Remember when Ronald Reagan was president?

[TomT]

We also had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash still with us...
Now we have Obama … no hope and no cash.

[Bob E.]

I keep hearing how the economy and unemployment rates are the worst they've been since 1982-1983.  Who was president then??

[PAVALKER]

Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989. He defeated Jimmy Carter in Carter's reelection campaign in 1980. Reagan's Vice-President George H. W. Bush ran for President in the election of 1988.

The Republicans had control of the Senate and the Democrats had control of the House.

Ronald Reagan :
1. restored American pride after the Iran Hostage Crisis and showed the world that the United States will not turn its back on its allies; foreign policy freed hundreds of millions in Latin America.
2. Strategic Defense Initiative led to a nuclear arms reduction and forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, ending the Cold War.
3. Reaganomics stopped rampant inflation and unemployment during the Carter administration. his tax cuts helped businesses thrive, causing many people to move up in society's ladder.
4. modernized the military with the development of the B2 Bomber, F22 Raptor, B-1 Lancer, M1 Abrams Tank, and Humvee.

the Democrats controlled Congress in 1982.

So, to pull an Obamaism..... Reagan inherited it....  

[fstsix]

Tom T: i like that, like Cash said, You got to walk through hell before you get to Heaven. Mr president lack of talent. http://www.ipi.org/ipi/ipipressreleases.nsf/de71f67b783e9324862567fb002173f9/a05b1b80501545938625755b00588a9a?OpenDocument

[Charlie]

Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989. He defeated Jimmy Carter in Carter's reelection campaign in 1980. Reagan's Vice-President George H. W. Bush ran for President in the election of 1988.

The Republicans had control of the Senate and the Democrats had control of the House.

Ronald Reagan :
1. restored American pride after the Iran Hostage Crisis and showed the world that the United States will not turn its back on its allies; foreign policy freed hundreds of millions in Latin America.
2. Strategic Defense Initiative led to a nuclear arms reduction and forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, ending the Cold War.
3. Reaganomics stopped rampant inflation and unemployment during the Carter administration. his tax cuts helped businesses thrive, causing many people to move up in society's ladder.
4. modernized the military with the development of the B2 Bomber, F22 Raptor, B-1 Lancer, M1 Abrams Tank, and Humvee.

the Democrats controlled Congress in 1982.

So, to pull an Obamaism..... Reagan inherited it....  

Disagree with No. 2.  The only pride restored was that on the conservative side.  Many Americans were still reeling from his actions as late as 1984.

Disagree with No. 3.  In that time period, he deregulated the Trucking and Air Traffic Controlers and caused countless trucking companies and air traffic controllers to loose their livelyhoods.  Congress was not responsible for either act.

Clearly, I am no fan of Reagan.

[Bob E.]

Reganomics contributed to the "Rich get Richer while the Poor get Poorer" more than anything.  He was anti-union, anti-worker and pro big corporations/big business.  I can personally attest that the 80's were a terrible time for blue-collar working families.  My dad worked in a union factory for over 15 years before he was laid off for so long that our family had to rely on welfare, food stamps, and food banks for a couple years in the mid-80's.  The only benefit was that our family was so poor that by 1989 when it was time for me to go to college, we were able to qualify for some small grants and low-interest student loans...that I am still repaying, by the way.  Reganomics also contributed to (at the time) one of the largest federal defecits/debt that the country had ever seen and put our country on a path towards ever-growing federal debt that I doubt we'll ever recover from.  I'll give him some kudos on some of his foreign policy items, but...even then he had selective memory when the waters got rough around him.  I thought it was rather ironic that he ended up with altzheimers disease.  Even his own kids didn't like him.

[Steve K (IA)]

We also had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash still with us...
Now we have Obama … no hope and no cash.

I remember quite well.  I lost my job, no hope and of course no cash for 4 years ('82-'86) because of that POS Reagan.   And recently was unemployed for 9 1/2 months because of the economic downturn that shrub left us with.    Finally got a new job 3 weeks ago and it is working out to be the best job I have ever had...wouldn't you know, 1 year away from retirement.   So now I have hope and after doing some catching up, will have cash. 

