Were you even born in the time of Reagan? Do you know more than the myth? Does "Trickle Down" economics imply a concern for the working man?
No, I didn't feel that way about Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Gary Richardson, and a number of others. However, the current GOP has mostly purged the populists from their ranks so I would rate your statement as "mostly true."
Besides, I feel that way about Reagan because of what he DID, rather than anything else. He lowered income taxes (which mostly affect the wealthy) and increased payroll taxes (which mostly affect the lower and middle classes), among other things, and was the first president who believed the "trickle down" myth which has been a pervasive lie ever since.
You haters should show more respect for the next president. It's going to be fun watching some of you guys implode when Hill & Billary return.
You need to realize that income taxes were lowered around the world, not just by Reagan. Taxes were to high and were killing growth and job creation.
I actually think she would be fine as president. But she is overly concerned about her legacy, like Kobe Bryant.
Not according to the data, which showed much stronger economic growth when taxes were dramatically higher than in the years since Reagan and Bush cut them. You need to look at facts rather than listen to the pundits. The pundits are lying to you.
There are a lot of factors involved in economic growth. Have to tease them out. There's a reason even Europe won't go back to super high tax rates and why democrats won't even propose them.
If investment money is redirected to buy military hardware on credit instead of infrastructure, innovation, and business expansion what does that do to job growth? you should read this: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/ yes the name of the organization is pretty inflmatory, but the information in this article is pretty straight forward economics reporting.
I don't like her response, but am not surprised. I don't doubt that they had to struggle more than most Presidents, at it has long been my understanding that the Clinton's were not flush with cash in 2000. Having said that, they clearly had the ability to make money and indeed have. The Clintons have not had a "normal" life in in a very long time. They have accomplished a great deal, they have lived in the public eye and their perspective will be tainted as a result.
But you tried to give credit for higher growth rates and more jobs to Reagan's tax cutting, but when it is pointed out that the results were the opposite of your assumption, we need to "tease them out?" ROFL I wouldn't propose "super high" tax rates, but here is a list of the European nations that have higher top tax rates than we do. Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal Romania Serbia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom The reason our rates are still so low is the result of the GOP, not the Democrats. This situation has been great for the wealthy, but beyond bad for the middle and lower classes.
Agreed. I think one can parallel these findings to the myth that World War II ended the Great Depression. When in reality, it has done quite the opposite. Lowered taxes do help the private sector, but not without serious government cuts. From 1944-1948 after the war, the US government cut about $72 billion, 75% of its spending, equivalent to more than a trillion in cuts for today's economy with respect to inflation. Yet the only things anyone wants to cut today is food stamps and welfare which account for peas on a plate.
