History Channel Bizarrely Credits 1980s Economic Recovery to the 'Reagan Tax Increases'
According to a new History Channel special on Ronald Reagan, the profound economic recovery of the early '80s can be credited to "the Reagan tax increases." The February 9 program contained this odd assertion while highlighting the President's path to reelection in 1984. Of course, the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 actually cut the top marginal rate from 70 percent to 50 percent.
Despite this, narrator David Jeremiah asserted, "By 1984, Ronald Reagan is cruising toward re-election. After enduring a recession that threatened his hopes for a second term, the economy, thanks in part to the Reagan tax increases, is bouncing back."
[See video below. MP3 audio here.]
The Kemp-Roth tax cuts of 1981 were mentioned earlier in the special with Jeremiah observing, "The measures include huge tax cuts and vastly increased military spending."
It's true that Reagan did sign the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), removing some elements of the previous years legislation. It also increased some taxes as an attempt to cut the deficit. But it did not increase the marginal rates (which ultimately dropped to 28 percent).
In an otherwise fair program, the History Channel's crediting of "tax increases" for the recovery is a rather odd interpretation of history.
A transcript of the February 9 show's relevant sections can be found below:
10:09pm
RONALD REAGAN: We have much greatness before us. We can restore our economic strength and build opportunities like none we've ever had before. All we need to begin with is a dream that we can do better than before. All we need to have is faith, and that dream will come true. All we need to do is act, and the time for action is now. Thank you and good night.
NARRATOR DAVID JEREMIAH: The public response to Reagan is immediate and overwhelmingly positive. Congress is compelled to pass Reagan's economic agenda, legislation that had been stalled before the assassination attempt. The measures include huge tax cuts and vastly increased military spending.
10:24
REAGAN AD: It's morning again in America. And under the leadership of president Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than 4 short years ago?
NARRATOR: By 1984, Ronald Reagan is cruising toward re-election. After enduring a recession that threatened his hopes for a second term, the economy, thanks in part to the Reagan tax increases, is bouncing back.
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I was watching that as it
Submitted by gopsteve on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:38pm.
I was watching that as it happened...I could not believe it...well, maybe I could believe it.
pure history revisionism
Reagan
Submitted by jackiestbird on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:30pm.
If I am correct, The History Channel is owned by NBC, so no surprise.
Propaganda channel
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:41pm.
You know, I had liked the History Channel on some things, but ever since they are taking more and more of a liberal bent, it's getting so that they might as well call themselves the Propaganda Channel.
I'm fast running out of channels to watch.
-Jon
History Channel
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:57pm.
American Pickers and Pawn Stars. Two reality shows....only thing worth watching there.
They've distorted so much history that it ought to be called the Fantasy Channel.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Pawn Stars and Top Shot
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:11pm.
Top Shot is another one that I had been watching, but I've kinda missed it when they started up the second one. I'll wait till they do their marathon, I hear they got two ladies in it this time, and holy crap, they are nice looking. Plus I love a woman who knows how to wield a gun! Oink!
(Yeah, I know they are married, etc but then so is Sarah Palin and I like her too)
I like Pawn Stars because there's always an opportunity to learn about something on there, some little tidbit of history somewhere that kinda fills in the blanks on some things, plus the stuff about the various weapons they get, those are always cool. I really wish they would get rid of that idiot Chumlee, it bothers me that they get someone that could and has caused thousands of dollars of damage. I remember where he had that album that Rick wanted that guy to sign(was it Bob Dylan?) with his name, but ended up getting it personalized to Chumlee, thus rendering the value of that album to a few bucks.
-Jon
I think Chumlee is as dumb as he looks
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:22pm.
I love that show, they get the coolest stuff. I love all of the old weapons, and the historical stuff, too. George Washington's Lotto Ticket....Who knew?
I also enjoy the stuff that Rick gets refurbished, like the old bike, barber chair, etc.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I like all the stuff just named...
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 10:19pm.
......and the Modern Marvels stuff (and, and, and...).
I have to be careful, any of that stuff I can get locked into if I don't skip over the channel fast enough! And heaven forbid they have an all day marathon. I could be toast for hours.
Blonde.. or, who has Alzheimer's now?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 7:51pm.
Answer: The History Channel.
(;~/ gary
Not Much History On The History Channel
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:58pm.
Unless you call tree cutting and gold digging history after I watch it.
I've really gotten into the
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:19pm.
I've really gotten into the ID Channel lately. If you like crime mysteries then that is the channel to watch. I still watch Top Shot and Pawn Stars on the History Channel.
