Ronald Reagan: "Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us"

This is so Powerful! I miss Ronald Reagan! Just listen to the differences in Reagan and Obama. It is so sad that out of 300 million Americans, Obama is the best that we could find to lead this country.

[youtube:1xukpay9][/youtube:1xukpay9]

AFTER 30years of vilifying, hating, the man & his family, now the left say "LOOK HOW GREAT HE WAS!", "HE KNEW HOW TO COMPRISE!", This just proves what a bunch of hypocrites, and lairs the leftist are, they'll use anything/anyone to get what they want, doesn't matter. What the leftist NEVER realized was that Mr. Reagan was so smart, that he would always compromise, so that he ALWAYS had the upper hand.
Compromise sure, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

It was a time when a financial and fiscal crisis brought the two parties together to compromise on tough choices about taxes and spending. In 1983, President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neil came together to compromise on Social Security, based on proposals from a commission led by Alan Greenspan.
During the times and attitudes of the Cold War, Reagan took his biggest gamble with bipartisanship: Dealing with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Conservatives applauded when Reagan walked out of the 1986 Reykjavik summit over his refusal to give up his Strategic Defense Initiative. But those same conservatives also vociferously criticized Reagan for signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty a year later. Under the terms of the treaty, both the United States and the Soviet Union were to vastly reduce their nuclear and ballistic missiles.
Reagan was resolute. The same president who had called the Soviet Union the "evil empire" and, not months earlier, told his Soviet counterpart to "tear down this wall" had just signed the biggest reduction in nuclear weapons in either nation's history. As he did with his own political opposition at home, Reagan was willing to work with Gorbachev, just so long as Gorbachev showed willingness to work with him.
http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-02-04/news/27105285_1_reagan-s-spirit-president-reagan-bipartisanship/2

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).[109] Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%, hitting annual rate highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.[110]
Reagan implemented policies based on supply-side economics and advocated a classical liberal and laissez-faire philosophy,[111] seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts.[112][113] Citing the economic theories of Arthur Laffer, Reagan promoted the proposed tax cuts as potentially stimulating the economy enough to expand the tax base, offsetting the revenue loss due to reduced rates of taxation, a theory that entered political discussion as the Laffer curve. Reaganomics was the subject of debate with supporters pointing to improvements in certain key economic indicators as evidence of success, and critics pointing to large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt. His policy of "peace through strength" (also described as "firm but fair") resulted in a record peacetime defense buildup including a 40% real increase in defense spending between 1981 and 1985.[114]
During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981[115] which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%, however other tax increases signed by Reagan ensured that tax revenues over his two terms were 18.2% of GDP as compared to 18.1% over the past 40 years.[116] Then, in 1982 the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 was signed into law, initiating one of the nation's first public/private partnerships and a major part of the president's job creation program. Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Labor and Chief of Staff, Al Angrisani, was a primary architect of the bill. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, another bipartisan effort championed by Reagan, reduced the top rate further to 28% while raising the bottom bracket from 11% to 15% and reducing the quantity of brackets to 4. Conversely, Congress passed and Reagan signed into law tax increases of some nature in every year from 1981 to 1987 to continue funding such government programs as TEFRA, Social Security, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984.[117][118] Despite the fact that TEFRA was the "largest peacetime tax increase in American history," Reagan is better known for his tax cuts and lower-taxes philosophy.[118][119][120][121] Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the early 1980s recession ended in 1982, and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.[122] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% monthly rate in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency.[123] Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[124] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues when compared to Treasury Department revenue estimates from the Administration's first post-enactment January budgets.[125] However, federal Income Tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7Bn to $549.0Bn.[126]
During the Reagan Administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[127][128] Reagan also revised the tax code with the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986.[129]