[fstsix]

I was there in 1982 working, Never did i see so many people loosing their homes and jobs as i do now, Yes we were in a recession, but you could still sell your home, the banks were not failing, and i did not pay 7.25 for a quart of paint thinner that one year ago was 1.59.                                                 By the end of the 1970s, Keynesian economics was killing the American economy, with double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation, and soon double-digit unemployment. It was called stagflation -- stagnant economic growth along with roaring inflation. According to Keynesian theory, this result was impossible. You couldn't be both overspending to cause inflation and underspending to cause stagnation.

Reagan did the right thing for all concerned, and put Keynesian economics out of its misery. He adopted tight, anti-inflation monetary policies that worked spectacularly to reduce inflation to 3% by 1983. Then to get economic growth booming, he adopted sharp cuts in marginal tax rates, reducing the top marginal income tax rate from 70% first to 50%, then cutting it further all the way down to 28%, with just one more rate of 15% for middle income workers and below. He also adopted sharp cuts in corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates, as well as a thorough program of deregulation reducing business costs.

The Keynesian economists of the time all laughed, with one of the smartest making the celebrated comment that the Reagan economic plan was the equivalent of tying locomotives to both ends of the same train facing opposite directions and sending them both forward full throttle. Under Keynesian analysis, this is, indeed, what it was.

But besides the rapid elimination of serious inflation, the result was what economists Art Laffer and Steve Moore have recently explained was a 25-year economic boom, from 1982 to 2007, disrupted only by two short, shallow recessions. In their new book, The End of Prosperity, Laffer and Moore write,

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom -- the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."

Indeed, the result was a worldwide boom lifting many nations towards greater prosperity, aided by spreading global adoption of the same policies. These policies were called "supply-side" economics, because they focused on increasing supply instead of the Keynesian focus on increasing aggregate demand.

Obama's No-Growth Tax Cuts

Obama and his defenders keep saying his stimulus package includes a balance of tax cuts as well as increased government spending, alleging that "We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems." But Obama's tax cuts are Keynesian "garbage" as well, as Barro recently called them.

The centerpiece of Obama's tax cuts is, again, the $500 per worker tax credit. But that credit is the equivalent of just sending a welfare check of $500 to everyone, as far as economic stimulus is concerned. It is just another way of trying to increase overall spending, just like the Bush stimulus "tax" rebates adopted early in 2008, which also failed utterly to revive the economy. Neither those Bush rebates nor the Obama credits do anything to change the fundamental incentives that govern the economy, the incentives to save, invest, start or expand a business, take risks, etc. That requires supply-side tax cuts which reduce tax rates, as we have seen.

But for Obama, time stopped in 1979, and he talks and acts as if Reagan and everything he did never happened. While he says he is interested only in what works, not ideology, just the opposite is true. He won't consider the tax rate cuts that worked spectacularly for Reagan, and Kennedy, and Bush also, because of his unreconstructed liberal/left ideology. Instead he is embracing just what that ideology commands, a trillion dollar addition to spending, the deficit, and Big Government. Obama is developing a pattern of saying the opposite of what he is doing, which is another Saul Alinsky tactic.

The Gingrich Revolution

In sharp contrast to Obama and his ideological delusions, Newt Gingrich has recently offered an economic recovery plan that is based on modern economics and what would work. It includes a reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to the 12.5% rate that over the past 20 years has lifted the standard of living in Ireland from the bottom of the EU to the top. It would eliminate the capital gains tax to match China, Singapore, and other international competitors, enticing capital investment from the world over to America. It would provide middle class tax relief by reducing the 25% income tax bracket to 15%, establishing a flat rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers. He would also cut the payroll tax by 50% for 2 years.

Gingrich also proposes to control government spending to balance the budget, something he achieved when he was Speaker of the House. He would adopt a real, comprehensive energy program that would allow production of domestic U.S. oil and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, clean coal, ethanol, and renewable fuels. He would also protect the current federal right of workers to decide in a secret ballot election whether to join a union, replace the extremely costly, heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulation that has crippled entrepreneurial start-ups in America, and abolish the death tax, among other provisions.

If Congress were adopting these reforms this week instead of the retro Obama "stimulus" package, the American economy would be off on another historic boom before the end of the year. Maybe we need a new President already.

Party Like It's 1979

Obama's ideological nostalgia for the liberal salad days of pre-Reagan 1979 is going to take the entire U.S. economy back there. Over time, we will find that Obama's policies have led us back to persistently high unemployment, resurgent inflation, double digit interest rates, stagnating growth, even gas shortages and the high gas prices he supports as good for the environment. And that will also effectively be another pre-Reagan moment as well.

Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

[asfltdncr]

And....the previous administration followed that model....And that is still all that you hear from the GOP.
Say it loud enough-say it long enough, and people do listen.....but it doesn't necessarily make it true.

[fstsix]

Unemployment rate lowest since 2001
Employers add 193,000 jobs in January as unemployment dips unexpectedly, wages up more than forecasts.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 3, 2006: 12:43 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in nearly five years in January, the government reported Friday, as employers added a respectable 193,000 jobs to payrolls and paychecks increased more than expected.

The Labor Department said the unemployment rate dipped to 4.7 percent from 4.9 in December, the lowest since 4.6 percent in July 2001, just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Economists had forecast that the rate would remain unchanged from December.


The drop in unemployment was the latest sign of a tightening labor market, which could put upward pressure on wages and prices in the months ahead.

On Wall Street, stocks fell as investors worried that the report makes further interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve more likely.

Treasury bond prices fell right after the report was released but later recovered.

The department said average hourly wage rose 7 cents to $16.41, a 0.4 percent increase that was slightly more than the 0.3 percent gain forecast by economists.

Over the last 12 months, average wages are up 3.3 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis, the biggest 12-month change in nearly three years.

In the part of the report that normally gets the most attention, U.S. employers added 193,000 jobs to payrolls in January, up from a revised 140,000 gain in December. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a gain of 250,000 for January.

But the unemployment rate and wage increase seemed to be getting most of investors' attention on Wall Street.

Anthony Chan, chief economist for JPMorgan Private Client Services, said he thinks the market might be overreacting a bit to the unemployment rate, which is based on a survey of households and is generally seen as less accurate than the survey of employers for the payroll numbers.

"I didn't see the average length of the work week picking up. I didn't see an increase in the labor market participation rate," he said. "That all makes me concerned that some of the tightening talk is a bit overstated."

Jeoff Hall, the chief U.S. economist for Thomson Financial, agreed that the unemployment rate could bounce back up in coming months as those now not counted as in the labor force start to look for or find jobs.

But he also said that the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics annual revision to last year's payroll numbers showed that the job reports from the last half of 2005 understated the strength of the labor market.

"It turns out the labor market is a lot tighter than we first thought," said Hall. "If you look at the last five months alone, we had 151,000 more jobs added than the BLS had first estimated."
And then the Democratic party in late 2006 took over Congress, and Bush could not stand to his true Conservative values and let the first stimulus go forward, and here we are, Bush should have shut the door on the left, like MR O has now done away with all bipartisan from the right,.
_______________

[Mikey]

Has anyone thought that what is happening (economically) right now is in part the fault of the democrats and republicans, but mostly due to the attitude of the workforce? I'm not as experienced as some who voice their opinions here, but it is my OPINION that part of what crippled our economy is the outsourcing that came about because of the high labor costs, and the low product quality. If a Union can hold out for higher wages for someone to sit on an assembly line and screw in the same bolt all day, of course the end product is going to be more costly. It would be unwise for that producer to not look at other alternatives (say, send it to Mexico, China, or Vietnam). Slowly manufacturers have figured out that they can pay less and get about the same quality goods. America's economy is in the toilet because we have gone from a producer to a user. Political policy has little to do with that, save tariffs and dock taxes. Furthermore... I'm thinkin this thread started as a joke.

[Bob E.]

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom -- the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."

The thing is that this created great wealth for a relatively small portion of the population, while widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots.  What is the stat...something like 95% of the wealth is controlled by about 5% of the people??  Not sure of the numbers, but it is something along those lines.  The problem is that if you give corporations, say, $1,000,000 in tax breaks to help the economy, they pocket about 3/4 of that as windfall profits and line their pockets.  If you are lucky, that 1/4 goes back into the economy.  Look at what has happened with the bank bailouts.  They got all that tax-payer bailout money, are making huge profits and bonuses, but still aren't lending to small businesses or giving any relief to homeowners with bad mortgages.  So this isn't really helping the economy as much as it should.  They took the money and gambled it with the same practices that almost brought this country to it's knees.  Wall street loves it because they have recovered most of their lost money, but...not so good for the little guy.  And I still don't know why they shouldn't be obligated to repay those bailouts now that they are profitable again...I don't get the arguement.

