How come Republicans praise Regan when he is the biggest re-distributor of wealth

D

Demoncatz N Rethuglicans

New member
in World History? " His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?


Honestly, Even though Regan solved short-term crises with his plan, a severe recession hit by the end of his second term did not end until Clinton came in.

So why do GOPers love this guy so much when he is the father of the financial disparity in this country. And please No Carter blame game we all know he really sucked!
Bring tax rates closer is FAIR, might be, but the standard of living is way greater so bringing the tax rates closer meant disadvantage for most and advantage for more. Sorry bad move. Nothing wrong is decreasing taxes but taking out the wealth and sending it upwards was disastrous. The age of disposable incomes meant coke dealers got real rich! thats it!
 
You site Reagan lowering the tax rate for the rich as an increase in redistribution. You are wrong. It decreases redistribution.

He helped to make the tax rate FAIR by bringing the rates closer together, the way they should be.

And lowering the tax rate actually increased the revenue. You conveniently left out INCREASED SPENDING.

It's amazing how you can take facts and use them to back your claims when they actually state the opposite.

You sound like Obama.
 
A few things you lay out that are true were done by a Democrat congress. The rest is highly suspect without sources.

You are right in one respect. Carter did suck! and Obama found his play book in the oval office and is running it.
 
Well, it's nice to know that during the Reagan Administration, the United States Constitution was changed so that the Congress no longer made tax laws and passed it off to a Republican President. That was very nice of the Democrat Congress to do that. However, it is amazing to me that the left always blames spending on the President when he has no Constitutional power to do so. Only Congress can appropriate money, write tax laws, and authorize spending and I do believe that the Democrats were in control of the Congress for 40 years before the Republicans took over in 1994 with the Contract With America and they balanced the budget. It wasn't Clinton. He had no choice because the Republicans had their hands on the purse strings. The Democrats have both houses of Congress and the White House now and look at all the spending that's going on. You guys griped about the deficit during Bush's Administration and turn a blind eye to the unprecedented and unbelievable spending going on now in the name of economic recovery. What a crock!
 
Back
Top