GaryO apparently forgets that revenues to the federal treasury nearly doubled
under Reagan. But you know, facts are so inconvenient.
Trickle down economic policies need to be reversed to help turn this country
around. In theory trickle down economics sounds great, but its reality is polar
opposite of the theory. What Reagan and others failed to comprehend is that the
cup of the wealthy would only increase in size - to contain the additional
wealth now granted from tax cuts - in almost perfect relation to the size of the
tax cuts. It ( Money and wealth) can't trickle down to others if the cup
(ahem greed) has increased in size. If we want the wealthy to share
more with their workers we have two great solutions that work rather well. Solution 1: Unions----> Unions increase the ability of labor to
protect jobs and capture more of the profit. Solution 2: Progressive
Taxation------> A highly progressive tax system like in Sweden still
encourages making gobs of money, but provides a great incentive to spread the
wealth around to others besides yourself. I'm ready for the
written onslaught by Reagan fans now. GaryO., please support an economic
What GaryO does not realize - or conveniently omits - is that government
revenues when UP every year under Reagan. Carter's last year revenues were
$571B. Reagan's last year was $909B. The problem was the spending went up
even more. Despite leftist claims that Reagan cut the government to the bone,
spending went from $590B in 1980 to $1.064T in 1988.Why did revenues
increase if Reagan made such a give away to the rich? He did not. Reagan
lowered the top marginal rate but eliminated a large number of loop holes. He
also implemented the alternative minimum tax to ensure that the rich were not
manipulating the tax code. The change, however, encourage people to invest and
move their money (allowing the government to tax it). What followed was the
longest economic expansion in the nation's history.Facts - they
are so inconvenient.
@Chris B"barack promised he'd cut the deficit in half in
his first term."Lets look at the facts on this one. First The US
Deficit is defined as the amount by which the government’s total budget
outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. Ok lets simply look at the
year before he took office and the year of the end of his first term.US Fiscal year deficit2009 - $1,413 Billion2013 - 680 BillionSo that shows that he cut the yearly deficit by 52% in his first term.
The projected Deficit for the next 2 years is2014 - $649 Billion2015 - $564 BillionSo by the end of FY 2015 Obama would have cut
the yearly deficit by 61% since coming into office. I am sure that you will
join me in giving credit where credit is due and thanking out president for
living up to his promises.
GaryO is right about taxes. We currently are paying on average 14.5% of our
individual income in taxes. Prior to President Reagan we were paying 20%. That
means we are down around 30%. More spending and less taxes. Yes, someone said
we are collecting more than ever, but that is an illusion. Yes it is more, but
it is a much smaller percentage and so in the long run it is in real terms much
much less. Taxes are the governments income. By decreasing taxes in
the last 30 years we have decreased our income. At the same time we have
increased spending. OK, I am gonna make all ya'll happy. I propose
decreasing spending and increasing taxes. It ain't rocket science. More
in, less out. But what it is, is painful for all. Less government help and less
Hey... politico posters....perhaps per personal pleas will produce pecuniarial
parity! Ok.. that was fun.. But seriously, we have to start
demanding that your own elected officials from your party start attacking their
own party's guilt in this budget fiasco. Focusing on the flaws of the
other party will do much less than making your leaders focus on their flaws.
They will fear losing your votes. They don't fear losing the votes from
those who didn't vote for them in the past. Dems....start
demanding a lessening of money toward welfare and other entitlement programs.
Repub... start demanding your leaders stop with the tax breaks, and be OK with
some logical tax increases.... Or apologize to your kids and grandkids and if
you are young...get ready for some serious pain.
The economy is finally getting over the 2008 crisis. Great work by the present
Administration. Dow over 17,000.
Obama could issue an executive order to balance the budget.
Remind me again which branch of the government creates the budget.... has hat
responsibility somehow move from the legislature to the executive branch without
us all noticing the change?