The Gingrich Revolution

In sharp contrast to Obama and his ideological delusions, Newt Gingrich has recently offered an economic recovery plan that is based on modern economics and what would work. It includes a reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to the 12.5% rate that over the past 20 years has lifted the standard of living in Ireland from the bottom of the EU to the top. It would eliminate the capital gains tax to match China, Singapore, and other international competitors, enticing capital investment from the world over to America. It would provide middle class tax relief by reducing the 25% income tax bracket to 15%, establishing a flat rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers. He would also cut the payroll tax by 50% for 2 years.

Newt is actually one republican that, at one time, I had some respect for.  He at least had some sort of a plan with his Contract for America, although looking back that was really just a bunch of talking points without any details on how to accomplish it.  Hey, I'm all for cutting taxes...especially mine.  However, the government needs revenue coming from somewhere.  According to your numbers, Newt is proposing cutting fed corp income tax rates by about 2/3 (12.5 is approx 1/3 of 35), eliminating capital gains tax entirely, and cutting 25% income tax by almost half (2/5) to 15%.  While I agree that this may spur some economic activity, that's a pretty big hole to fill.  Where do the budget cuts come from?  Medicare?  Defense?  Also, I just did my taxes.  After I take my standard deductions on the regular Form 1040A (I don't itemize), I am paying only paying about 2.5% of my gross salary, and about 3% on my taxable income (after health insurance, 401K, etc. are deducted).  SSI and Medicare taxes amount to another 7.1%, give or take.  I can tell you that going to a 15% flat tax will not save me any money...unless they are going to include some serious deductions.  So to me, this is again looking like the rich are getting the breaks while the non-so-rich are getting the shaft.

Gingrich also proposes to control government spending to balance the budget, something he achieved when he was Speaker of the House. He would adopt a real, comprehensive energy program that would allow production of domestic U.S. oil and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, clean coal, ethanol, and renewable fuels. He would also protect the current federal right of workers to decide in a secret ballot election whether to join a union, replace the extremely costly, heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulation that has crippled entrepreneurial start-ups in America, and abolish the death tax, among other provisions.

I would again ask how Newt would balance the budget while providing all the tax breaks listed above?  Everything else in this paragraph, I pretty much agree with.  

[Mikey]

One thing about widening the gap between the have's and the have-not's: It's capitalism. If we wanted to make sure everyone got paid the same amount, they'd call it communism.

What kept America so strong before was the lack of programs like Welfare, where people could go right past what the system was intended for, and use Welfare as their permanent income. Welfare was intended as a safety net to help people bounce back from bad breaks. There is such a sense of entitlement in this country it's sickening. I was never taught to rely on the government to take care of me. I never WANT the government to take care of me.

I believe that the only thing today that separates the Have's and the Have-not's is work ethic. I'm 24 and both my fiance and I worked our way through school, struggled to find a job when we graduated (last spring), and finally are on track to buying our first house, paying for a wedding, and getting away from budgeting paycheck to paycheck. All it took was hard work and patience. Thank God for my parents raising me the way they did! I hated it when I was younger, but now I can truly appreciate it!

[fstsix]

Bob E. it does seem you are paying low taxes, i guess my bitch has always been, as a small contractor i pay 15.4% SSI  Aka self employment tax, about double as any employee.,The corporate tax cut will give confidence to Big industry to come back to my state, by that instead of of this constant extension of unemployment ben's  the work force can start by paying back in to SSI and local taxation. The Bailouts ? they should have never happened, see my last paragraph. let the big Corps restructure and streamline or fail dont through money at them. i have learned more from my mistakes in buss than i have learned in boom times. i have cut back also, and sold off toys, no big deal. wee also have to many programs that can be cut, also fraud corruption on medicare billing. Have you ever noticed the one thing the fed is a expert on ? Tax collection! if we could get them to put this kind of effort into out of date special interest programs not needed we could refine our gov, but with Tax cheat Timmy as their expert it seems we a farting in the wind. BTW have you noticed on the news lately all the pressure on Toyota and Honda ? Now that we have Obama Motors its kind of funny that this throttle sticking thing is major news!, Here this is what i am dealing with with my 2008 Dodge Cummins 2500 has been back to the dealer several times for the DPR filter and is this years Truck of the year!!! here is the recall info you will not see on Controlled opposition the steering has been failing and it will stop on the freeway and go 45 mph, and the EGR will catch on fire. just ranting. http://www.mycarlady.com/2009/12/21/2009-2008-6-7l-dodge-cummins-recalls-nhtsa-tsbs/

[Charlie]

One thing about widening the gap between the have's and the have-not's: It's capitalism. If we wanted to make sure everyone got paid the same amount, they'd call it communism.

