This is absolutley a debate: The Reagan Presidency.

[jrydberg]

Just for the record on taxes, it's rather difficult to paint Reagan as a tax increaser. Yes, he raised taxes, but after he cut them dramatically. So he slashed taxes big time, then raised them somewhat off those low levels. Net result, significantly lower taxes in almost all areas.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43

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?

I went back and re-read your post. Although I thought you wrote that people wanted Reagan to raise taxes but he didn't, you meant that he kept the rates he wanted in place. That is mostly true (there was some quirk that had some taxpayers, not those at the highest level, paying 33%). Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

If we had a honest discussion, and followed through on it, about what government spending to cut so we could have a 28% top tax rate, I would be all for it.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I don't remember there ever being double-taxation. When was that implemented?

Long term capital gains were taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Unfortunately, the year we cashed in to buy our house was shortly after the tax code was changed to treat earned income and capital gains at the same rates.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Well, I sure felt the impact of going from 70% to 28%

Considering I was making close to minimum wage until 1980, and not much more when I graduated from college, I never had any short term unearned income that got taxed at the highest rate.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
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?

We paid taxes on the capital gains. The amount of our initial investment wasn't taxed again.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by KarenC
Considering I was making close to minimum wage until 1980, and not much more when I graduated from college, I never had any short term unearned income that got taxed at the highest rate.

If you were making minimum wage, I'd be surprised you were paying any federal income taxes at all.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

The deficit thing is inaccurate? Do numbers lie? Reagan accumulated the largest deficit in history!

The federal deficit fell from 6.3% of GNP in fiscal 1983 to 3.2% in 1988.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by Douglas Dubh
The federal deficit fell from 6.3% of GNP in fiscal 1983 to 3.2% in 1988.

And this is why raw numbers mean absoultely nothing! If the numbers aren't inflation-adjusted, and/or percentage of GDP, you should always ignore them. Inflation alone will ensure that the raw dollar figures will constantly increase over time. Gas prices are higher in raw numbers now than during the oil embargo of the 70s, but lower when adjusted for inflation than during that crisis.

 

[Bobbles]

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."

Could you let the rest of know what sources you would need to see? Please do not say, "The DrudgeReport", "Newsmax.com", "Rush Limbaugh"! HA HA! Just kidding.

But I really would like to know what sources you would consider to be taken seriously by the conservatives. So far as I can tell, neither the right or the left ever accept any sources unless they fit into the reader's preconceived beliefs.

And I truly loved Ronald Reagan.
I was in the Navy during the 70's and 80's, so I didn't have to worry about unemployment.

The current administration is not quite what I believe in. That's my opinion.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by dmadman43
As to your last point. While in hindsight there was much to beconcerned about in Iran-Contra deal, Congress refused to fund the fight against Communism in Latin America, and Reagan refused to relent on winning the Cold War. His strategy was to have the Soviets spend beyond their means, mainly to maintain territory they thought they had already gained. So, I'm not I would classify that as "govts will do deals with terrorists", but I understand the point you are trying to make. It definately helped in winning Cold War, however.

I'm not sure what the Iran-Contra affair had to do with the cold war but never mind. The point is, the Reagan admin agreed to sell arms to Iran in return for the release of US hostages in Lebanon. That's doing deals with terrorists, plain and simple. But as I've said before, that's not unique, all governments do it and deny doing it. It's just a fact of life.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by acepepper
I'm not sure what the Iran-Contra affair had to do with the cold war but never mind. The point is, the Reagan admin agreed to sell arms to Iran in return for the release of US hostages in Lebanon. That's doing deals with terrorists, plain and simple. But as I've said before, that's not unique, all governments do it and deny doing it. It's just a fact of life.

Actually I always thought that Iran Contra was a wonderful idea. Sell the Iranians a bunch of obsolete, useless weapons and use the money to fund freedom fighters and eliminate communism in Central America. The point Dmadman was making is that it cost the Soviets additional money to fund their interests all over the world, money that would soon be exhausted and bring an end to the cold war. Personally, I think President Reagan set the plan to eliminate communism and didn't get bogged down in all of the details, which I believe gave him legitimate deniability with regard to Iran-Contra. Again, a great idea.

 

[year2late]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Actually I always thought that Iran Contra was a wonderful idea. Sell the Iranians a bunch of obsolete, useless weapons and use the money to fund freedom fighters and eliminate communism in Central America.

Were the useless weapons ever used?

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by year2late
Were the useless weapons ever used?

Does it matter? Do you think that there was a shortage of weapons ever in Iran? It seems like a small price to pay for the liberation of millions in Nicaragua.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Does it matter? Do you think that there was a shortage of weapons ever in Iran? It seems like a small price to pay for the liberation of millions in Nicaragua.

More important, the prevention of the establishment of another communist state within our region. What has Iran done since? I mean, afterall, aren't we being told there was never anything to worry about in that region of the world?

 

[year2late]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Does it matter? Do you think that there was a shortage of weapons ever in Iran? It seems like a small price to pay for the liberation of millions in Nicaragua.

So it is ok to deal with terrorists?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by year2late
So it is ok to deal with terrorists?

Iran is a terrorist govt? When did that happen? I thought no country in that part of the world was a threat.,