Here's the reality with taxes:It is true that the government
gets their revenue from taxes. Therefore when taxes are raised the government
theoretically gets more revenue, BUT it hurts the economy (does anybody honestly
believe that taxing businesses more will lead to job creation?). Thus with a
worse economy, the revenue isn't increased much more; they take a higher
percentage, but people's wages freeze or drop due to a hurting economy.On the other hand, while lowering taxes decreases the government revenue
theoretically, it helps the economy. With a better economy the government gets
more money. It's a smaller percentage, but a larger number to take from
(which is more, 5% of $10 or 10% of $5?).The problem we face today
is the government is spending too much. Seemingly the only way to pay for
government programs is to raise taxes (hence the "tax and spend" name
the Democrats get). Raising taxes hurts economic growth, so it's a long
painful process for everyone and the government goes into deeper debt to make up
for it.The solution is to shrink the government and its spending.
That will allow them to lower taxes and boost the economy.
And nobody cares. They may care when they wake up one day and can't access
their bank accounts.
Great jobs report, recovery moving forward. Tea party up creek without
paddle.Maybe they can root for someone else's economy to fail.
Our leaders want hold school students accountable for math test scores, but
can't balance a checkbook.Pathetic!
To all those hypocrites whose pants are in a twist about the deficit: You have
mortgages, don't you? Why don't you stop being such deadbeats and pay
for your houses in cash?
With the stock market moving up along with the debt, who is making the market
There You Go AgainAnd that black guy in the White House also said
deficits matter. What do you have to say about that?ShaunWhat would we cut? Everything. 1 or 2 percent on every program. You'd
be amazed at how much money that would save. And how little it would hurt
anyone. One or two dollars per hundred would not kill anyone or any job or any
program. Plus get rid of the baseline budgeting which automatically increases
certain budgets. Then we would get this deficit spending under control.
What would you guys cut? Everybody whines about deficits and the debt but there
is not one person among us who doesn't have their hand in the cookie
jar.Do you want to cut defense spending? Fine. What are the economic
affects of reducing spending money on defense? Job losses. When a defense
contractor lays off his employees who make ships, planes and tanks then it
starts to ripple through the economy causing more layoffs. Do you
want to cut SS and medicare? Fine. What happens when the elderly cut back on
their spending? Job losses ripple through the economy.
@Loconic"we have been collecting more money in recent years than at
anytime in our country's history. "Due to inflation and
population growth. As a percentage of GDP it's lower.
Probably the most amazing thing about all this is the extent that Obama
supporters will go to in an attempt to justify and rationalize the complete
abandonment of all accountability and responsibility. If Obama burned down the
White House, they'd probably jump up and claim that bedbugs had reportedly
been sighted there, and that now they were thankfully eradicated. Astounding.
Republican Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter.Republican
Dick Cheney said that President Reagan proved deficits don't matter.Republican S. Carolina Congressman said it is good politics for the
Republicans to oppose the black guy in the White HouseNow that there
is a black guy in the White House, deficits matter.
LoconicThank you for responding to FT, as it saved me from repeating
pretty much what you pointed out. The simple fact is, Bush took us to 10
trillion in debt in 8 years. Obama has taken it to 17.5 trillion in a little
over 5 years. Simple as that. No amount of convoluted twisting of statistics
and percentages can refute that. And, yes, Obama is now standing at worst since
WW11. And possibly on his way to being worst ever. I wouldn't defend a
Republican President this bad. Why do the Democrats drink so much grape Koolaid
for this guy??
I thought our political leaders were to protect the people of this country.Are there any evidence of our commanders love for this nation?