Lets see here. First, we have
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:51pm.
Lets see here. First, we have Obama reading books on Reagan and claiming Reagan is his "mentor" so to speak. Then we have Obama refering to himself as "the Gipper". And now we have the ultimate smear, Reagan raised taxes. This is all a measured move by the administrations handlers to push the notion that Reagan raised taxes and was really a closet liberal. After all, he was from California....
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Perfectly true!
Submitted by Morganfrost on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:54pm.
I hope they also took the trouble to credit the collapse of the Soviet Union to Reagan's repeated endorsements of communism, and his gutting of the U.S. military budget.
What do you expect
Submitted by Conservator on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:08pm.
The History Channel is own by A&E which is a joint venture of the Hearst Corporation (37.5% ownership), The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%). - not fans of Conservatives.And now we have the Obama
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:13pm.
And now we have the Obama budget and we have the debt equel to the entire US economy! And the Reagan raised taxes mantra being screamed at the top of the liberal lungs.
Im a gonna puke...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Got Revisionism?
Submitted by ontheright on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:27pm.
Got Revisionism?
This is why so many are clueless today
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 3:14pm.
The progressive revisionism is embeded in our entire education culture. So many people think that A happens when B is enacted because they've been wrongly told that it does.
Is this why so many liberals think that the economy does better when you raise taxes? Is this why so many liberals think that you can spend your way into prosperity? Because they have been taught a twisted view of cause and effect in order to promote a political agenda?
I have spoken with many friends and collegues who cannot get the concept that almost every dollar collected in taxes for the Federal Government is a dollar that is taken out of the economy. In effect, the government's revenue is subtracted from the GDP. This is why the deficit and the debt are so insideous. All the interest that we need to pay on the mounting debt and any that we add is money spent today from future GDP.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
c5, I once tried to explain
Submitted by MikeB on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:30pm.
c5, I once tried to explain to the guy who taught the junior college equivalent of Civics why an increase in the minimum wage was not a good idea, that it was a de facto devaluation of the currency. I tried to tell him that even if the minimum wage was raised to $10,000/hr, the people who made minimum wage would still not be able to live on the minimum wage, as all other wages and prices would rise as well. He just didn't get it.
You can give them their degrees, but it doesn't make them intelligent.
Revising Reagan
Submitted by Meredith1966 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 3:48pm.
I watched this as well and also raised my eyebrows at the reference to Reagan's tax increases. Say what? On the whole I thought it very complimentary of President Reagan; it didn't portray him as a dolt, or as being manipulated by handlers, or anything else that the political Left often preaches as gospel truth. On the other hand, I was a bit suspicious of it given President Obama's sudden embracing of the Reagan image, and as well because Sam Donaldson and Bob Schieffer, both prominent in the program, were very complimentary of Reagan throughout. That, too, was odd given their (especially Donaldson's) past history towards Reagan in particular and Conservatives in general (Donaldson once said that Reagan would give you the shirt off his back and then go inside the White House and sign legislation putting your grandmother out in the street). Seems too coincidental now that Obama is trying to co-opt the Reagan legacy.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
In a way, if you spin hard
Submitted by MikeB on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:25pm.
In a way, if you spin hard and fast, they are right about Reagan increasing taxes. Due to Reagan being the great communicator, he got the tax rate cuts through a hostile Congress. Once the legislation became law and the rate were reduced, economic activity increased dramatically. With the increased economic activity, tax revenues increased. Therefore, Reagan raised taxes; he did it by forcing a tax rate cut.
Off topic, but I really do wish we would stop allowing the left to define our words here. For example, liberal and progressive. There is nothing either liberal, i.e. "relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom" or progressive about a group or Party that advocates a return to the policies of Marx or the old, defunct for a reason Soviet Union, as the Democrat Party wishes to do. Why don't we call a marxist a marxist and a socialist a socialist? They are neither liberal or progressive.
Federal income taxes went up
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:33pm.
Federal income taxes went up during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan.
Whether that was (and is) a good or bad thing is another subject. The fact remains that he wasn't a tax cutter.
Here's a brief, interesting article on the subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm
One of the longest term results of TEFRA was the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) change from an "add on" tax to what amounts to a "parallel tax system." Under TEFRA the AMT calculations - by design - turned tax planning on its head. The more people did to avoid "regular" Federal incomet taxes, the higher their obligation under AMT.
I think most people would agree that today the AMT has gotten completely out of hand. People shouldn't be forced into bankruptcy because they exercised stock options.