Reagan gives a televised address from the Oval Office, outlining his plan for Tax Reduction Legislation in July 1981
Reagan's policies proposed that economic growth would occur when marginal tax rates were low enough to spur investment,[130] which would then lead to increased economic growth, higher employment and wages. Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor.[131] Questions arose whether Reagan's policies benefited the wealthy more than those living in poverty,[132] and many poor and minority citizens viewed Reagan as indifferent to their struggles.[132] These views were exacerbated by the fact that Reagan's economic regimen included freezing the minumum wage at $3.35 an hour, slashing federal assistance to local governments by 60 percent, cutting the budget for public housing and Section 8 rent subsidies in half, and eliminating the antipoverty Community Development Block Grant program.[133]
Further following his less-government intervention views, Reagan cut the budgets of non-military[134] programs[135] including Medicaid, food stamps, federal education programs[134] and the EPA.[136] While he protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare,[137] his administration attempted to purge many people with disabilities from the Social Security disability rolls.[138]
The administration's stance toward the Savings and Loan industry contributed to the Savings and loan crisis.[139] It is also suggested, by a minority of Reaganomics critics, that the policies partially influenced the stock market crash of 1987,[140] but there is no consensus regarding a single source for the crash.[141] In order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[142] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[124]
He reappointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and in 1987 he appointed monetarist Alan Greenspan to succeed him. Reagan ended the price controls on domestic oil which had contributed to energy crises in the early 1970s.[143][144] The price of oil subsequently dropped, and the 1980s did not see the fuel shortages that the 1970s had.[145] Reagan also fulfilled a 1980 campaign promise to repeal the Windfall profit tax in 1988, which had previously increased dependence on foreign oil.[146] Some economists, such as Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell, argue that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s.[147] Other economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, argue that the deficits were a major reason why Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, reneged on a campaign promise and raised taxes.[147]
During Reagan's presidency a program was initiated within the US intelligence community to ensure America's economic strength. The program, Project Socrates, developed and demonstrated the means required for the US to generate and lead the next evolutionary leap in technology acquisition and utilization for a competitive advantage—automated innovation. To ensure that the US acquired the maximum benefit from automated innovation, President Reagan during his second term had an executive order drafted creating a new Federal agency to implement the Project Socrates results on a nation-wide basis. President Reagan's term came to end before the executive order could be coordinated and signed. President Bush terminated Project Socrates due to pressure from US allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

[center:3hyitaxv]I MISS RONALD REAGAN!!!!
R.I.P Mr. President!

[/center:3hyitaxv]

Not this Democrat....Reagan was the most overrated man in American history.

Tearing Down the Reagan Myth: Now More Than Ever
Will Bunch, Author, "Tear Down This Myth"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunc ... 43914.html

Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03104.html

The Real Reagan Legacy
Debunking Myths About Reagan

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

He was an actor, playing a president.

LadyJazzer wrote: He was an actor, playing a president.

Kinda like Obama is a Marxist Muslim playing an American?

TPP wrote: AFTER 30years of vilifying, hating, the man & his family, now the left say "LOOK HOW GREAT HE WAS!", "HE KNEW HOW TO COMPRISE!", This just proves what a bunch of hypocrites, and lairs the leftist are, they'll use anything/anyone to get what they want, doesn't matter. What the leftist NEVER realized was that Mr. Reagan was so smart, that he would always compromise, so that he ALWAYS had the upper hand.
Compromise sure, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

(snip)
During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981[115] which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%, however other tax increases signed by Reagan ensured that tax revenues over his two terms were 18.2% of GDP as compared to 18.1% over the past 40 years.[116] Then, in 1982 the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 was signed into law, initiating one of the nation's first public/private partnerships and a major part of the president's job creation program. Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Labor and Chief of Staff, Al Angrisani, was a primary architect of the bill. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, another bipartisan effort championed by Reagan, reduced the top rate further to 28% while raising the bottom bracket from 11% to 15% and reducing the quantity of brackets to 4. Conversely, Congress passed and Reagan signed into law tax increases of some nature in every year from 1981 to 1987 to continue funding such government programs as TEFRA, Social Security, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. [117][118] Despite the fact that TEFRA was the "largest peacetime tax increase in American history," Reagan is better known for his tax cuts and lower-taxes philosophy.[118][119][120][121] Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the early 1980s recession ended in 1982, and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.[122] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% monthly rate in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency.[123] Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[124] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues when compared to Treasury Department revenue estimates from the Administration's first post-enactment January budgets.[125] However, federal Income Tax receipts increased from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7Bn to $549.0Bn.[126]
During the Reagan Administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[127][128] Reagan also revised the tax code with the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986.[129]
(snip)