Amazing how someone can be slapping you in the face, and you're blaming
people from thirty years ago.Has Obama improved this country in any
@ FT and GaryO:I don't know where you two get your information,
but some of it is very skewed and unreliable. In actuality, we have been
collecting more money in recent years than at anytime in our country's
history. But our spending has been growing at an even faster rate with the size
of the federal government growing over 30% since Obama took office. War was
responsible for some of the earlier spending growth. But social program spending
is currently at an all-time high, which is to expected from Democrat policies
and their self-described agenda. Objective observers often refer to such
spending habits as buying votes. Do some reading and investigating
for yourselves rather than accepting info from a known ultra-liberal at face
value. There are multiple ways of skewing and interpreting data to make some
results appear different from what it actually is. It appears FT is now
playing that game. The government has relatively recently redefined what GDP is.
That skews recent GDP ratios when comparing to earlier numbers. It's like
comparing apples and oranges and can be very manipulative.Use independent
sources in your investigation and read the fine print.
I read a report this morning about a poll taken by Quinnipiac University here in
the USA that was quite extensive covering each region in our country. It was
about who the worst president in the US since WW2 is. There have been 12
presidents covering 69 years.Barrack Obama was the winner of this
award, followed by George W Bush, who was 7% behind Obama. Nixon was third in
the balloting followed by Jimmy Carter in fourth. Obama's lack
of control of federal deficit spending was one of the reasons he was voted the
overall worst. However, there was other reasons given, such as Obamacare and his
Please folks understand how the goverment operates, with revenue (taxes).
Revenues as a percent of GDP are the lowest since the 1950's. Currently we
are not spending ourselves into debt. We simply are not raising the percent of
revenues we have historically done in the past 60 years. The GOP is responsible
for this and the growing debt is not what BO is spending it's what the GOP
led congress refuses to collect. Our kids deserve better than this, vote the GOP
and the radical tea party out of office.
Let's all listen to what Senator Obama had to say about the rising
government debt in March, 2006: "Leadership means that, "the buck stops
here". Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto
the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a
failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." So we got him. Just
talk. That's what we have in the White House. Any questions?
GaryOBlaming Reagan for billions in national debt, when Obama has
added 7 trillion? Buying votes? Which is something the Democrats have done
all throughout American history. REALLY?You lose any credibility with nonsense
arguments like those. Reagan left in 1989. You want to have any credibility
with readers, then defend Obama raising the national debt by 7 trillion in less
than 6 years. Anyone and everyone reading this should go to debt clock. com and
watch the red ink pour out. Those are the facts. All else, by people like
GaryO, is just partisan politics. P.S. Hamath is correct. Obama
asked for Simpson-Bowles, then roundly rejected it. Not smart, and we will be
paying the price for the inept Obama for decades to come. And it's
technically on the shoulders of those of you who voted for Obama twice.
I don't think you can barrow from Peter to pay Paul. Retribution will come
when the the Piper want's to be payed.
David -"Obama's cronyism, such as Solyndra, huge financial
bailouts for banks by Bush and Obama, an extremely expensive Obamacare website,
Obamacare itself, extending entitlement programs,…"Let's lend some truth to your distortions, shall we? Solyndra was an
investment in an American solar panel company that went belly up because it
could not compete with less expensive Chinese solar panels. We NEED to invest in
alternate energy and in our own nation. Yes, Solyndra did not work out, but that
doesn't mean we should give up on America. BTW Solyndra cost half a
billion dollars. That's one ten thousandth 1/10,000 of the estimated 5
trillion we've spent on GW's two wars already.911 and both
of the wars could have been avoided BTW, if GW had been performing the duties of
his office . . . instead of lowering taxes for his high rolling friends.Huge financial bailouts were necessary to keep this entire nation from
going belly up, and it's one of the few things GW Bush got right. Those
bailouts, BTW, were initiated during GW's administration.An
"extremely expensive Obamacare website??!" Compared to what? "Independently, the Sunlight Foundation estimated it cost $70 million . .
" . . . A pittance relatively speaking.
