Mark Haines of CNBC is a A-Hole

Quote from Free Thinker:

It’s conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan’s watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly–but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year’s reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike–the largest since World War II–was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn’t count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.


This record flummoxes the best efforts of today’s Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president’s tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As governor, Reagan was the biggest California spender of the last half century. Under him, state spending leaped 177%. And as president, he spent like the proverbial drunken sailor to expand the Navy and the nuclear missile arsenal while winning the Cold War. He left Washington with a then-record national debt.

His first year as governor, Reagan raised taxes equal to 30% of the state general fund, still a modern record. And as president, he increased taxes several times, although conservatives pretend to remember only the one big tax cut.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024155.php

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More...


I never said in my orginal post that the economic expansion was because of cut taxes, in fact i never even mentioned taxes. The fact is that under Reagan the economy expanded like no time before.

Annual growth of over 4%, over 20 million jobs created, etc etc.
Unemployment just over 5%. Considering he came into office with high inflation as well as unemployment, thats something to marvel. I believe this carried over into the 90's with Clinton taking much of the credit for doing nothing but breathing.


Now, I know people will come back with the wild spending. But lets face reality, we have been in a deficit since WW2, have we paid any of it down? no...it means nothing, it will always be there. I am tired of people talking about our next generation being stuck with the deficit, 3 generations were stuck with it and no one said a word. The deficit itself is meaningless. HOWEVER, the interest we have to pay on it is a problem. That never gets talked about it but thats the only problem with the deficit. But really even the interest is just a minor problem.
 
Quote from david666:


Now, I know people will come back with the wild spending. But lets face reality, we have been in a deficit since WW2, have we paid any of it down? no...it means nothing, it will always be there. I am tired of people talking about our next generation being stuck with the deficit, 3 generations were stuck with it and no one said a word. The deficit itself is meaningless. HOWEVER, the interest we have to pay on it is a problem. That never gets talked about it but thats the only problem with the deficit. But really even the interest is just a minor problem. [/B]
More...

I agree with the premise of this portion of your statement, however, when we can NOT meet our interest payments then what? (You think this is a minor problem?) Well NUFF said. . .
 
Quote from nickdes:

I agree with the premise of this portion of your statement, however, when we can NOT meet our interest payments then what? (You think this is a minor problem?) Well NUFF said. . .
More...

We will just borrow to pay the interest. Thats how it works and thats how it will continue to work. And if a country does not want to buy our bonds, well we got some bombs we can give away....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top