This is absolutley a debate: The Reagan Presidency.

[gometros]

Originally posted by Pongo69

As far as what Chicago 526 said, I don't find anything offensive about it. She is entitled to her own opinion.
We took care of my granny and my father before they passed. Yes it was hard and sometimes stressful, because you don't want to see someone you love so much suffer.
People really need to stop being so sensitive just because others don't agree with you.

I couldn't find the original quote you referenced, but if I choose to c0onnect to this debate on a personal level, who assigned anybody to be the feelings police? It is apparent by this discussion that people have connected to this debate on many different levels. If I choose to relate one person's loss to my own personal loss, that is my business and nobody else's.

As far as your comment about sensitivity, so let me get this straight. Chicago 526 is stating an opinion, but I'm just being senstitive? It's amazing how people who want equality for all don't seem to want to give equal time to those who disagree with them.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Pyg Me
Let me help you out on a couple of those things you mention:

"Mass firing of ATC'rs" First of all, did you realize the it is not only against federal law for them to strike, it was against their contract. PATCO (Proffessional Air Traffic Controller's Organization) led their membership wrong. When they hinted at a strike, Presidnent Reagan SPECIFICALLY told them they would be fired. PATCO called his bluff and lost.

.

This action with PATCO wasn't only instrumental in protecting air traffic and commerce in the United States and abroad but it sent a very clear message to the Soviets; that President Reagan means what he says. The Soviet government concluded that if he would fire his own people in such a broad way, that he would follow through on what ever threat that he made and they learned early that they needed to take this president seriously.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43

Do we all want to go back to a top tax rate of 70%? Reagan dropped it to 28%. It's now back up to 35% thanks to....anyone? anyone? (boy, those were the days! I'd love to be paying 28% rather than the 35% I pay now). And Reagan's own advisors wanted him to pull back on the cuts. Thankfully, he didn't. Gotta love a President that does what he promises.

I'm on a mission against revisionist history...Reagan did raise taxes. In fact, he was responsible for the largest peacetime inflation-adjusted tax increase in US history. I admire him for adjusting his policy when the initial tax cuts caused soaring deficits. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

Following is an except from today's NY Times column by Paul Krugman, who's a professor of economics at Princeton. You don't have to agree with Krugman's politics to agree with the facts he lays out about what happened with taxes while Reagan was president:
>>>

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

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.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

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.

>>>

 

[Pyg Me]

Originally posted by emmagata
Well they weren't very smart.

Afghanistan is landlocked.

That is unless they planned on going through Pakistan to get to the ocean.

Yes sir, that was the intent. They figured that rolling through Afghanistan would be the easy part. RWR was the fly in the ointment.

 

[Pyg Me]

Originally posted by KarenC
I'm on a mission against revisionist history...Reagan did raise taxes. In fact, he was responsible for the largest peacetime inflation-adjusted tax increase in US history. I admire him for adjusting his policy when the initial tax cuts caused soaring deficits. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

Following is an except from today's NY Times column by Paul Krugman, who's a professor of economics at Princeton. You don't have to agree with Krugman's politics to agree with the facts he lays out about what happened with taxes while Reagan was president:
>>>

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

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.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

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.

>>>

YOu have do quote from some other source than the NYT in order to have a modicum of fairness for the conservative viewpoint.

 

[ford family]

Great Ronald Reagan quote by Mark Steyn in todays Daily Telegraph,

"'We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around"

I wish that applied to the EU.

ford family

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Pyg Me
YOu have do quote from some other source than the NYT in order to have a modicum of fairness for the conservative viewpoint.

The FACT that Reagan raised taxes should not be a matter of dispute. The Krugman column provided a succinct way to make illustrate this fact.

Reagan signed at least three major tax increases:

1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act which raised corporate taxes and made previously non-taxable income, taxable
1984 Deficit Reduction Act (which included large increases to social security and medicare taxes)
1986 Tax Reform Act which, among other things, created the marriage penalty

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by KarenC
The FACT that Reagan raised taxes should not be a matter of dispute. The Krugman column provided a succinct way to make illustrate this fact.

Reagan signed at least three major tax increases:

1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act which raised corporate taxes and made previously non-taxable income, taxable
1984 Deficit Reduction Act (which included large increases to social security and medicare taxes)
1986 Tax Reform Act which, among other things, created the marriage penalty

Since we are trying not to be revisionist, would you quantify that which yu are calling "huge" and "major"?

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Quite simply, the best president, by far, of all of our lifetimes. And, he was one of the 5 best ever.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Galahad
Since we are trying not to be revisionist, would you quantify that which yu are calling "huge" and "major"?

The 1982 Act raised taxes by $130 billion dollars and was the largest peacetime tax increase (adjusted for inflation) in our history.

The 1984 Act raised taxes by another $72 billion. Those of us who pay the maximum amount of social security taxes still see this increase each year as the amount of income subject to social security taxes increases each year and all income is taxed for medicare and is no longer capped as it was before 1984.

The 1986 Act removed the deductability of IRAs for most taxpayers, repealed the investment tax credit and eliminated special treatment for capital gains.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
At the very least, you BOTH need to quote the right individual. I never posted that "Reagan was hated." In fact, you quote me and then talk about something that doesn't even relate.

I should let it die, but did you not say??

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
The dead are dead. They don't care what anyone says about them.


