Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (218177)	2/13/2007 2:30:29 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You left out the massive tax cut under Reagan in 1981. And you're leaving out the fact that the set of people who got tax cuts in 1981 is only partly the same set of people whose taxes were raised by the Democrat controlled Congress in later years. And you're leaving out the fact that Reagan did not initiate those tax increases, although he did sign the bills enacting them into law. And you're leaving out the fact that raising taxes was necessary because the Democrat controlled Congress continued to spend money like a drunken sailor.

To: jttmab who wrote (218177)	2/13/2007 2:40:05 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You're also leaving out the fact that under Carter we had double digit inflation, home mortgage rates rising to almost 19% before Reagan's tax cuts and policy changes kicked in. Under Carter we had flat real family income growth, under Reagan real family income growth of $4,000 average per family, and under Clinton negative real family income growth, a loss of $1,500 average per family! Other economic indicators which were better under Reagan than Carter or Clinton -- unemployment, productivity, real economic growth. cato.org