What kept America so strong before was the lack of programs like Welfare, where people could go right past what the system was intended for, and use Welfare as their permanent income. Welfare was intended as a safety net to help people bounce back from bad breaks. There is such a sense of entitlement in this country it's sickening. I was never taught to rely on the government to take care of me. I never WANT the government to take care of me.

I believe that the only thing today that separates the Have's and the Have-not's is work ethic. I'm 24 and both my fiance and I worked our way through school, struggled to find a job when we graduated (last spring), and finally are on track to buying our first house, paying for a wedding, and getting away from budgeting paycheck to paycheck. All it took was hard work and patience. Thank God for my parents raising me the way they did! I hated it when I was younger, but now I can truly appreciate it!

You sound like one of my five kids.  Each one has worked his or her perspective keasters off, all are paying for college educations they couldn't afford (but also couldn't afford not to do), the three oldest are married and have their own homes, the other two have only been out of college a few years each.  Every one of them has a job that pays fairly well, under today's circumstances.  I am quite proud of them and their accomplishments, but am also very worried about their ability to get ahead in life.  Two of the five have already experienced downsizing.  It took one son almost 6 months (with a degree) to get another job.  The other ended up moving out of state to get work.  Two of their spouses are teachers.  One had to move half way across the country to find employment out of college.  The other has a Masters Degree in teaching and has had her job on the line twice in two years, and it looks like there will be more cuts this coming fall.

Work ethic has nothing to do with it in todays job market.  The facts are the most of the haves have it and the havenots have a considerably small chance of getting it!  Things need to change!

[Mickey Runie]

Robbing from the rich to give to the poor.   

Interesting concept.  I bet it would only make the rich strive to hide their money farther away and the only new jobs created would be more sheriffs to assist in catching robbers.

Sounds like good fodder for a fairtale.

IMHO

[Bob E.]

One thing about widening the gap between the have's and the have-not's: It's capitalism. If we wanted to make sure everyone got paid the same amount, they'd call it communism.

What kept America so strong before was the lack of programs like Welfare, where people could go right past what the system was intended for, and use Welfare as their permanent income. Welfare was intended as a safety net to help people bounce back from bad breaks. There is such a sense of entitlement in this country it's sickening. I was never taught to rely on the government to take care of me. I never WANT the government to take care of me.

I believe that the only thing today that separates the Have's and the Have-not's is work ethic. I'm 24 and both my fiance and I worked our way through school, struggled to find a job when we graduated (last spring), and finally are on track to buying our first house, paying for a wedding, and getting away from budgeting paycheck to paycheck. All it took was hard work and patience. Thank God for my parents raising me the way they did! I hated it when I was younger, but now I can truly appreciate it!

I understand where you are coming from about entitlement programs, but I don't know that was "What kept America so strong" as you put it.  Believe me...like I said earlier, I was on welfare as a kid and my parents worked through it and eventually turned it around somewhat.  We got off of it.  The only reason they didn't lose their house was because we (5 of us) lived in a mobile home that cost them less than $10,000 new and it was on my grandfather's farm.  If they had a mortgage in the 80's, we probably would have been bankrupt and foreclosed on, and more or less homeless.  They still live there, aren't rich by a long shot, and have absolutely nothing in savings for retirement...dad lost any pension he had when the plant he had worked for closed the doors for good around 1990 or so.  And now that they are hitting 60 years old, I'm worried about them.  I know what entitlement programs are intended for and do agree that there is alot of abuse of the system.  Personally, I believe that anyone receiving welfare should have to work for it somehow...even if it is digging a hole one day and filling it back up the next.  And I believe that they should have to pass a drug test to get the check.  However, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think welfare is such a huge drain on the Federal budget...it's just an easy target for political points.

