Bernie Sanders Shows How Reagan Destroyed The Middle Class

Not everything falls under " bad life planning". For instance volunteer work , aging parents, and a sick child can wipe out just about anyone's income. What was the bad choices?

 

Not planning and having a personal safety net to help out, not having adequate health insurance, not planning for future costs, etc. Thinking the government will take care of you is a major bad choice.

 

Again, not everyone can afford a personal safety net. Sometimes people , such as myself, help out those who have made bad choices and try to bring them back. Luckily for me I have reserve cash If I need it, but I cant say the same for a few good people I know. Now , I guess we could be more selfish and just let those other people fall on their face... but I cant sleep living like that.

 

WRONG.
All the lies you posted are LEFT WING OPINIONS. You can't change history just because you don't like the way elections turn out. You don't get to change the truth with lies. All you've posted are lies, and FASCIST ones at that. You're regurgitating anti-American drivel straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
You should be laughing at yourself.

 

Ah, I see. So the arming of militants never happened. The war on drugs was never increased. The secret meetings with the future Taliban discussing stinger missle sales, that never happened. Right, you and your Norquistian nonsense.

All of it happened. Factual. Evidence is everywhere. Reagan armed our enemies. In some cases, he created our enemies. Reagan vastly increased the illegal war on drugs against the American populace. He brought us, with his rogue Able Archer nonsense, to the brink of utter annihilation.

He's no hero. His legacy is paltry, dismal and a failure. That is, until Grover Norquist and the rabid loons on the right decided Clinton was too popular, and had to white wash history and invent a new Ronald Reagan.

Too bad history and facts don't care about political bias.


Your super hero is a dime a dozen criminal. His administration had one of the highest rates of staff incarceration of any president in the history of this country.


He's no patriot, just a false creation of Norquist.

 

Weird a warlord area that follows "free markets" is leftist. You can't make this sh*t up

 

"Those 'private firms' used FANNIE MAE UW guidelines to qualify borrowers just like everyone else. In fact, FANNIE BOUGHT subprime paper"


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn’t start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they’d lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks. For example, just over 15 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans made in 2007 have been seriously delinquent, compared to nearly 42 percent of mortgages bankrolled by Wall Street, according to the FHFA.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...fannie-and-freddie-led-mortgage-meltdown.html




By any standard"--"delinquencies, defaults, loss severity"--"GSE mortgages perform exponentially better than the rest of the market, whereas private label mortgages perform exponentially worse. To state otherwise is to lie.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fa...c_Housing_Insolvency_Meltdown-150207-203.html



" In fact, FANNIE BOUGHT subprime paper. "

Sure DUBYA REQUIRED THEM TO BUY UP $440 BILLION IN MBS'S IN THE SECONDARY MARKET 2004-2008. AND???? lol

 

With all the information that has been parsed, sliced, and diced, mostly coming from Dadthree, it's abundantly clear that the Democrats had little to do other than trying to stop this train wreck. Without any help from Democrats, the Right did most, if not all on their own to make this housing crisis happen. Trying to recoup a few feel good points for yourself by blaming some of this on the Democrats, and with so much evidence pointing to DUBYA and the Right, just isn't going to fly in the juries face. Most reasonable people see who is really to blame.

 

Trying to push the blame argument onto FF while others were using the same guidelines is really the only scapegoat they have. To keep the heat on FF, and off the private firms, as having any fault in this, has been their game.

 

He never followed free markets. Learn some history. You need it.

 

Those banksters certainly loved the Clinton administration that could never find a merger they didn't like and actively blocked derivative regulation.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, all the QE has done has helped those in the stock market and will hurt the poor.

 

Perhaps YOU can give US some state or nation to EVER use your libertarian garbage???

- - - Updated - - -

YEP, STILL waiting on that GOP bill to regulate derivatives??? LOL

 

In other words, you are so partisan that you can't admit the truth. LOL

 

The truth that without Dubya cheering on the Banksters, that bill YOU refuse to show, the GOP WANTING to to regulate the derivatives was irrelevant?

I'll wait for the link though Bubba

 

LOL, you wouldn't understand it if you were given one. You must have been born after Clinton was President.

 

Got it, DESPITE your posit that it was Clinton, IT WAS PHIL GRAMM (R) WHO PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT STOPPED THEM FROM DOING THAT. YET without Dubya cheering on the Banksters, it would've been irrelevant anyways!

 

That isn't going to happen. Trust me!

 

The united states used it and was better off.

It is in fact what allowed the creation of vast wealth by individuals which you wish to loot and steal through the government.

 

Oh, the arming of the Mujahideen DID happen. And as I 'splained, it was brokered by DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE WILSON.
Let's see. Maybe I didn't say that loud enough. Let's try it again:
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN CHARLIE WILSON
You'll no doubt continue to say otherwise because liberal parrots don't really have regular thought patterns. They are about as insightful as a cassette deck.
Oh, and AMERICA wanted the War On Drugs. America doesn't want people lying in the street addicted to heroin, cocaine, crack, etc. Well, maybe LIBERALS want America on drugs. Certainly all liberals I know are pot and crack heads. I won't comment on whether or not YOU use because that would get me another suspension.