-----------------------------------------------------------
That was where your quote ended. If you didn't say that, I am sorry I got the quote wrong!

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by KarenC
The 1982 Act raised taxes by $130 billion dollars and was the largest peacetime tax increase (adjusted for inflation) in our history.

The 1984 Act raised taxes by another $72 billion. Those of us who pay the maximum amount of social security taxes still see this increase each year as the amount of income subject to social security taxes increases each year and all income is taxed for medicare and is no longer capped as it was before 1984.

The 1986 Act removed the deductability of IRAs for most taxpayers, repealed the investment tax credit and eliminated special treatment for capital gains.

Right. Fair enough. I remeber those too. But considered without also citing the tax reductions, increased revenue because of LOWER rates, etc. then it seems to me that listing these by themselves is no less a spin than only citing the cuts.

Also, I think that the 82 increases are no longer the largest. By some accounts (numbers can always be disputed) the 93 increase was larger, even with inflation accounted for.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Galahad
Right. Fair enough. I remeber those too. But considered without also citing the tax reductions, increased revenue because of LOWER rates, etc. then it seems to me that listing these by themselves is no less a spin than only citing the cuts.

Also, I think that the 82 increases are no longer the largest. By some accounts (numbers can always be disputed) the 93 increase was larger, even with inflation accounted for.

Yep, not to mention that the 93 increase hurt individuals because of the increase in the individual tax rates, whereas President Reagan's increases didn't do that. Of course, it's always popular to increase the taxes of the producers so that it can be handed out to the non-producers.

As for the SS increases that President Reagan signed, IIRC that act simply accelerated increases that were already projected. Still an increase, no doubt, and to a lousy system at that. But that's for another debate.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Galahad
Right. Fair enough. I remeber those too. But considered without also citing the tax reductions, increased revenue because of LOWER rates, etc. then it seems to me that listing these by themselves is no less a spin than only citing the cuts.

Also, I think that the 82 increases are no longer the largest. By some accounts (numbers can always be disputed) the 93 increase was larger, even with inflation accounted for.

I didn't mean to disregard the 81 tax cuts. I went off on this topic in response to the assertion that Reagan refused to raise taxes despite pressure to do so. I think lowering rates from their stratospheric levels was appropriate. And I also think it was appropriate to raise taxes (or reduce spending) when the deficit soared.

According to a study performed by an economist in the Office of Tax Analysis in the Treasury, the 1982 tax increase only slightly exceeded Clinton's 1993 increase in inflation-adjusted dollars ($37 billion a year vs.. $32 billion) but it was much bigger in relation to the size of the economy. The '82 increase amounted to 4.6% of GDP (average for the first two years) while Clinton's was 2.7%.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=173

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KarenC
I'm on a mission against revisionist history...Reagan did raise taxes. In fact, he was responsible for the largest peacetime inflation-adjusted tax increase in US history. I admire him for adjusting his policy when the initial tax cuts caused soaring deficits. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

Following is an except from today's NY Times column by Paul Krugman, who's a professor of economics at Princeton. You don't have to agree with Krugman's politics to agree with the facts he lays out about what happened with taxes while Reagan was president:
>>>

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

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.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

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.

>>>

You missed another point in Krugman's resume. He was a consultant for Enron and got 50K to write pro-Enron article. But, I digress.

I never suggested Reagan didn't have the need to raise taxes. Of course, to Krugman any tax increase is good and any tax decrease is bad.

I'll still take a 28% top tax rate, wouldn't you?

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yep, not to mention that the 93 increase hurt individuals because of the increase in the individual tax rates, whereas President Reagan's increases didn't do that.

All of these increases came at a time when we were first married, starting a family and buying our first house. A time in my life where we needed every cent we earned, and when we weren't earning very much.

The amount of money taken out of my check increased with the social security tax increase. The institution of the marriage penalty increased the rate at which our joint income was taxed. Instead of paying lower taxes on what we'd saved for our house, that money was taxed at a higher rate than it would have been before. The interest on my husband's student loans had been tax deductible and no longer was.

Believe me, we felt the impact of those tax increases at the time. But I also realize that they set the stage for lower interest rates which made our dream of home ownership accessible.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Instead of paying lower taxes on what we'd saved for our house, that money was taxed at a higher rate than it would have been before.

Why were you paying taxes on what you had saved for your house? Had you not already paid taxes on the money when you earned it?

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Like I said, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. But "important" is not the same thing as "good" or "admirable."

MHopkins2, I agree 100%. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[dmadman43]

Instead of paying lower taxes on what we'd saved for our house, that money was taxed at a higher rate than it would have been before

I don't remember there ever being double-taxation. When was that implemented?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KarenC
All of these increases came at a time when we were first married, starting a family and buying our first house. A time in my life where we needed every cent we earned, and when we weren't earning very much.

The amount of money taken out of my check increased with the social security tax increase. The institution of the marriage penalty increased the rate at which our joint income was taxed. Instead of paying lower taxes on what we'd saved for our house, that money was taxed at a higher rate than it would have been before. The interest on my husband's student loans had been tax deductible and no longer was.

Believe me, we felt the impact of those tax increases at the time. But I also realize that they set the stage for lower interest rates which made our dream of home ownership accessible.

Well, I sure felt the impact of going from 70% to 28%