I think that most people,
Submitted by Willis_Leon_Johnson on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 5:05pm.
I think that most people, referring particularly to American Citizens, shouldn't be forced to live their lives, or plan their futures based on any tax code.
I also think that Most People would prefer that the re-election of any particular candidate be based.
Poor performance, ie; the GDP goes down, or the rate of inflation goes up, they are automatically disqualified from running.
End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.
If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?
Thanks jfw
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:17pm.
That article is such a blantant display of media bias in the form of using terminology to push propaganda that it should have been hammered by any econ101 student. Like we are supposed to believe a writer for CNN Money doesn't know the difference between tax rates and tax revenue or that there is a difference between closing loopholes and raising taxes or that while dealing with Democrats in Congress he did concede a few things for overall cuts.
Thanks again - it was a good laugh.
Funny article
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:11pm.
It was good for a laugh. I chuckled over this one, After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)
In what universe is our annual deficit as a percentage of GDP supposed to drop considerably?
HAHAHAHA
Bob Uecker
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:03pm.
Reminds me of Uecker's line in Major League when - "don't worry - nobody's listening"
I can see the editor of CNN Money telling the author - 'just print anything that makes Reagan look as bad as Obama - nobody's going to read it anyway."
Agnostic:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:36pm.
Why don't ypu try presenting some facts? If you don't agree with the article - if you honestly believe Federal income taxes didn't increase during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan prove it.
You wrote "...there is a difference between closing loopholes and raising taxes..." That would depend on whose ox is being bored.fjw
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:13am.
The absolutely worst part of this article is the prominent use of the bar graph which denotes tax revenues while the article is about tax cuts/increases. If this was written by some generic ‘journalist” that was just trying to score brownie points with their extremely liberal editor it would not be a big deal but since this is CNN Money this is blatant propaganda because they know the difference. I don’t care if you are a diehard Communist; if you are an economic expert you know the difference between tax rates and revenue.
I’ll tell you what since it obvious that since President Reagan was a Republican then liberals will call measures that increased tax revenues tax increases I won’t bother trying to debate that point but hopefully you will realize there is a difference between actually raising taxes and some of the other actions which increase revenue though like you noted below it probably won’t matter if it is your money being pilfered. However, you should also realize that your fellow liberals are being extremely hypocritical though if they want to call these tax increases while at the same time saying budget increases are ‘deep cuts’ (see most major media sources). On one hand you have to change the meaning of the phrase tax increase to include actions which include anything that will increase revenue while on the other hand you have to change the very foundation of the definition of the word increase.
Economically President Reagan had the right idea but his execution could be considered flawed in that his budget did too much at one time. One of several things that we should have learned from Greenspan, though he was overly favorable to his Wall Street buddies and increasingly so in the years leading to his ‘retirement’, is that small incremental changes are best when trying to focus the economy. This is because trends and confidence in the continuance of the trend is as important as the tax rate itself. Investors will invest if they can have confidence that future conditions are predictable and the penalties for making profit will not be excessive (admittedly a relative term but there is no way to generically judge everyone’s risk/reward threshold).
Now let us look at why Reagan ‘raised taxes’. While the 97-99th Senates were Republican controlled, Reagan never had a Republican controlled House. This may be why he went for so much at one time but that is pure conjecture. When inflation, recession and increased spending on various levels of national defense combined with other measures tied into the budget the deficit and debt began to grow. At that time there were several Republicans left who believed in a balanced budget. If Reagan would not have addressed the need for additional revenue during these times he would have lost those Republicans, the Senate and the tenuous relationship built with the Democrats. So to increase revenue he closed loopholes, froze income brackets, increased penalties and generally made it more difficult to take deductions. Many people still believe this move was not steep enough and all loopholes and deductions should be removed – see ‘Fair Tax” and “Flat Tax” advocates. Most of these moves should have liberals singing his praises since these alterations impacted mostly successful businesses and the high income brackets. But he is a Republican so the insults and the media hit pieces just keep coming. The point that should be taken is that investors continued to invest and people continued to buy because the original tax cuts, Reagan’s belief in lower taxes and the overall confidence in the continued government policies not being destructive to business. This confidence was the real reason for the economic recovery and it was very much inspired by Reagan and his belief in low taxes and lack of government interference.
