__________________
Amendment IV, search and seizure rights. Read about them before they're gone.

Reagan took over an economy that was destroyed by the Carter administration. One of the first things that changed after Reagan took office was the policies of the Federal Reserve that had the country awash in money ... that caused the huge inflation rate of the Carter years. As the money supply receded, the country went into the 1980-1983 recession. It was Reagan's version of "Tough Love." Once the Reagan tax cuts took hold, along with stabilized interest rates, the country was booming again. In fact, the next several presidential terms benefited from it.

The chart shown on this link shows the result of the Federal Reserve tightening the money supply from '80 to '83.

So, who's really lying here?

Ronald Reagan-1948 Last Time He Told the Truth

Vi

__________________
Obama wins, we lose. McCain wins, we lose.

__________________
Amendment IV, search and seizure rights. Read about them before they're gone.

its because he knows how corrupt the country is...well thats my opinion

__________________
Taipan

No, its not "enough said." Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how "trickle UP" economics would work. I mean, if you give a really, really poor guy a tax break, how would the money he saved trickle up through the economy to cause capital creation, business starts, more employment, a higher savings rate and consumer confidence?

Please explain ... Thanks.

Vi

__________________
Obama wins, we lose. McCain wins, we lose.

There is no trickle up, and there should be no trickle down. Wealth should be distributed according to need,~LOL~, my socialist leanings. Reagan was a union Buster for one thing, Baahhh. The Unions have made the working stiff a real member of the community with liveable wages. But here's a good description of trickle down:
What I shall call TDE is clearly intended to be an economic system where there is no significant barrier to the accumulation of wealth by individuals. From the old story that "if the horse has better hay to eat, the birds will eat better" (it being understood that birds eat manure). Reaganomics (to imply one example). If the rich do well, benefits will "trickle down" to the rest. Lower taxes on high income or capital gains will benefit most of the population, etc.
Trickle down economics failed because the exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy, that were meant to stimulate the economy, actually resulted in huge government deficits. When the economic boon Reagan predicted did not materialize, interest rates soared as the deficit grew to unmanageable levels. It took more than a decade to set the economy on the right course, which occurred when President Clinton's first budget passed Congress in 1993, without one Republican vote. The economy remained strong as a result of fiscally responsible spending and concentrated efforts to pay down the debt.
Same shit different decade, Bush's economics. Look at how well the economy is doing. enough said!
http://clyburn.house.gov/statements/cc010301bushsotu.html

__________________
Amendment IV, search and seizure rights. Read about them before they're gone.

I'm not very versed on economics but I do have good morals.(I might be taking your last post the wrong way, idk.) First off, if a you give a really poor guy a tax break I think he would have a propensity to spend it on healthier food and bills(how can you save if you are really poor?). So, if you can follow my logic you can see that the poor man is spending the money at businesses and thusly slightly boosting the local economy. If that money were to go to the Feds than only the Fed would capitalize.

Do you propose that it is a better idea to impose higher taxes on the poor in order to stimulate the economy? That seems ludicrous if you ask me. The only thing that would stimulate is gov't revenue and gov't spending, and we all know how that works.

Please explain ... Thanks.

We

Edit- If you give rich people tax cuts they will have more of a propensity to save because there is nothing THEY NEED! The rich could be content with all they have ATM. The poor people NEED certain things that they might not be able to supply their selves with(proper food, clothing, housing, medicine, and their general well being), hence they are poor.

__________________
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Ghandi........
"We must learn to live together as brothers, or perish together as fools." MLK

Here's an interesting scenario. A few years back there was an employer in San Diego that made body armor for law enforcement and military. Local and State taxes were killing them. They employed 250 people. They were approached by government officials from the state of Kentucky who offered them tax breaks if they were to move their facility. They took the opportunity. California lost ALL tax revenues from that employer and ALL tax revenues from the employees as they were out of jobs. Kentucky now has tax revenues from not only the business but also the income from the newly created jobs there. California loses, Kentucky wins.

WeTard ...

The really poor pay no taxes, so there wouldn't be any "trickle up."

The "rich" don't put their money in the bank. They are smart enough to know that they have to invest their money in order to stay ahead of inflation. So, they invest in capital improvements, start businesses, create new services and products. All of this capital investment creates new jobs and opportunities for others to advance.

Did you notice in Med's last post that he wants, in essence, government controls on achievement?

"What I shall call TDE is clearly intended to be an economic system where there is no significant barrier to the accumulation of wealth by individuals."

Why should there be this artificial barrier to success other than to appease those who suffer from a deep seated envy of their fellow man?

And for Med ...

You may think that Reagan was a "union buster," but what he was, was something that wasn't seen in a long time, and hasn't been seen sense ... a president with balls. You are referring to the Federal Air Traffic Control Union of course. These assholes had the entire transportation system of the country by the balls with their stupid union demands. Reagan warned them to end their strike and go back to work. They ignored Reagan ... so he fired their asses. Haven't heard a peep out of them since, have we? ~lol~ So ... the Air Traffic Union holding Americans hostage and Iranians holding Americans hostage ... same treatment!

Vi
</IMG>

__________________
Obama wins, we lose. McCain wins, we lose.

I'm sorry, I meant middle class.. I guess the word poor and middle class is be vague to me. You can be making 30K a year and be poor. You have to take into account on your 'overhead' living costs.

So say your making 30k a year lets go through and figure out aprox how much spending money a person might have.

1/3 of 30k for income tax = 10k dollars
7K dollars for rent
5k for food
2k for car insurace
2k for gas
3k for utilities

10k+7k+5K+2K+2K+3K= 29k of overhead cost. So this leaves a person ~1k of spending money after the cost of living. I would consider him poor because he would not be able to go out for a drink every once in a while.

As you can see, our current system is a joke! People need to have a good paying job(40k+) in order to survive and have a little fun.

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

~PEACE~

__________________
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Ghandi........
"We must learn to live together as brothers, or perish together as fools." MLK