ideals. It's been almost two years, when are his people going to let him take credit for his failures?? We got change alright, that hope thing really turned out to hoping November 2010 got here quickly!!

[surepip]

And most of the posts have reverted back to partisan politics.

 

From what I see and understand, the heavy duty local GOP crowd will vote for and accept having an embarrassment downtown, just because they are an "R", instead of the person better qualified for the job, because he is running as a "D". Following up on the footsteps of Richardson and Stout, they would go for 3 times the charm, just because of the "R".

 

Waling away in disbelieve, again.

 

Talk about cutting your nose off in spite of your face!

 

Let's just hope there are enough open minded voters to elect the person better suited to represent Paulding, instead of just putting another embarrassment representing Paulding under the Gold Dome. Our very own Cynthia McKinney. I can see it now.....

[Mason Rountree]

 

We need more pulling together and way less obstructionism.

 

 

 

 

That is why Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 (more a Reagan administration than Reagan's) still stand as the ONLY PRESIDENTS SINCE WW2 THAT FAILED TO LOWER THE GROSS DEBT DURING THEIR PRESIDENCIES. George H.W. Bush was 100% right when he coined the term to describe Reagonomics. Remeber that? Voo-doo economics?

 

Again, just history.

 

If you find yourself in that revisionist mood again, grab an almanac and look at how many banks failed in the 12 years beginning one year after Reagan took office. Or, start 2 or 3 years after he took office to be more than fair. According to Saint Ronald himself, the bad economy during his term was the fault of those who came before him. He said so way longer into his first term than we are into Obama's.

 

That is unless that time travel thing is a real possibility.

 

 

Gosh, Well Read, what happened to your Rodney King "can't-we-all-just-get-along" attitude in your other post? It is apparent that you have no genuine interest in "pulling together" and eschewing your perception of "obstructionism" based on your latter posts about revisionist history and time travel by those who dare challenge the success of the current Administration.

 

As for your incorrect assertions about Reagan's record, let me offer the following: when Reagan took office, inflation was 12.5%. When he left office, it was 4.4%. Interest rates substantially declined after 8 years, and unemployment was reduced by almost one-half. In constant dollars, you are correct that that the gross amount of debt increased through the Reagan years. However, as a percentage of GDP, there was no significant statistical difference during this time period because the economy boomed with GDP averaging 3.2% per year.

 

Wasn't the revised estimate for the 2nd quarter of 2010 1.6%? Even after spending hundreds of billions of dollars with the supposed stimulus?

 

You appear to have a bit of frustration from the complete failure of the Obama economic team so far. Understandably so. But diverting attention away from those failures by acting as if you just want everyone to get along (and then reminding others that, oh by-the-way, Reagan and Bush are evil trickle-downers who actually wanted to bankrupt government) is a joke.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Pigpen

[WHITEY]

I have no sleep in my eye but it appears you do. You are still advocating for the Party who has not brought good change to America. I am going to guess it is because you believe in the Socialist agenda that they are putting firmly in place.

 

You bet I am against that and I have to go with the only Party that seems to be standing against it right now. I don't love a particular Party but I do very much distrust and dislike the direction the Democrat/Socialists are shoving this great country and it's people. I will not help them to accomplish that goal. They are destroying the things that made America great and the opportunity that it's citizens have always enjoyed to reap the rewards of their sweat and effort.

Are you opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Peach care?

[NewsJunky]

Are you opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Peach care?

 

 

Apples and Oranges and you know it!

[WHITEY]

Apples and Oranges and you know it!

No I do not know it, Please explain?

[NewsJunky]

No I do not know it, Please explain?

 

Not worth my time. It won't change your mind.

[rbpls]

I have no sleep in my eye but it appears you do. You are still advocating for the Party who has not brought good change to America. I am going to guess it is because you believe in the Socialist agenda that they are putting firmly in place.

 

You bet I am against that and I have to go with the only Party that seems to be standing against it right now. I don't love a particular Party but I do very much distrust and dislike the direction the Democrat/Socialists are shoving this great country and it's people. I will not help them to accomplish that goal. They are destroying the things that made America great and the opportunity that it's citizens have always enjoyed to reap the rewards of their sweat and effort.

