A Book Every U.S. Citizen Should Read

[Clayton_Wetter]

Mud I didn't really mine President Reagan. I even voted for him. My whole point was he was no better than anyone else. Now if you where to say the last good president he had since the 80's was Ronald Reagan I could agree to that.

Reagan great because he stood for Americas people first. Their freedoms, national defense, and many values that the left seeks to destroy.

[kidrock]

The largest tax increases instituted by Reagan administration policies was social security taxes and the closing of loopholes in the tax code. The Reagan SS tax increases are the reason why SS security is still barely sovent. Without those increases SS would be completely broke.

Every economic parameter except personal savings was at better levels during the Reagan years than before or after. Interest rates and inflation dropped precipitously during the Reagan years. Personal income jumped by an average of over $4000.00 per household. Carter had the country in such dire straights it took someone like Reagan to hammer out solutions.

The biggest reasons for the increase in the federal debt under Reagan was the build up of military might that brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It's safe to say it was probably worth the cost.

I suggest you you put aside your bitter hatred for Reagan and O'Reilly and read O'Reilly's book about Reagan and get your facts and perspective straight.

The raw hatred for Ronald Reagan by many Democrats is palpable to this day. A lot of the reason why is because the contrast between Carter and Reagan was stark and undeniable. Reagan fixed much of what Carter fukked up and Reagan debunked much of what Carter and those of his ilk stand for and it galls the hard core haters to this day.

Ronald Reagan would handily beat every U.S. President we've elected since he left office in 1989 and would still be in office to this day if he were alive and the 22nd amendment didn't exist. Reagan epitomized the class and dignity befitting of the office. Something sorely missing in the present occupant of the White House. Does Al Sharpton, pimp with a limp, Zach Galifianakis, GloZell, Shawn Carter among others ring any bells? Those are just a few of the folks that have been embraced by the present President. Plenty of class and dignity among those names, don't ya' think?

Just think Bill Clinton could have won a third term and beaten W by a landslide and then beaten Obama and whoever the retards put up as well and would still be our President.

[mudslinger47]

Just think Bill Clinton could have won a third term and beaten W by a landslide and then beaten Obama and whoever the retards put up as well and would still be our President.

NAAA.... the country was sick of Klinton, and much of it still is, hence my doubt of Hilary doing beans this time around... the Klintons are slime ... they ignore law and are powerful enough to sidestep any major charges... those aren't the kind of people that make me proud to be an American.... those types of people are the type that you lambast on Wallstreet...

[CIRF]

Just think Bill Clinton could have won a third term and beaten W by a landslide and then beaten Obama and whoever the retards put up as well and would still be our President.

With all due respect to Mud's evaluation, I believe you may be right about klinton beating GWB. But there was a klinton fatigue in the country at that time and whoever he'd have run against for a third term would have giddily danced on the fact that klinton was disbarred and the rampant lies he told during the oval office blow job investigation. Plus, Juanita Broaddrick, one of the women klinton raped, would have been interviewed on every major network and klinton would have had to deal with that situation beyond his silence and stonewalling. I think Mrs. klinton would have had to weigh in on that deal, too, which would have put her political career in jeopardy. Imagine defending and standing by a rapist.

Again, you may be right but it wouldn't have been a cakewalk against GWB. But on the same token, klinton wouldn't have had a chance in he!! of beating Ronald Reagan for a 1st, 2nd or 3rd term.

[ss12]

Cirf again Reagan was no better than any other president. According to you right wing war mongers if a republican raises taxes it justified but if a democrats then its the end of the world. I like your little paragraph explaining the economy. "Every economic parameter except personal savings was at better levels during the Reagan years than before or after" Let me get this straight Personal saving didn't improve but the average citizen seen an increase in their income of $4000 and inflation was down? I guarantee you that If my income goes up so the my personal savings. Now interest rates, high or low rates always has a pluses and minuses. At this time in my life I would like to see higher interest rates. I have a "little" nest egg right now but is earning nothing. Lower interest rates is killing the middle class of their wealth. Do I blame this on any president? The answer is no. I blame the federal reserve (private banks) that set the rates. Seems to me I have always been on the wrong side. When I was young the interest rates were high and now that I old the rates are low. Now for my children they can afford a home because the rates are low. Maybe when they are older the rates will be high.


"The biggest reasons for the increase in the federal debt under Reagan was the build up of military might that brought about the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It's safe to say it was probably worth the cost"
Another spin by the right wing war mongers. According to you war mongers Russia wasn't a threat anymore. Once an enemy always a enemy. This is why you right wing war mongers can't win a war. Look at Russia today in Syria they went right after to rebels that we(USA) is backing knowing we will do nothing because we can't afford another war with anybody. It has nothing to do who is in the White house. War cost money and when your country is the biggest debtor in the world nobody wants to loan you anymore money. USA debt 18 trillion dollars, Russia debt 2 billion dollars. Who would you loan money to. A country that is 18 trillion and probably will never pay you back or a country that is only 2 billion dollars in debt and probably will be able to afford to pay you back. Was it worth it?
Reagan helped build the military industrial complex and it has help increase our national debt every year since.