The administration's stance toward the Savings and Loan industry contributed to the Savings and loan crisis.[139] It is also suggested, by a minority of Reaganomics critics, that the policies partially influenced the stock market crash of 1987,[140] but there is no consensus regarding a single source for the crash.[141] In order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. [142] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[124]

Did you actually read most of the article? I highlighted some salient points about Ronnie's terms.

You people are so single/simple minded. Obama is a Marxist Muslim (Viking), Reagan was the most fabulous President evah (all of you conservatives (sic).

Here's Reagan about the debt ceiling from USA Today :

In a letter to then-Majority Leader Howard Baker on November 16, 1983, President Reagan asked “for your help and support, and that of your colleagues, in the passage of an increase in the limit on the public debt.” [See a slide show of 6 ways to raise the debt ceiling.]

Reagan went on:

…the United states could be forced to default on its obligations for the first time in its history.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequence of a default--or even the serious prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate….The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

So, my question to you is, was Reagan right to raise taxes? Was he wrong about the debt ceiling? Hep me out here.

I am so confused--perpetually confused (and bemused) by you guys.

I guess that question is best answered by asking a few more pou.

How much did ending the tax shelters on real estate, a closing of a so called loop hole intended to raise tax revenues, and the subsequent lowering of values associated with that loss, which many S&L's held as assets, benefit the nation given the S&L crisis that followed? That gem was a compromise between Reagan and the Democrats in Congress who wanted "the rich to pay their fair share". Worked out well, didn't it?

Or the amendment to the 1986 TRA introduced by Senator Moynihan that sought to derive new revenue by removing the exemption from payroll taxes (the privilege to be employed/have employee taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare) for independent contractors which actually resulted not in a revenue increase as promised, but a revenue decrease as behavior was simply altered to avoid paying the taxes.

Reagan's tax policy was to broaden the base and lower the rates, not raise the rates on a select few and end exemptions on a select few as Obama seeks to do. His approach to capital gains taxes, changed by the compromise between GHW Bush and the Democrats in Congress, essentially created a flat tax of 28% for the highest income earners. Didn't matter whether the money came from income or the result of capital gains, the way the code was structured, which the Democrats felt necessary to alter, ensured that 28% of it found its way into the treasury. Know what that did? It gave the investors a known set of circumstances upon which to base their investment decisions - whether the risk was worth the potential reward. Given that the Democrats have no actual plan at this stage of the game, that known set of circumstances is necessarily absent, which is why the excess capital remains on the sidelines in 2011 instead of being invested as it was after the passage of the 1986 TRA.

Did you hear Reid today? The Senate has rejected CCB and so now he views it as the responsibility of the House to come up with a new piece of legislation rather than keeping the Senate in session to alter the existing legislation that has passed the House and then send their version back to the House? Why is he doing this? Because the Democrats, including the one occupying the Oval Office, have no plan that they can articulate in such a manner. All they have is demagoguery and criticism of what someone else has done. The House members have done what their constituents sent them to Washington DC to do. They have passed legislation which gives the executive the debt limit increase it has sought while at the same time placing barriers on the amount of national production that the government in DC will be allowed to spend in the future. That is a reasonable way forward given that the government in DC has proven itself incapable of curbing its appetite for deficit spending over the last 30 years. As long as the government in DC thinks itself capable of spending whatever it desires to spend every year to satiate its unlimited appetite and continue its efforts to consolidate all power of governance unto itself the spending problem that we have today, and that Senator Obama articulated so well in 2006, will continue to exist unchanged; just as it has for the last 30 years that has brought us to the point of having the nation's credit rating downgraded as either the result of not cutting the deficit spending sufficiently to keep the rating or the potential default that could occur as a result of decisions made by the executive if the current debt limit isn't raised.