 

Consistently ignoring reality won't change it. You conveniently forget that I do support smart conservatives. Often they are Republican, sometimes Democrat. There are many people who confuse rhetoric with results. The last string of "conservative" presidents we had were anything but. Again, history.

 

I don't support either party actually. If you were forced to pick one I support more, it would be republican just from sheer numbers of candidates I support versus candidates from any other party. I refuse to be delusional and believe someone is fiscally competent or conservative because they or somesone else said so.

 

If you believe Reagan or either Bush were conservative in any way other than rhetoric or name, I invite you to read the real record. Note who increased the Gross Debt. Those are the only presidents that FAILED there since WW2.

 

As for socialist garbage this or socialist garbage that, I have not found after many direct tries to get anyone who rails against socialism who even knows what it is.

 

I can prove that all of you who claim to hate socialism embrace it and benefit from it everyday. That you don't know so proves you are either not being truthful or you don't understand what it really is. My guess is that you use the wrong definition.

 

Have you ever driven on our socialized roads? Been to our socialized libraries? Been protected by our socialized military? Felt comfort because you could call on our socialized police or fire protection? Have you ever mailed a letter? Yes, yes, yes yes to all I believe. You are a socialist as much as Obama is a socialist. Even if you don't know it, we live in a social representaive democracy/republic. Sometimes it is more fiscally efficient to handle societal needs those ways. Some would say that saving money by being fiscally efficient is conservative. With the way conservatism has been disfigured recently, it is actually difficult to figure out if is anything more than words lately.

 

The "liberal/center" Clinton balanced budgets, even had surpluses that Bush then turned into massive deficits at a time when we should have been paying down the accumulated deficit as Clinton and every other president (democrat and republican!) did since WW2 did except the 3 fake conservative presidents.

 

Rhetoric means less to me than actions.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Well Read

[rbpls]

Gosh, Well Read, what happened to your Rodney King "can't-we-all-just-get-along" attitude in your other post? It is apparent that you have no genuine interest in "pulling together" and eschewing your perception of "obstructionism" based on your latter posts about revisionist history and time travel by those who dare challenge the success of the current Administration.

 

As for your incorrect assertions about Reagan's record, let me offer the following: when Reagan took office, inflation was 12.5%. When he left office, it was 4.4%. Interest rates substantially declined after 8 years, and unemployment was reduced by almost one-half. In constant dollars, you are correct that that the gross amount of debt increased through the Reagan years. However, as a percentage of GDP, there was no significant statistical difference during this time period because the economy boomed with GDP averaging 3.2% per year.

 

Wasn't the revised estimate for the 2nd quarter of 2010 1.6%? Even after spending hundreds of billions of dollars with the supposed stimulus?

 

You appear to have a bit of frustration from the complete failure of the Obama economic team so far. Understandably so. But diverting attention away from those failures by acting as if you just want everyone to get along (and then reminding others that, oh by-the-way, Reagan and Bush are evil trickle-downers who actually wanted to bankrupt government) is a joke.

 

 

Did you say I had something wrong about Reagan? I noticed you said I got something wrong but neglected to give specifics.

 

I am frustrated with the present economic situation. Who wouldn't be? But to imagine that the people who were not even in office when it started caused it....or that the monstrous train wreck that Obama inherited (objectively way way worse than anything Reagan had to deal with) could be fixed in way less time that Reagan needed to make much more minor repairs...

 

The Reagan zombies (those who refuse to admit that voo-doo economics failed to perform as promised) are perpetually trying to re-write history. Reagan used Keynesian stimulus to rev up the economy but failed to start paying the deficit down when things improved. Had he been fiscally more astute, he would not have failed to lower the Gross Debt. Very simple and undeniably true.

 

The other thing he did wrong in his Keynesian stimulus spending is that the deficit financing was not used to repair or build new infrastructure. There was failure to build the foundation for future prosperity. (eg: Eisenhower and interstates, etc)

 

And guess who blew (like drunken sailors) much of the money we sure could use now to revive jobs and this economy...

Edited August 31, 2010 by Well Read

[Cathyhelms]

Did you say I had something wrong about Reagan? I noticed you said I got something wrong but neglected to give specifics.