[Clayton_Wetter]

NAAA.... the country was sick of Klinton, and much of it still is, hence my doubt of Hilary doing beans this time around... the Klintons are slime ... they ignore law and are powerful enough to sidestep any major charges... those aren't the kind of people that make me proud to be an American.... those types of people are the type that you lambast on Wallstreet...

But Klinton should have been in jail a long time ago. Political cronies and the media have saved his and his wife's crooked butts for decades.

[mud duck]

Reagan was a decent President. But, Bill was the best. He could have cured cancer and stopped world hunger. The conservatives still wouldn't like him! Who cares what he got under the desk!

[Clayton_Wetter]

https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

[ss12]

Clayton that just go to show what crooks we really have in Washington and it doesn't matter what party.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Reagan was a decent President. But, Bill was the best. He could have cured cancer and stopped world hunger. The conservatives still wouldn't like him! Who cares what he got under the desk!

He couldn't cure anything. He was just good at giving semen samples, and hopefully they all died!

[Clayton_Wetter]

Clayton that just go to show what crooks we really have in Washington and it doesn't matter what party.

Both parties are not equally corrupt. Who is out there trying to reform the Democrat party. Nobody.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Did Reagan raise taxes? Reagan had the biggest tax increase in history when a war wasn't going on. Did he increase the national debt? Who sold guns to Iran?

O'reilly really didn't write this book he just put his name on it? Kool aid anyone?

Reagan's Benghazi - Around dawn on October 23, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon, a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen.

ss12 despite your multiple attempts to portray Reagan as a big tax raiser, that was NOT the case.

Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.

Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.

I’ve decided to examine Reagan’s tax cuts and tax increases in order to set the record straight and end this tomfoolery.

Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.

The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.

Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.

So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.

(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)

Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)

Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year? I would argue that the two clearly aren’t the same thing — and yet that distinction is seldom made.

So how has this canard advanced to a state where it would demand correction so many years later? Both sides have contributed to advancing this misleading narrative. It’s in nobody’s interest to clarify the distinction — that not all taxes hikes and cuts are equal. Conservatives who oppose all tax hikes (or revenue raisers such as removing deductions) gain little by exposing Reagan’s nuanced approach. Liberals benefit most from the opaqueness — because they can label Reagan a serial tax increaser — while ignoring the broader impact of his work on the federal tax racket.

Facts matter. Reagan’s legacy has been co-opted and mangled by both sides. Yes, he raised taxes. Yes he cut taxes. The real story is how he raised taxes and how he cut them. And the overarching theme is that Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates and broadened the base. He was a reformer willing to make tough decisions. And at the end of the day, his legacy is that of a free market tax cutter. “If you aggregate together all the tax hikes … Reagan was a net tax cutter,” says Americans for Tax Reform’s Ryan Ellis. “I believe that makes him unique in the 20th century Cold War era. (Kennedy’s were passed by Johnson, who later raised taxes to pay for Vietnam).”

Why is it important to set the record straight on this? Because liberals continue to attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting deficit reduction plans along the lines of tit for tat. “We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes.” Looking to history, though, conservatives should be wary of this feint.

Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.” The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts. George H.W. Bush encountered the same trick in 1990. It cost him the presidency. The same idea was tossed out last summer — and smartly rejected by the GOP.

President Reagan deserves better than to have his legacy misrepresented. It is healthy for us to properly assess his policies. He came into office amid very difficult times, vowing to restore the American dream. Considering the full body of his work, I’d say that was a mission well accomplished.

[Clayton_Wetter]

Being a victim of left wing distortion, seems to be common in this ill informed nation.

[dlm25jr]

Being a victim of left wing distortion, seems to be common in this ill informed nation.

victim/left wingers.....those two go hand in hand!....They don't believe in personal responsibility!

[ss12]

Clayton Clayton Just more right wing spin. All you need to know is he had the biggest tax increase in history when a war wasn't going on. Its that simple. Any time you read an article and they mention the word "liberal" you know it is right wing bias.

Clayton you right wing war monger are helping Obama look like one of the greatest president that was ever in office. You bring up how bad the economy was prior to Reagan taking the office. Things wasn't half as bad as it was for Obama. A world wide financial melt down, a war that was a lie from the previous republican administration, and a economy that was loosing 800,000 jobs a month to china. What he pulled off was a miracle.

40 years from now most of the population won't even know who Reagan was. I hate to bust your bubble but he not even in the same caliber as a Washington, Jefferson, or a Lincoln. He more in the caliber as a Harrison, Polk, or Hayes. Obama will be more famous because he was the first black president.

Keep on building how great Reagan is because its going to make Obama like some kind of a god. I must remind you I didn't vote for Obama either term.