Hey "The Truth" -“Do you understand you can not spend
more than you bring in".WRONG. Ronald Reagan and GW
Bush spent more than they brought in all the time. That’s why Reagan
tripled the debt and GW Doubled it. It’s called deficit spending, and the
Republicans are masters of deficit spending.“And you cannot
continue increase taxes on the people and expect a healthy economy.”WRONG again. Both Ronald Reagan and GW Bush shamelessly and
irresponsibly bought votes by decreasing taxes, and as a result, revenue was
much lower than it otherwise would have been.Bill Clinton, on the
other hand, raised taxes for the highest earners, enjoyed a booming economy and
balanced the budget four years in a row.Sorry, but your claims are
Not to worry. We have wonderful, powerful printers and we can print money
really fast now! We can hire more people to work to wrk at the mint. Job
No amount of political spinning will change facts. Let's try to put it in
perspective. 1776 - 2014 is a total of 238 years. It took 233 years
to get to a point where our debt was 6.3 trillion. It took 5 more years to get
the debt to double. If we take this down to something we can understand, it
would the same as taking 23 years to get $60,000 in credit card debt and then
with a change of who controls the credit card, 1/2 a year to get another $60,000
in debt. It's unsustainable. It's shameful that
President Obama, the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican controlled
house did not follow the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. Until
Republicans voters start demanding that Republican elected officials get it in
their heads that there will have to be tax increases AND until Democrats voters
start demanding for cutbacks in spending in entitlement programs, we are doomed
to continue on this path. And if we fall, it will BE the Democratic voters
fault for not holding their party accountable and the Republican voters fault
for not holding their party accountable. Long Live Simpson-Bowles!
@chris b its funny when it comes time to pass a budget conservatives
go on and on about how it is the congress that holds the press strings but when
it comes to finding blame for loose purse strings they want to blame the
president. @the truthyou get it half right we cannot
spend more then we bring in if we are going to do anything about the debt but
pretending that continuing to allowing the wealthiest americans to pay even
less taxes then they did under reagan is some how going to solve our revenue
problem is beyond reason, the idea you propose we stick with has been in place
more then a decade and has done nothing but push the debt up and forced more and
more people down and out of the middle class. Trickle down has never worked in
the past and it is not working now.
jbiking,The 2 wars Obama funded were designed to keep America and
our society safe. Without war against the Taliban, disrupting al-Queda, killing
bin-Laden and chasing terrorists to Europe, Africa and elsewhere, we would
certainly have suffered more attacks like 9/11. But since you
wanted to discuss what happened over the past 8 years, you should throw in cash
for clunkers, Obama's cronyism, such as Solyndra, huge financial bailouts
for banks by Bush and Obama, an extremely expensive Obamacare website, Obamacare
itself, extending entitlement programs,…We recognize both in
programs and the financial numbers that Obama has been a very expensive
Couldn't agree more with @GaryOArticle seems disingenuous as it
doesn't accurately discuss what has happened over the past 8 years.
President Obama inherited 2 unfunded wars that finally got put on the accounting
books. Deficits are still high but are finally going the right direction.
@GaryODo you understand you can not spend more than you bring in.And you cannot continue increase taxes on the people and expect a
healthy economy.The need to n be responsibility in spending. The
people money should be considered sacred. Handling the people's money
should considered a sacred responsibility. Spending is done for too
thoughtlessly.in And taxation is bringing plenty of money.
more taxes is not needed. Proper and scared handling is what is needed.We do not need the government to do more for us.
barack promised he'd cut the deficit in half in his first term.He increased it.
barack has added as much to the national debt as almost all past presidents
We really need to get rid of Reaganomics ASAP.Reducing taxes for the
highest earners was supposed to create jobs.Where are the jobs?Let's learn from our mistakes and double taxes for the top bracket
. . . like they were in pre-Reagan days . . . when we spent on much needed
infrastructure and other good causes and STILL balanced the budget because we
had enough REVENUE.
IS this perfectly harmless or is it going to come back and bite us bad?