 

I am frustrated with the present economic situation. Who wouldn't be? But to imagine that the people who were not even in office when it started caused it....or that the monstrous train wreck that Obama inherited (objectively way way worse than anything Reagan had to deal with) could be fixed in way less time that Reagan needed to make much more minor repairs...

 

The Reagan zombies (those who refuse to admit that voo-doo economics failed to perform as promised) are perpetually trying to re-write history. Reagan used Keynesian stimulus to rev up the economy but failed to start paying the deficit down when things improved. Had he been fisaclly more astute, he would not have failed to lower the Gross Debt. Very simple and undeniably true.

 

The other thing he did wrong in his Keynesian stimulus spending is that the deficit financing was not used to repair or build new infrastructure. There was failure to build the foundation for future prosperity. (eg: Eisenhower and interstates, etc)

 

0bama, his cronies and the stimulus are all one huge failure. I'm HOPE(ing) all that is going to CHANGE in November 2010.

[Cabe]

I refuse to be delusional and believe someone is fiscally competent or conservative because they or somesone else said so.

 

Ditto. Which is precisely why I don't support Avery.

[Cathyhelms]

Ditto. Which is precisely why I don't support Avery.

 

Well shouldn't it depend on who is and who isn't supporting who?? Or do I have to define "is"? :rofl:

[rbpls]

0bama, his cronies and the stimulus are all one huge failure. I'm HOPE(ing) all that is going to CHANGE in November 2010.

 

Maybe those tax cuts and massive deficit financing Bush put in (when we could and should have been paying down the debt) will finally kick in after 9 years...

 

Seriously, things will get better. It's like musical chairs. The people who caused the train wreck want to be back in power after somebody else cleaned up the mess so they can claim credit.

[Cathyhelms]

Maybe those tax cuts and massive deficit financing Bush put in (when we could and should have been paying down the debt) will finally kick in after 9 years...

 

Seriously, things will get better. It's like musical chairs. The people who caused the train wreck want to be back in power after somebody else cleaned up the mess so they can claim credit.

 

Say what??? Cleaned up what?? You have got to be kidding, right???? :rofl: :rofl:

[Cabe]

Well shouldn't it depend on who is and who isn't supporting who?? Or do I have to define "is"? :rofl:

 

yes!

[rbpls]

Say what??? Cleaned up what?? You have got to be kidding, right???? :rofl: :rofl:

 

I'm trying to be patient. Obama inherited a BIG mess. Big messes take longer to clean up. Reagan needed MUCH MORE TIME to clean up a MUCH smaller mess. I know facts are sometimes troubling...

 

Did you think I thought that the mess he inherited was already cleaned up?

[NewsJunky]

Maybe those tax cuts and massive deficit financing Bush put in (when we could and should have been paying down the debt) will finally kick in after 9 years...

 

Seriously, things will get better. It's like musical chairs. The people who caused the train wreck want to be back in power after somebody else cleaned up the mess so they can claim credit.

 

They will not get better under this Administration! You can't sell that anymore. Have you looked at the stock market today? Have you looked at the unemployment figures? Can't push that "inherited a mess" here any more either. Obama is driving things deeper into recession/depression every day. Have you looked at the national debt? Why don't you compare it to the day Bush left office and see which one wins! His Health care program is not even in the budget yet.

 

I can't believe you would even use Reagan's name in the same sentence with this guy!

[feelip]

They will not get better under this Administration! You can't sell that anymore. Have you looked at the stock market today? Have you looked at the unemployment figures? Can't push that "inherited a mess" here any more either. Obama is driving things deeper into recession/depression every day. Have you looked at the national debt? Why don't you compare it to the day Bush left office and see which one wins! His Health care program is not even in the budget yet.

 

I can't believe you would even use Reagan's name in the same sentence with this guy!

 

 

WTH? Ronnie Jesus?

[rbpls]

They will not get better under this Administration! You can't sell that anymore. Have you looked at the stock market today? Have you looked at the unemployment figures? Can't push that "inherited a mess" here any more either. Obama is driving things deeper into recession/depression every day. Have you looked at the national debt? Why don't you compare it to the day Bush left office and see which one wins! His Health care program is not even in the budget yet.

 

I can't believe you would even use Reagan's name in the same sentence with this guy!