I also know the difference between capitalism and communism.  I don't believe everyone should make the same wage, and yes I know there will always be haves and have-nots.  But I can also understand where people get worked up when big breaks are given to the "haves" under the premise that they are the ones who can hire the "have-nots" and give them a job.  But the problem is that they don't always do the hiring...they just pocket the money.  Or, if they do hire, they are low-wage jobs.  Capitalism works by the haves accumulating wealth.  Where does that wealth come from?  It comes by taking from the have-nots.  If you want to move towards being a "have", you need to find a way to start taking from the other have-nots...and try to skim some from some haves while you are at it. And hopefully, you can acquire a pile big enough to live comfortably on...and get it to start growing even more before it is taken from you.  The biggest problem today is that that gap has gotten so wide that the have-nots have almost nothing left and this has affected the haves...which screwed the economy.  

I also think that it is more than just the poor that have a sense of entitlement, and that entitlement payments come in more forms than just a welfare check.  Again...look at the banks...look at the automakers...look at wall street.  All that talk last week about the gov't going after the banks to get the bailout money back and the DOW drops about 600 points.  It's a crock!  Look, I'm an engineer and have a good job making a good wage.  But I got no bonus this year (rarely have I received anything other than a couple hundred bucks anyways) and a raise that was less than cost of living, while our health insurance costs will likely increase AGAIN...and I'm a lucky one.  Alot of people in my office didn't get any raise.  Meanwhile, the CEO's of our firm each got bonuses of around half a million dollars last year...on top of their half-million dollar salaries.  But, they didn't give themselves any raises...AAAWWWWW, poor, poor guys.  Hey, I don't begrudge them the bigger salaries, but when they give themselves bonuses like that in an economy like this when others are getting laid off, it's hard to take.

At 24, you have a long ways to go, and it looks like you have a good start.  When I was 24, I felt the same as you about alot of things.  I'm 38 now with 3 kids and my perspective has changed alot.  You stated that, "all it took was hard work and patience."  I can guarantee you that you had alot of other things going for you to get you where you are...like supportive parents, the chance to even go to college, luck in finding decent jobs for you and your fiance, etc., etc.  

[RoadKill]

Robbing from the rich to give to the poor.  

Interesting concept.  I bet it would only make the rich strive to hide their money farther away and the only new jobs created would be more sheriffs to assist in catching robbers.

Sounds like good fodder for a fairtale.

IMHO

 It's a great way for the robbers to get VOTES from the poor,then they can keep robbing and make laws to make it legal to rob any one they want when ever they want to! It's not a fairy tale...It's GOVERNMENT POLICY !

[Bob E.]

Bob E. it does seem you are paying low taxes, i guess my bitch has always been, as a small contractor i pay 15.4% SSI  Aka self employment tax, about double as any employee.,The corporate tax cut will give confidence to Big industry to come back to my state, by that instead of of this constant extension of unemployment ben's  the work force can start by paying back in to SSI and local taxation. The Bailouts ? they should have never happened, see my last paragraph. let the big Corps restructure and streamline or fail dont through money at them. i have learned more from my mistakes in buss than i have learned in boom times. i have cut back also, and sold off toys, no big deal. wee also have to many programs that can be cut, also fraud corruption on medicare billing. Have you ever noticed the one thing the fed is a expert on ? Tax collection! if we could get them to put this kind of effort into out of date special interest programs not needed we could refine our gov, but with Tax cheat Timmy as their expert it seems we a farting in the wind. BTW have you noticed on the news lately all the pressure on Toyota and Honda ? Now that we have Obama Motors its kind of funny that this throttle sticking thing is major news!, Here this is what i am dealing with with my 2008 Dodge Cummins 2500 has been back to the dealer several times for the DPR filter and is this years Truck of the year!!! here is the recall info you will not see on Controlled opposition the steering has been failing and it will stop on the freeway and go 45 mph, and the EGR will catch on fire. just ranting. http://www.mycarlady.com/2009/12/21/2009-2008-6-7l-dodge-cummins-recalls-nhtsa-tsbs/

That sucks about your truck.  My dad has a 2001 and my brother has a 2004 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel.  They love their trucks and, except for some recall on the tranny where it could pop out of park and roll away, they've had good luck with them.  In fact, they've pretty much sold me on my next truck being a diesel...maybe even a Dodge if they are still around. 

As for your double SSI, I guess you are paying both the employer portion and the employee portion.  I'm no expert, but I believe that employers match their employees taxes??  At least that's how I understand it.

[Bob E.]

