Reagan's Legacy - How will he be remembered?

[DinoDoc]

He also applied to join the Communist Party in 1935, but was rejected because he wasn't bright enough.

I'd say that he had his revenge.

[Verto]

Alright, the demi-god Sava has finally convinced me. Reagan = teh evil

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
Reagan's net increase was from a rate of 11.70% to 15.30%... a larger percentage point increase than all other administrations you spoke of. It's intellectually dishonest to say, "Well Truman increased it 50% bu Reagan only increased it 15%" when Reagan's overall percentage point increase was larger. But then again, I expect intellectual dishonest from reagan fans. The facts are against them so they manipulate numbers for their own political agenda. Your manipulation might work on a the dumb, sheeplike masses of reagan supporters... but not me. Sorry... come again.

edit: link for payroll tax increase information http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa129.html

Sava, here is a better table: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html Please note that this is a primary source, not a secondary source like your Cato institute piece.

In 1981 the tax rate for OASDI was 13.3%, not 11.7%. In 1988 the tax rate for OASDI was 15.02%, not 15.3% an increase of 12.9% over the 1981 rate.

Note the percentage increases during Trumans, Eisenhowers, and Kennedy/LBJs eras.

And before you start whining "but this is the CATO Institute, which I choose because.... hippocrytical morrons " I don't give a shiite what side of the aisle the opinion piece might find itself on, it's still an opinion and should never be used for primary sources. Such is intellectually dishonest... and a quite common tactic of yours.

[DinoDoc]

Sava is a dumbass. Tell us something we don't know.

[Sava]

I don't give a shiite what side of the aisle the opinion piece might find itself on, it's still an opinion and should never be used for primary sources. Such is intellectually dishonest... and a quite common tactic of yours.

You got me! I am using this RIGHT WING WEBSITE to further my leftist agenda.



You should try reading your source. I admit the figures are different that the ones I posted from CATO. According to YOUR source... the total payroll tax (OASDI) rate was 9.3% in 1981... raised to 14.3% in 1987. Thats a total percentage point increase of 5%... a greater increase than all other administrations past... It took other administrations to raise it 5% in 20 YEARS!!!! Reagan managed to increase it by that much in only 6 years.

And this is according to YOUR SOURCE. Not mine.

Pointing out the facts is another common tactic of mine. And once again, you lose...

[JohnT]

Sava, you're mixing and matching your terms again. In your original response to me you state:

Reagan's net increase was from a rate of 11.70% to 15.30%...

Now I have been studying Social Security for a number of years and instantly recognized the fact that you merged the OASDI and the HI components in your numbers. Therefore, to compare like to like, I followed your lead and pointed you to the primary source chart, showing you the error of your ways.

Now that you have been proven wrong (again! It must be a little sickening by now), you are changing the terms of the debate to include only the OASDI portion of the tax while ignoring the HI portion... which is something you didn't do in your original post.

And you're still wrong. Looking at the chart it clearly shows that OASDI in 1981 was 10.7% while in 1989 it was 12.12%, an increase of 1.42%. Where's the 5% figure coming from? Also, from what I see, the US hasn't seen a OASDI tax of 9.3% since 1972!

Intellectual dishonesty thy name is Sava!

[JohnT]

Ahhh! Sava is looking at the self-employed tax! OK, so he's doing worse than just dropping the HI portion of the equation, he's mixing and matching different tax tables!

But, self-employment taxes are for the self-employed "rich". Shouldn't they go punitively up to punish the bastards? Note that before Reagan the self-employed actually got an tax break - the employed got socked for 12.26% of the taxes, whereas the self-employed only had to pay 9.3%. After Reagan it was brought back into balance, with the self-employed paying an equal rate than the "normally" employed (15.02 to 15.02).

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ahhh! Sava is looking at the self-employed tax! OK, so he's doing worse than just dropping the HI portion of the equation, he's mixing and matching different tax states!

Moron.

Hey, just because your argument is weak doesn't mean you need to be throwing personal attacks.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ahhh! Sava is looking at the self-employed tax!

It's just one of the many taxes reagan increased. If you want, I can go through each type of tax and list the kind of raise. Personally, I find it disturbing that reagan was increasing taxes on the self-employed. God knows that hard-working, independent, enterpreneurial people felt a bigger burden of tax during the reagan years.

edit: on that note... during his presidency, reagan increased taxes 14 times.

[JohnT]

Sava, you are so full of it. Given that you are admittedly everything but hard-working, independent or enterpreneurial, and that you have nothing but contempt for those who are, go take your crocodile tears where people might fall for them... DU, perhaps?

[Sava]

And about wasteful spending...

Through 39 presidents and 204 years of US History, US publically held debt was $1 trillion. Reagan managed to quadruple that.

[Sava]

Does anyone else want to attempt to debate me? It seems the reaganphiles can only go a post or two before resorting to personal attacks because their arguments are weak (or non-existent). If someone wants to insult me, fine, I'll put said persons on my ignore list. But I will continue to post facts about the reagan years and the terrible effects it had on our great country. People can read and educate themselves, or choose to be morons.

Having said that, I won't respond to posters who just hurl insults. Especially when I have younger cousins who can do better. But what can I expect from people who idolize an alzheimer's patient as a "great leader".

[JohnT]

This coming from you! Tis to laugh!

And, please note, that I was just repeating what you've said about yourself in this thread. Personal insults? No, personal observations made by reading your very own words about yourself.

Go ahead and ignore me, little man.

[DinoDoc]

Sorry I don't feel like bashing my head against an impenetratable wall of stupidity. I'm suprised John did so for as long as he did. Raising infants must be good practice for stuff like that.

Edit: I shouldn't have insulted Sophie like that. I'm sorry John.

[Verto]

I think this round goes to JohnT.