 

Again, you can't refute anything I said with fact or honest analysis. Yes, look at all those things. The first Obama budget started October? November? 2009 so right now we are only 9 or 10 months past Bush's last budget. And when Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 - 800,000 jobs a month. Unemployment figures? Wow, I wonder if they have anything to do with what happened before Obama was even a senator? Hint: definitely and irrefutably

 

Obama inherited a much larger mess and has so far used much less time than Reagan needed to clean up a much smaller mess. The National Debt? Obama will likely be the 4th president president to not lower the Gross Debt since WW2 but only because he inherited such a monumental screwed up pile of crap economy that started melting down before he even ran for president. The other 3 presidents who didn't lower the Gross Debt had no valid fiscal reason to raise the Gross Debt.

 

Bush's and McCain's economic advisors (at least the highest ranking smarter ones) say without the actions of the Obama and Bush (taken soon after the meltdown hit critical mass while Bush was still in office) administrations, we would have much higher unemployment (their estimate range from 15% to 25%) than the slightly less than 10 % we have now (about the same as it was at 2-1/2 years into the Reagan administration, again after inheriting a much better economy and no wars.)

 

So you can keep saying facts ain't facts but they are still true. Let's see...Big mess... before he got here... smart informed people realize it will take some more time (especially since the crap is still being sprayed into the fan by the less than truthful revisionists.)

[rbpls]

WTH? Ronnie Jesus?

 

Actually his new name is Saint Ronald the Reagan. (and according to George H.W. Bush, Saint Ronald is the president who brought voo-doo economics to america)

Edited August 31, 2010 by Well Read

[NewsJunky]

Again, you can't refute anything I said with fact or honest analysis. Yes, look at all those things. The first Obama budget started October? November? 2009 so right now we are only 9 or 10 months past Bush's last budget. And when Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 - 800,000 jobs a month. Unemployment figures? Wow, I wonder if they have anything to do with what happened before Obama was even a senator? Hint: definitely and irrefutably

 

Obama inherited a much larger mess and has so far used much less time than Reagan needed to clean up a much smaller mess. The National Debt? Obama will likely be the 4th president president to not lower the Gross Debt since WW2 but only because he inherited such a monumental screwed up pile of crap economy that started melting down before he even ran for president. The other 3 presidents who didn't lower the Gross Debt had no valid fiscal reason to raise the Gross Debt.

 

Bush's and McCain's economic advisors (at least the highest ranking smarter ones) say without the actions of the Obama and Bush (taken soon after the meltdown hit critical mass while Bush was still in office) administrations, we would have much higher unemployment (their estimate range from 15% to 25%) than the slightly less than 10 % we have now (about the same as it was at 2-1/2 years into the Reagan administration, again after inheriting a much better economy and no wars.)

 

So you can keep saying facts ain't facts but they are still true. Let's see...Big mess... before he got here... smart informed people realize it will take some more time (especially since the crap is still being sprayed into the fan by the less than truthful revisionists.)

Sorry your spin just does not work. This was the worst August for stocks since 2001. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467004575463152437588596.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection The big money folks who supported this President are even starting to reliaze their mistake. It is hurting their own pocketbooks now.

Hey even Barbara Streisand is backing away and criticizing him as well she should.

[rbpls]

Sorry your spin just does not work. This was the worst August for stocks since 2001. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467004575463152437588596.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection The big money folks who supported this President are even starting to reliaze their mistake. It is hurting their own pocketbooks now.

Hey even Barbara Streisand is backing away and criticizing him as well she should.

You keep pointing out things that resulted from things set in motion before Obama even ran for president. When Reagan kept saying that he needed more time to fix the mess he inherited (really very rosy compared to what Obama inherited) were you saying things against Reagan similar to what you assert today? I doubt it. And any reasonably informed political junkie should realize it really is a bigger mess he inherited and could not have created.

 

Do you have anything valid or real to bash Obama with? Like maybe a serious factual critique of a faulty policy? I do. But I really have issues with just repeating false talking points which is the typical piling on done to Obama.

[NewsJunky]

You keep pointing out things that resulted from things set in motion before Obama even ran for president. When Reagan kept saying that he needed more time to fix the mess he inherited (really very rosy compared to what Obama inherited) were you saying things against Reagan similar to what you assert today? I doubt it. And any reasonably informed political junkie should realize it really is a bigger mess he inherited and could not have created.