Raising the debt limit $2.5 Trillion and cutting $2 -$3 Trillion from the proposed deficit spending over the next 10 - 12 years isn't going to salvage our credit rating according to Moody. The planned deficit spending must be decreased in excess of $4 Trillion to even have a chance at preserving the nation's current credit rating on its notes of debt. The closer the final agreement is to that $4 Trillion minimum the more likely it is that the credit rating will be lost. Capping the spending of the government in DC to 18% of the national production will save far more than $4 Trillion over the next decade even if it doesn't entirely eliminate all of the deficit spending. Given the Obama 10 year budget projection for a federal budget of over $5 Trillion in 2021 (on a projected economy of something approaching $24 Trillion annually by that time) the necessary $4 Trillion in savings at 18% of the economy instead of the Obama required 24% will be an easy target to achieve.

Serious question pou - do you think GDP of this nation will be 40% - 60% larger than it is today in ten short years with the government in DC sucking 22% - 24% of the production out to satiate its appetite for spending? Do you think the economy will expand at all if the government in DC attempts to raise the portion of production it takes for its own uses to support that level of spending?

What is wrong today is which level of government gets most of the tax dollars. In the early part of the last century, the local governments took in around 10% of the national GDP in taxes, the state governments took in about 1% and the federal governments took in about 3%. Today the folks in DC account for around 16%, the state between 8% and 10% and the local between 6% and 8%. This is consistent with the attempts by the government in DC to consolidate the power of governance into itself during this period of time. Tell me something pou, do you think that Park County could do a better job of tending to the people in its county who were struggling in this economy if they, and not the government in DC, were collecting the lion's share of the taxes paid by the people who lived in Park County? Do you think the DC government is more or less knowledgeable about the needs of the people in Park County than our local government is? Take it up one level further to the state government of Colorado. Do you think Governor Hickenlooper is more or less in touch with the needs of the citizens in his state than Obama is?

IMNTBHO we would be much better off, and more able to render aid to those in need, if the state and local governments were collecting the lion's share of the taxes that the citizens of Colorado paid instead of the DC government. Our education system would be better; our health care delivery system would be better; our roads would be better - all of it would be better than it is today. The major problems we face today, socially and financially, are the result of the DC government attempting to do far more than it was established to do and seizing power from our other forms of government in order to support those attempts.

The Viking wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: He was an actor, playing a president.

Kinda like Obama is a Marxist Muslim playing an American?

nope.....but nice try. We have proof the Reagan was an actor......we only have your word that Obama is a marxist muslim and not American.....and if you want your word to be worth anything in the future you might want to retract that comment. It's an outright lie. Maybe being known as a man who will lie to make his point doesn't bother you.

God bless ya Ronald Reagan- we could sure use you here today as our country falls to the freaks and commies!

And all you liberals would still be building your nuclear bomb shelters if it weren't for Ronnie.

Your words we still have, and they are more revelant today than when you said them.

I watched an economy go from "crap" to "prosperity" under your watch Ron, so thank you so much!

Best president ever.

Sure he was, raising taxes at record levels, granting amnesty to illegal aliens, selling arms to terrorist organizations, creating record deficits, and on and on. The "greatest" president ever!

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: He was an actor, playing a president.

Kinda like Obama is a Marxist Muslim playing an American?

nope.....but nice try. We have proof the Reagan was an actor......we only have your word that Obama is a marxist muslim and not American.....and if you want your word to be worth anything in the future you might want to retract that comment. It's an outright lie. Maybe being known as a man who will lie to make his point doesn't bother you.

Even you know it's true. He has admitted over and over his socialist views and quoted Marx many times and in a speech in 2001 said those beliefs do not go against the constitution. And he admitted he was a Muslim. Why do you fight it so? Just accept the Marxist Muslim leader that you elected!

[youtube:1727793u][/youtube:1727793u]