Oh, I agree. You just haven't provided any.
HERE are the facts:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

By Peter B. Sperry

See also: The Truth About Tax Rates and The Politics of Class Warfare
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

After President George W. Bush sent Congress an outline of his tax reform plan on February 8, some critics immediately began to attack it as a return to what they portray as the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Reagan Administration. According to these commentators, Congress should scale back--if not outright reject--President Bush's tax reform proposals because they are based on a period when the wealthy received excessive tax cuts and revenue was wasted on defense even though most Americans struggled in poverty. This is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the fact that President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture. Congress should embrace President Bush's tax reform plan as a responsible return to the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.

President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.



Chart 1
Even with the growing surplus, however, a small but vocal faction in Congress opposes any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts and that generally would shift power from the government to the people. This attempt to rewrite history should not be surprising. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.

history confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?

Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)




HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12

HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?

Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:

In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14

Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16

Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.

Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:

For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;

For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.

On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:

For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;

For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;

For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

CONCLUSION

No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.

If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.

To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/correcting-the-revisionists-on-the-reagan-record/article/2558248
Ever since Reagan's two terms in office, Democrats have been trying to recast those years of remarkable peacetime growth without inflation as a time of abject greed, when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. But the facts have never corroborated their propaganda.

To really understand Reagan's record — and thus mainstream conservatism still today — you must remember just how bleak things were during the Carter years. At the end of Jimmy Carter's term, unemployment was 7.4 percent and galloping toward double figures; inflation was already in double digits; and interest rates were a staggering 21.5 percent. There was no end in sight.

Indeed, I remember the general malaise that gripped the nation at that time — the attitude of despair, fatalism and resignation. America's best years, according to Carter's apologists, were behind her, and it wasn't his fault that things were so abysmally bleak.

Reagan, against all naysayers, promised that the proper policies could unleash the sleeping economic giant again and that we could return to sustained, robust growth and prosperity. Once elected, despite strong opposition from Democrats in Congress, he fulfilled his promise.

Reagan inherited a steep recession but, unlike President Obama today, did not keep using it as an excuse well into his presidency. Reagan didn't need excuses, because his policies began to produce results very quickly.

Reagan had pushed for a 30 percent across-the-board cut in marginal income tax rates, but Democrats in Congress forced a reduction to 25 percent and delayed its implementation. But once the bill passed and kicked in, the results were dramatic.

Along with Reagan's policy of deregulation, his tax cuts produced an economic boom that continued for almost eight full years — from November 1982 to July 1990 — with not a scintilla of a recession.

Reagan's policies led to the largest period of economic growth to date in the history of the nation. The economy was nearly a third larger at the conclusion of the Reagan years than at the beginning, and real median family income grew by $4,000, as opposed to almost no growth during the Ford-Carter years.

Like President John F. Kennedy, Reagan demonstrated that reducing marginal income tax rates could increase revenues. Revenues almost doubled during the Reagan years, and even after adjusting for inflation, they increased by some 28 percent. Reaganomics also shattered the long-established economic textbook axiom that there is a trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Despite nearly 20 million new jobs, there was barely any upward pressure on prices.

Though Democrats preached that under Reagan, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, in fact the plight of all income groups improved. Not only that but upward mobility, which received its last rites under Carter, made a dramatic comeback, as a Treasury Department study revealed that 86 percent of the people in the lowest 20 percent of income in 1979 graduated into higher categories during the '80s. More people in every income group moved up than down except — ironically — the top 1 percent of earners.

Moreover, the real Reagan record puts the lie to the liberal manta that the rich didn't pay their "fair share." In the first place, average effective income tax rates were cut more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. In 1991, after the Reagan cuts had been in place for almost a decade, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 25 percent of income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom half paid only 5 percent. How is that for fairness?

Unfortunately, Reagan didn't achieve the spending reductions he'd envisioned, though some misinformation exists here, too. Military spending constituted much of the increase — by design and by necessity after Carter's gutting of our vital defenses. But the rate of domestic spending grew more slowly under Reagan than under his immediate predecessors and would have been reduced far more but for recalcitrant big-spending Democratic congressmen.

The military spending, coupled with Reagan's coherent peace-through-strength foreign policy, yielded immeasurable dividends, as the Soviet Union soon disintegrated. And no, my revisionist liberal friends, this was not because of a willing, enlightened Mikhail Gorbachev.
Since all you want to do is repeat yourself like spoiled kid in a school yard, I might as well play along. Here are the facts:
1. Bernie Sanders is a rich pimple. He is wrong and is bad for America. People who voted for him are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing RETARDS.
2. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in history. He was the best thing ever to happen to America.
3. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

 

Yep, keep sourcing biased sources. I'll keep looking at history, from unbiased "heritage.org" alternatives. The Heritage Foundation has a clearly biased conservative slant, especially considering it's white washing of Reagan and it's help in reconstructing him as a hero.

This is the laughing stock of history.

Get out of here with the Heritage Foundation.