 

Do you have anything valid or real to bash Obama with? Like maybe a serious factual critique of a faulty policy? I do. But I really have issues with just repeating false talking points which is the typical piling on done to Obama.

 

You just can't stop blaming Bush and now you are calling up the name of Reagan to help make your case! BUSH IS NOT THE P R E S I D E N T!! OBAMA IS AND HE OWNS this economy!!! I typed it real slow for ya!!

[Cathyhelms]

Get 'em NJ. You might have to slow it down just a little bit more. k--i--n--d--a-- l--i--k--e-- t--h--i--s :rofl: :rofl:

[NewsJunky]

Get 'em NJ. You might have to slow it down just a little bit more. k--i--n--d--a-- l--i--k--e-- t--h--i--s

 

Yep, I could add some of them dashes too!!!

[rbpls]

You just can't stop blaming Bush and now you are calling up the name of Reagan to help make your case! BUSH IS NOT THE P R E S I D E N T!! OBAMA IS AND HE OWNS this economy!!! I typed it real slow for ya!!

 

Just like I thought. Since you got nuttin', I guess that's all you can do. Don't worry about your typing or my reading speed. It's more than adequate. You might want to try having some substance though. Just a suggestion.

 

Where's the beef? Real info, that kind of thing...just wondering...

[NewsJunky]

Just like I thought. Since you got nuttin', I guess that's all you can do. Don't worry about your typing or my reading speed. It's more than adequate. You might want to try having some substance though. Just a suggestion.

 

Where's the beef? Real info, that kind of thing...just wondering...

 

 

Don't need much when folks can't stop trying to make excuses for the guy in charge. I won't vote to give him more control by giving him more State House seats in Georgia or voting to give over this state to someone who will help give him and his czars more Federal control over Georgia. That would be Roy. I still can't understand what part of that folks don't understand.

[Mason Rountree]

Did you say I had something wrong about Reagan? I noticed you said I got something wrong but neglected to give specifics.

 

I am frustrated with the present economic situation. Who wouldn't be? But to imagine that the people who were not even in office when it started caused it....or that the monstrous train wreck that Obama inherited (objectively way way worse than anything Reagan had to deal with) could be fixed in way less time that Reagan needed to make much more minor repairs...

 

The Reagan zombies (those who refuse to admit that voo-doo economics failed to perform as promised) are perpetually trying to re-write history. Reagan used Keynesian stimulus to rev up the economy but failed to start paying the deficit down when things improved. Had he been fiscally more astute, he would not have failed to lower the Gross Debt. Very simple and undeniably true.

 

The other thing he did wrong in his Keynesian stimulus spending is that the deficit financing was not used to repair or build new infrastructure. There was failure to build the foundation for future prosperity. (eg: Eisenhower and interstates, etc)

 

And guess who blew (like drunken sailors) much of the money we sure could use now to revive jobs and this economy...

 

 

As George Santayana once said, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

From the content of your posts, it is apparent that you opposed the Kemp-Roth Bill of 1981, which was enacted with bipartisan support. At that time, the top marginal tax rate was 70% and the lowest bracket was 20%. Under this bill, all rates were cut across the board by 25%-30% over three years and taxes were indexed for inflation, which was especially acute at 12.5% following the failed Carter presidency (not to mention high unemployment and almost 20% interest rates...and that when Carter started the presidency in 1977 the inflation rate was under 5%). Keynesian critics argued that the tax cuts would cause hyperinflation, while supply-siders argued inflation would be cut to 4% within 10 years. Opponents also claimed tax receipts would plummet from the tax cuts. At that time, federal tax receipts were approximately $600 billion. Additionally, in 1981, the top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes.

 

By 1988 when Reagan left office, economic growth was remarkable and average over 3% per year since the tax cuts were enacted, which also included the recession in 1982. Twenty million jobs had been created, inflation was at 4% and interest rates declined dramatically. Interestingly, tax receipts increased to almost $1 trillion in 1988 and the top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes, which was a significant increase from 1981. Simultaneosuly, the percentage of income taxes paid by the lower income earners was substantially lower in 1988 as compared to 1981.

 

Even President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors released a statement in 1994 that "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980's was a strong impetus to economic growth."