Using the same author, Joseph Thorndike, that this article uses to attack the Reagan legacy and which has been by many on the left by taking an accurate quote and altering its context, please take the time to look at this short article and see that the history of taxation is more political than what is good for the nation and its citizens. Under Reagan there was increased taxation (not tax rates) but it was done in a way that didn’t adversely affect investors and workers. This is a key point because a properly calculated increase in taxes can be a good thing in a mixed economy if done at the right time and under the right conditions. In fact it should be done, along with cuts in spending, to prepare for the natural downward turn in the economic cycles and to help control the upward swing from getting out of control but getting into that would make this long post double.
"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically." - This should be the main point if you are discussing whether the Reagan should be emulated or not.
Here you go jfw
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:54pm.
Income tax rates can be found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Reagan was in office from 1980 through 1988. The highest tax rates were at 70% in 1980, 28% in 1988.
~Speaking of bored
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:07pm.
you screwed up that colloquialism. You might want to try getting these things right when you're trying to lecture people.
You think he meant 'put to sleep' or 'drill'?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:27pm.
Nothing would surprise me.
A crooked jockey who ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 5:30am.
rides a crooked hoss.
Federal income tax RECEIPTS most certainly DID rise during Reagn's administration. Federal income tax RATES most certainly did go down during Reagan's administration. How could this be? Ask a supply-side economist.
You've done a marvelous job of presenting a supporting fact for supply-side economics, which I am sure you did not intend.
So you don't like the AMT? Then support its repeal. AMT was a brainchild of the left, not Reagan.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 8:03am.
j. frank wilson: Federal income taxes went up during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan.
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.
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.
How is it possible that Federal income taxes went up during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan and the Federal Governments take as a percentage of GDP went down?
It is not. j. frank wilson LIES again. He lies through his teeth. Then has the temerity of accusing people that properly source the truth of failing to back it up.
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
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
j frank wilson LIES THROUGH HIS DAMNABLE TEETH
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.
One question
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 8:14am.
and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.
How can the effective tax rate fall by more than 100%? Seems to me the Heritage Foundation made a typo there.
One answer
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 8:47am.
http://www.heritage.org/contact-heritage
Private Bill Wilson is a vicious unrepentant 142 time liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 12:04pm.
j. frank wilson: Federal income taxes went up during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan. ... The fact remains that he wasn't a tax cutter.
How can Krugman make such a claim? Because out of the nine tax bills passed during the Reagan years, Krugman points out two that raised taxes. According to the US Treasury(with thanks to colleague Bruce Bartlett for sourcing this information), Reagan's 1981 tax cuts represented 2.89% of GDP -- that, of course, is properly what Reagan is remembered for in the Tax-cutter's Hall of Fame. But then Krugman devotes his column to the tax increase of 1982 that represented only 0.98% of GDP, and the 1983 hike in Social Security taxes that represented only 0.21% of GDP.
Put all nine bills together, and cumulatively Reagan cut taxes by 1.23% of GDP. Against all that, those two tax-hikes are supposed to make Reagan "The Great Taxer?" That's like naming Bill Clinton the Model Husband of the Year because he remembered to send Hillary a Mother's Day card.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
Now 142 Lies with this one.
~
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 12:07pm.
Poor j. frank.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again. Right through his green teeth.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 9:16am.
Reaganomics: What We Learned
From December 1982 to June 1990, Reaganomics created over 21 million jobs. The right policies can do it again.By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
~
What the Reagan Revolution did was to move America toward lower, flatter tax rates, sound money, freer trade and less regulation. The key to Reaganomics was to change people's behavior with respect to working, investing and producing. To do this, personal income tax rates not only decreased significantly, but they were also indexed for inflation in 1985. The highest tax rate on "unearned" (i.e., non-wage) income dropped to 28% from 70%. The corporate tax rate also fell to 34% from 46%. And tax brackets were pushed out, so that taxpayers wouldn't cross the threshold until their incomes were far higher.
Changing tax rates changed behavior, and changed behavior affected tax revenues. Reagan understood that lowering tax rates led to static revenue losses. But he also understood that lowering tax rates also increased taxable income, whether by increasing output or by causing less use of tax shelters and less tax cheating.
Moreover, Reagan knew from personal experience in making movies that once he was in the highest tax bracket, he'd stop making movies for the rest of the year. In other words, a lower tax rate could increase revenues. And so it was with his tax cuts. The highest 1% of income earners paid more in taxes as a share of GDP in 1988 at lower tax rates than they had in 1980 at higher tax rates. To Reagan, what's been called the "Laffer Curve" (a concept that originated centuries ago and which I had been using without the name in my classes at the University of Chicago) was pure common sense.
Time for Fwankie to whip out the insults. Can't let people that tell the truth get away with it.
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 4:11pm.