Robbing from the rich to give to the poor.   

Interesting concept.  I bet it would only make the rich strive to hide their money farther away and the only new jobs created would be more sheriffs to assist in catching robbers.

Sounds like good fodder for a fairtale.

IMHO

SSHHHHHH....the rich are actually robbing from the poor, they just don't like us to talk about it. 

[RoadKill]

The "Self Employment" tax benefits NO ONE the proprietor gets NO benefit from paying it. It is just to keep the little guy down so the Corporations can thrive. I am still a sole proprietorship, it may be different if you incorporate, I'll find out as soon, I hope. 

[Mickey Runie]

Robbing from the rich to give to the poor.   

Interesting concept.  I bet it would only make the rich strive to hide their money farther away and the only new jobs created would be more sheriffs to assist in catching robbers.

Sounds like good fodder for a fairtale.

IMHO


 

SSHHHHHH....the rich are actually robbing from the poor, they just don't like us to talk about it. 

Ok, I'm all SHHHHHHHHH'd.    I got it now.  SHHHHH!   I'm with ya.    

[Momz]

How many of us were unemployed before Obama became our current President?

Didn't the previous republican administration start bailing out the banks, insurance industry, and brokerage houses? So why are we blaming the current administration for doing the same thing?

During the last Democratic administration we all made great money on our investments and our country not only paid off our national debt, we also had a surplus.

Now I'm not the smartest person in this country but it seems that if a person is working and making a good wage, pays his bills, pays his taxes, and invests wisely that person should be on their way to a sort of personal prosperity.

I lost my job in the trucking industry at the start of the Reagan years and nearly lost everything I'd ever worked for.  During the GW Bush years it seemed that there was staggering attrition in the automotive industry (engineerig), more talented people lost their jobs due to offshore outsourceing.

Do I sound bitter? Would I ever vote Republican? Go ahead and take a guess.

[RoadKill]

Does any one really believe it was a  certain political party,or some 4-8 yr administration that caused any specific hardship in their life? Do we not all agree that it has been due to the "politics as usual" that we have yet to see changed regardless of empty promises from liars of the politician persuasion ?

We need the change..who has seen any in their life time and what will it take to get some?

[fstsix]

Roadkill, thinking the same thing, the Presidents are just puppets. this is way deeper than most will ever understand. oh yeah i have never had a real job ? i always had to create my income, shovel $hit or what ever, my mother is a coal minors daughter my Grandpa died from black lung in Southern IL, my wife can sew and make her own cloths her mom was poor also. But i never sat and waited for some A$$hole to provide for my family i always got off my a$$ and found work, Most people will not and cannot do my trade they quit because it is to hard. I am blessed and free to be working even as much as i am now. Never have i had a paid vacation, sick leave, or ever collected unemployment, and even as i speak i have 3 investors that i am forming a LLC to open a coffee shop, slash club.

[Serk]

During the last Democratic administration we all made great money on our investments and our country not only paid off our national debt, we also had a surplus.

Not quite true... Even during the so-called "surplus" years under Clinton, the national debt was never paid off, in fact it was never even paid down any. I've always had a problem with them referring to a budget "surplus" when we still had trillions in debt...

Reference - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

[Charlie]

During the last Democratic administration we all made great money on our investments and our country not only paid off our national debt, we also had a surplus.

Not quite true... Even during the so-called "surplus" years under Clinton, the national debt was never paid off, in fact it was never even paid down any. I've always had a problem with them referring to a budget "surplus" when we still had trillions in debt...

Reference - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Let the facts speak for themselves.  Most post-presidents since Ford had increases in the National Debt, but some substantially more than others.  On the chart, look at where the most severe increases are.

[JimL]

During the last Democratic administration we all made great money on our investments and our country not only paid off our national debt, we also had a surplus.

Not quite true... Even during the so-called "surplus" years under Clinton, the national debt was never paid off, in fact it was never even paid down any. I've always had a problem with them referring to a budget "surplus" when we still had trillions in debt...

Reference - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Let the facts speak for themselves.  Most post-presidents since Ford had increases in the National Debt, but some substantially more than others.  On the chart, look at where the most severe increases are.

Charlie please don't take this response as being disrespectful, because I do enjoy reading your posts.  However the revelation that Ronald Regan incurred huge deficits can hardly be considered an epiphany to conservatives...we frequently cite this spending war he waged on the the Soviet Empire proudly as the keystone in the strategy to break the Soviet Union.