 

So, now that we know you oppose tax cuts and indexing for inflation and favor a return to the 70% top bracket and lowest bracket of 20% (heck, maybe we should go back to the 90% top bracket until Kennedy cut taxes in the 1960's), how would you have cut over $1 trillion in spending in the 1980's from governmental spending (which the government would not have received but for the tax cuts in 1981)?

 

So you can talk about revisionist history by us zombies who were inspired by the tremendous success of the Reagan years. But before doing so, I would suggest that you take George Santayana's admonition to heart.

[Cathyhelms]

I remember the Carter years, they were before Reagan. How many actually remember runaway inflation, gas lines, interest rates in the double digits for mortgages?? And they think 0bama inherited a mess??

 

BTW I lost a lot of interest in the Dems during the Carter years. Oh yea, we can't forget about the hostages in Iran.

[NewsJunky]

I remember the Carter years, they were before Reagan. How many actually remember runaway inflation, gas lines, interest rates in the double digits for mortgages?? And they think 0bama inherited a mess??

 

BTW I lost a lot of interest in the Dems during the Carter years. Oh yea, we can't forget about the hostages in Iran.

 

 

Obama has Carter beat as the worst President and I didn't think that could ever happen. I am not happy about it, I am afraid for all the folks who need jobs.

 

As George Santayana once said, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

From the content of your posts, it is apparent that you opposed the Kemp-Roth Bill of 1981, which was enacted with bipartisan support. At that time, the top marginal tax rate was 70% and the lowest bracket was 20%. Under this bill, all rates were cut across the board by 25%-30% over three years and taxes were indexed for inflation, which was especially acute at 12.5% following the failed Carter presidency (not to mention high unemployment and almost 20% interest rates...and that when Carter started the presidency in 1977 the inflation rate was under 5%). Keynesian critics argued that the tax cuts would cause hyperinflation, while supply-siders argued inflation would be cut to 4% within 10 years. Opponents also claimed tax receipts would plummet from the tax cuts. At that time, federal tax receipts were approximately $600 billion. Additionally, in 1981, the top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes.

 

By 1988 when Reagan left office, economic growth was remarkable and average over 3% per year since the tax cuts were enacted, which also included the recession in 1982. Twenty million jobs had been created, inflation was at 4% and interest rates declined dramatically. Interestingly, tax receipts increased to almost $1 trillion in 1988 and the top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes, which was a significant increase from 1981. Simultaneosuly, the percentage of income taxes paid by the lower income earners was substantially lower in 1988 as compared to 1981.

 

Even President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors released a statement in 1994 that "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980's was a strong impetus to economic growth."

 

So, now that we know you oppose tax cuts and indexing for inflation and favor a return to the 70% top bracket and lowest bracket of 20% (heck, maybe we should go back to the 90% top bracket until Kennedy cut taxes in the 1960's), how would you have cut over $1 trillion in spending in the 1980's from governmental spending (which the government would not have received but for the tax cuts in 1981)?

 

So you can talk about revisionist history by us zombies who were inspired by the tremendous success of the Reagan years. But before doing so, I would suggest that you take George Santayana's admonition to heart.

 

[feelip]

I remember the Carter years, they were before Reagan. How many actually remember runaway inflation, gas lines, interest rates in the double digits for mortgages?? And they think 0bama inherited a mess??

 

BTW I lost a lot of interest in the Dems during the Carter years. Oh yea, we can't forget about the hostages in Iran.

 

 

But, but, but isn't that like blaming the dumber Bush for the airplanes flying into the WTC and the Pentagon and the ground?

[Cathyhelms]

But, but, but isn't that like blaming the dumber Bush for the airplanes flying into the WTC and the Pentagon and the ground?

 

Um, the hostages were taken during Carter's tenure, he couldn't secure their release. Reagan got them released, what does this have to do with Bush and the planes?? BTW, I think Bush handled the WTC very, very well. He helped inspire more patriotism in America than I had seen in years and years.

[feelip]

Um, the hostages were taken during Carter's tenure, he couldn't secure their release. Reagan got them released, what does this have to do with Bush and the planes?? BTW, I think Bush handled the WTC very, very well. He helped inspire more patriotism in America than I had seen in years and years.

 

 

Really? I'm saying Carter had about as much to do with the hostage crisis as Bush did with the WTC attack.