Once again you confuse tax rates (which are seldom paid in full, of course) with taxes as a whole.
Personal Federal income taxes went up during the Administrations of Ronald Reagan. That's a fact. Additionally, of course, we continue to try to deal with the AMT that was overhauled during the time he was our President.
You want yelp all you want about brackets and rates. You can't change the simple fact that taxes were increased - what has often been called the largest single Federal income tax increase in our history.
Just as the Federal deficit increased year after year during his time in office.
Does heredity determine how many DD-204 moons of Mars can dance on Capt. UnderPantz' pinhead?
j.frank wilson's-
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 3:10am.
posts read as though he were the resultant issue from the mating of 007memo and steve 05.Puddinhead wilson---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:00pm.
Your first sentence is misleading, and your third sentence is an out and out lie.
If it is your desire to appear knowledgeable on these threads, you would do well to read, and understand, the links you provide.
Your post, whether a sly attempt at sneaking in some liberal bias, or just plain stupidity on your part; based on your past drivel, would be rated at 10% on the former and 90% on the latter.
MD
matthewdean:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:47pm.
Your post is so typical of you - no facts, just assertions and insults.
If it's a lie prove it with facts. Don't be like Duh Vet and expect folks to accept your statements without backup.
~That was a really lame lie
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:10pm.
even for you.
Puddinhead wilson---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 12:36am.
my post was a direct line post back to the link you provided; which link you then used as a basis to make statements that ARE NOT true. You can't even comment correctly based on a source YOU brought up. Good Lord, you ARE an idiot.The History Channel Has A History
Submitted by Boil It Down on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:09pm.
If that's the only progreessive spin they put on Reagan it's not bad for them. I've been very irritated with the way they've presented the founding fathers. Rewirites are all too common.
The way the History Channel pushes the faulty data on the climate is pretty shameless.
Reagan lowered taxes, then
Submitted by pwoz on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 7:07pm.
Reagan lowered taxes, then adjusted some (raised some), but the overall effect was still lower than before he came into office, so he lowered taxes.
Tell this fact to a lib and they'll say HAHAHA SAINT REAGAN INCREASED TAXES!!! HAHAHAHA FASCIST!!11
Libs must be destroyed.
Reagan: The "60 Minutes" Interviews, 1975-1989
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 7:49pm.
I think readers might find this rehash of Mike Wallace's "60 Minutes" numerous Reagan interviews of an evolving world leader [Gov to Pres to Ex-Pres] intriguing.
Naturally, it really never seems that Wallace's limited respect for Reagan is much more than a forced showing of a front that he must put on, if he is ever to obtain another interview opportunity with Reagan: however, it still offers some good stuff from Ronald Reagan.
In fact, I'd call attention to the very end of the video, at the 22:40 mark, where President Reagan meets with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev for the first time. Here, Wallace introduces the segment contrasting Reagan's previous analogy of the USSR as the "Evil Emprire," via a "remarkable conversaion," by saying, "and apparently it is Gorbachev who made the difference for Reagan." Perhaps so, but after waching what Reagan presented, there can be no question that it was Reagan who planned and constructed the conversion. He simply found, perhaps envisioned, that Gorbachev might be enticed to form the other half of a new future.
Reagan: The "60 Minutes" Interviews, 1975-1989
How can anyone suggest that President Reagan did not bring down that wall?
(;~> gary
Maybe Bloomberg can help
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:08pm.
History channel said "After enduring a recession that threatened his hopes for a second term, the economy, thanks in part to the Reagan tax increases, is bouncing back." because that is a True statement.
I know a lot of you con-men don't understand "True" or "Truth" - but it is what really happened. The History Channel did not say that, overall, he increased taxes. They said the tax increases he made saved the economy - a true statement. The 1981 tax cuts, he started taking back in 1982... only three months after they passed.
"Over the remainder of his presidency, Reagan would go on to sign a series of such increases, ultimately taking back about half of his 1981 tax cut..... As economist Jerry Tempalski has noted, of the nine major tax laws enacted from 1968 to 1981, six reduced federal revenue. By contrast, nine of the 11 major tax laws introduced from 1982 to 1993 increased revenue."
"But if the Economic Recovery Tax Act put the nation in a fiscal straitjacket, it also prompted newfound interest in tax reform. Reagan's late conversion to loophole-closing in 1982 would prove a model for future tax increases."
Read more at Bloomberg - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-...
Tax Cuts HURT the economy.
"Reagan, to his credit, learned that lesson quickly. Unfortunately, his conservative descendants seem to have forgotten it."