Financing the war in Afghanistan to keep the Soviets from consolidating that region under their control was expensive....and money well spent.  Even though it was a gamble, the massively expensive arms race we waged against the Soviets proved to be the "beginning of the end" when the Soviets foolishly engaged in a contest they could never win.

Eventually the Soviet Block countries started falling, starting with the Warsaw Pact (Poland, Romania, East Germany...and others I can't remember right now).

Unlike many other deficit spending programs, this one paid huge dividends after the fall of the Soviet Empire.  Furthermore,  unlike many deficit spending government programs this one only lasted somewhere between 5-7 years....then the rate of spending slowed.

I know there are a few that will disagree, but Ronald Regan was one of the strongest leaders this country has ever seen.

[fstsix]

During the last Democratic administration we all made great money on our investments and our country not only paid off our national debt, we also had a surplus.

Not quite true... Even during the so-called "surplus" years under Clinton, the national debt was never paid off, in fact it was never even paid down any. I've always had a problem with them referring to a budget "surplus" when we still had trillions in debt...

Reference - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Let the facts speak for themselves.  Most post-presidents since Ford had increases in the National Debt, but some substantially more than others.  On the chart, look at where the most severe increases are.

Charlie please don't take this response as being disrespectful, because I do enjoy reading your posts.  However the revelation that Ronald Regan incurred huge deficits can hardly be considered an epiphany to conservatives...we frequently cite this spending war he waged on the the Soviet Empire proudly as the keystone in the strategy to break the Soviet Union.

Financing the war in Afghanistan to keep the Soviets from consolidating that region under their control was expensive....and money well spent.  Even though it was a gamble, the massively expensive arms race we waged against the Soviets proved to be the "beginning of the end" when the Soviets foolishly engaged in a contest they could never win.

Eventually the Soviet Block countries started falling, starting with the Warsaw Pact (Poland, Romania, East Germany...and others I can't remember right now).

Unlike many other deficit spending programs, this one paid huge dividends after the fall of the Soviet Empire.  Furthermore,  unlike many deficit spending government programs this one only lasted somewhere between 5-7 years....then the rate of spending slowed.

I know there are a few that will disagree, but Ronald Regan was one of the strongest leaders this country has ever seen.

Thanks Charlie, this is what i have been saying all along, the most Radical Spike on all of the chart is the last year of Clinton, And as O would say, Bush inherited the debt. heheheh i wonder what rocket scientist made this chart, maybe a 2nd grader.

[valkmc]

Does any one really believe it was a  certain political party,or some 4-8 yr administration that caused any specific hardship in their life? Do we not all agree that it has been due to the "politics as usual" that we have yet to see changed regardless of empty promises from liars of the politician persuasion ?

We need the change..who has seen any in their life time and what will it take to get some?

I agree, I actually believe the democrats and Repulicans like all of the have nots arguing about whose fault it is. That way they do not have to change much and the system goes on, they remain the people in charge and remain in the haves group. So do all of their buddies who supported their election. The original politicians in this country were not paid.  They did it out of feeling of service to fellow country men of course they were all rich. 

[JimL]

Does any one really believe it was a  certain political party,or some 4-8 yr administration that caused any specific hardship in their life? Do we not all agree that it has been due to the "politics as usual" that we have yet to see changed regardless of empty promises from liars of the politician persuasion ?

We need the change..who has seen any in their life time and what will it take to get some?

I agree, I actually believe the democrats and Repulicans like all of the have nots arguing about whose fault it is. That way they do not have to change much and the system goes on, they remain the people in charge and remain in the haves group. So do all of their buddies who supported their election. The original politicians in this country were not paid.  They did it out of feeling of service to fellow country men of course they were all rich. 

I very much agree with the point that both you and Roadkill make, both political parties are corrupt; as are the governments and political parties in every from of government on this earth.  I can assure you that it will continue to be that way until some higher order of life (possibly the cockroach) inherits this planet.

During the interim, even as corrupt as mankind is, we have to have some form of government to prevent outright anarchy.  Since mankind is inherently flawed (and as a result our governments are  inherently flawed) it has always been my belief....and will continue to be my belief that government should be as small as possible.  It should only be large enough to manage the protection of our homeland and the maintenance of basic infrastructure....nothing more.