 

I thought I remembered this correctly, but the hostages were released the day Reagan took office so I really don't see how he can take much credit for that.

 

But after 4 years of Jimmy Carter driving the bus, we were ready for ANYTHING. And personally I prefer Reagan get the credit than that idiot Carter.

 

Hostage Crisis Ends

 

The beginning of the end of the Iran hostage crisis occurred on September 12th, 1980, as Ayatollah Khomeini announced four conditions for the release of the hostages.

 

The conditions were these:

 

The shah's American fortune, amounting to billions of dollars, was to be remitted to the Iranian government.

American claims against Iran in the International Court of Justice were to be nullified.

Iranian assets frozen in American banks were to be released.

The United States was to promise never to interfere with Iran's affairs.

 

American diplomats entered into tense negotiations with Iran, with the neutral nation of Algeria serving as an intermediary. By January 17, 1981, an agreement had been hammered out, with essentially the same provisions. After a last-minute delay, ostensibly because of the problems of transferring huge amounts of money between the U.S. and Iran, the hostages were released.

 

On January 20, 1981, as Ronald Reagan became President, the hostages were flown from Teheran to Europe, and on to New York.

The crisis was over.

[NewsJunky]

Really? I'm saying Carter had about as much to do with the hostage crisis as Bush did with the WTC attack.

 

I thought I remembered this correctly, but the hostages were released the day Reagan took office so I really don't see how he can take much credit for that.

 

But after 4 years of Jimmy Carter driving the bus, we were ready for ANYTHING. And personally I prefer Reagan get the credit than that idiot Carter.

 

Hostage Crisis Ends

 

The beginning of the end of the Iran hostage crisis occurred on September 12th, 1980, as Ayatollah Khomeini announced four conditions for the release of the hostages.

 

The conditions were these:

 

The shah's American fortune, amounting to billions of dollars, was to be remitted to the Iranian government.

American claims against Iran in the International Court of Justice were to be nullified.

Iranian assets frozen in American banks were to be released.

The United States was to promise never to interfere with Iran's affairs.

 

American diplomats entered into tense negotiations with Iran, with the neutral nation of Algeria serving as an intermediary. By January 17, 1981, an agreement had been hammered out, with essentially the same provisions. After a last-minute delay, ostensibly because of the problems of transferring huge amounts of money between the U.S. and Iran, the hostages were released.

 

On January 20, 1981, as Ronald Reagan became President, the hostages were flown from Teheran to Europe, and on to New York.

The crisis was over.

 

 

But he did not have the ability to get them released and failed miserably in the rescue attempt because he had to have control over it from Washington. It was just the last of many failures on Carter's part. He was a weak President!!! Reagan told Iran the bombs would fall as soon as he took office and they released the hostages while Reagan was being inaugurated.

[Cathyhelms]

But he did not have the ability to get them released and failed miserably in the rescue attempt because he had to have control over it from Washington. It was just the last of many failures on Carter's part. He was a weak President!!! Reagan told Iran the bombs would fall as soon as he took office and they released the hostages while Reagan was being inaugurated.

 

Yep, they weren't a bit scared of Jimmah, but they knew Reagan meant business. He negotiated their release before he was even inaugurated. Actually right after he was elected. Remember when home mortgage rates were 14% and 15% under Jimmy?? And those gas lines, hours and hours waiting, wasting what little gas you had left.

[NewsJunky]

Yep, they weren't a bit scared of Jimmah, but they knew Reagan meant business. He negotiated their release before he was even inaugurated. Actually right after he was elected. Remember when home mortgage rates were 14% and 15% under Jimmy?? And those gas lines, hours and hours waiting, wasting what little gas you had left.

 

I remember all of that. Did not think we would ever be able to buy a home because of those interest rates. I am sorry to say that I voted for him. Boy did I learn my lesson!

[Cathyhelms]

I remember all of that. Did not think we would ever be able to buy a home because of those interest rates. I am sorry to say that I voted for him. Boy did I learn my lesson!

 

Oh to be young and naive again. I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then. He was the last Democrat I voted for.

[NewsJunky]

Oh to be young and naive again. I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then. He was the last Democrat I voted for.

 

 

Me too! Won't make that mistake again.