General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-day"
Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-dayhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275771/-Obama-v-Reagan-Fun-comparison-I-did-to-piss-off-a-wingnut-on-Reagan-s-B-day
Oodles of fun.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Without Reagan, America might have had the same income distribution we had in the 1970s, which would mean we would be averaging $120,000 annually--not $40,000.
Great comparison, but it's at least as tragic as it is fun.
Recommended.
Response to ProSense (Original post)
TransitJohn This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)fooled people with his bullshit tax increases. Yeah, he increased revenue, but it was on the backs of low-income Americans and seniors, including taxing unemployment benefits.
Another Reagan proposal that came in for criticism was the plan to tax all unemployment compensation. At present, such compensation - stemming from a job-related injury or illness - is taxed only if the recipient's adjusted gross income exceeds $12,000, or $18,000 for a married couple filing jointly.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/30/business/reagan-s-tax-plan-one-way-or-another-plan-will-touch-just-about-everyone.html
During the 1970s, some policy studies had shown that the proportion of wages replaced by UC benefits on an after-tax basis was large enough to erode a claimants work incentive.8 Taxation of UC benefits served to reduce the degree of after-tax wage replacement and reduce the work disincentive effect. However, UC benefits of lower-income claimants remained untaxed because their total income was under the tax threshold (i.e., their standard deduction and personal exemptions offset their income).
In 1982, Congress lowered the AGI thresholds for taxation of UC benefits. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) reduced those thresholds to $12,000 for single filers and $18,000 for joint filers.9 A primary motivation of this legislation was to raise revenue, but it left in place a policy of protecting lower-income claimants from taxation of UC benefits.10
Congress made UC benefits fully taxable in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514), effective for benefits received after December 31, 1986. Although this action reversed the original policy of taxing UC benefits only above an AGI threshold, it occurred in the context of a law that removed many low-income filers from the tax rolls, lowered the marginal tax rates for the majority of taxpayers, and expanded eligibility for the earned income credit. The rationale for full taxation of UC benefits was to treat UC benefits the same as wages and to eliminate the work disincentive caused by favorable tax treatment for UC benefits relative to wages.11
Concern about claimants cash flow problems caused by the lack of tax withholding from UC benefits arose during the 1990-1991 recession. P.L. 102-318 required states to inform all new claimants of their responsibility to pay income tax on UC benefits and to provide them with information on how to file estimated quarterly tax payments. In 1994, P.L. 103-465 required states to withhold federal income tax from UC benefits if a claimant requested withholding, and permitted states to withhold state and local income taxes. P.L. 103-465 set the federal withholding rate at 15% of the gross benefit payment amount. The federal withholding rate was changed to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA; P.L. 107- 16) effective August 7, 2001.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21356.pdf
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
- more -
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
So what's the verdict? Conservatives love affair with Reagan and their hate affair with Obama seems to be bassackwards.
I submit it was REAGAN who was the illegal amnesty-supporting, gun control loving, deficit spending, tax raising, terrorist coddling coward. (As for support of "traditional family values", Obama has a great relationship with his family--Reagan was the first divorced president and was estranged from his children.)
Challenge a conservative to disprove anything I mentioned here. I supported it with the facts. Just be prepared for all kinds of name-calling.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275771/-Obama-v-Reagan-Fun-comparison-I-did-to-piss-off-a-wingnut-on-Reagan-s-B-day#
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I enjoyed reading that very much. I get so sick of the Reich Wing building up Reagan to be some sort of savior. He gets trotted out so much, he should have whiplash at how fast they pull him in and out of the grave.
I love how that article backs it up with indisputable facts.
Thanks
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I would never have guessed.
"Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-day" [View all]
Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-day
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275771/-Obama-v-Reagan-Fun-comparison-I-did-to-piss-off-a-wingnut-on-Reagan-s-B-day
Oodles of fun.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So, this says Obama is to the right of Reagan on many issues? I would never have guessed."
...Reagan was dreamy and his policies did the country a world of good. Reagan, last liberal President. Damn that Obama for coming along and screwing with perfection.
Thanks Obama.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)always try to put words in my mouth that I never say?
8. Yes,
"So, this says Obama is to the right of Reagan on many issues? I would never have guessed."
...Reagan was dreamy and his policies did the country a world of good. Reagan, last liberal President. Damn that Obama for coming along and screwing with perfection.
Thanks Obama.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)The e-LEMON-ators. They just swoosh in on their yellow carpet ride and eliminate someones thoughts and insert their own.
lapfog_1
(29,194 posts)kairos12
(12,849 posts)Your story made my day. thanks.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,985 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)llmart
(15,535 posts)but I still think Dumbya beats them all.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Raygun is even more loathesome than Bush Lite.
llmart
(15,535 posts)I agree that Raygun's policies were disastrous and are still being felt today, but we're still feeling the affects of Dumbya's disastrous economic policies too.
Let's just agree they were both disastrous presidents and hope we never see the likes of them again.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)are morons.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I'm sure many people will debate and say Dubya was the worst, which might be true.
mopinko
(70,067 posts)someone was just doing a book tour of the whole story of this woman. the cadillacs and all were a small part of the story.
that he used her to tar everyone on any kind of assistance is absolutely true. and ridiculous.
but she was real.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)but it's not worth it. There were/are welfare queens of all races. To pick her out is suspect to say the least.
mopinko
(70,067 posts)i'm just saying. she was mostly a chicago criminal is why i even know about her, i think.
eta, it seems all the more pathetic to me to know the true story. she was a very well rounded criminal, period. she may have even murdered someone. how she could be a stand in for anyone but herself is just bizarre.
ffr
(22,665 posts)Our "spend and spend' Republican ideals of the past. Wonderful write-up Prosense!
heaven05
(18,124 posts)thanks
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)She was obviously with the Taliban, so I keep wondering what HER story was.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Today's problems are not the result of one man, not even one man's policies. It doesn't matter that "it all started" under a certain person's watch. It's been 25+ years since that person left office. If we haven't been able to stop let alone reverse even the most damaging of his policies, then shame on us.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's been 25+ years of propaganda about that era.
It's become a mythical age where money fell from the sky, DC gleamed with a holy light and the whole world bowed to our military might led by a white cowboy hat.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Nixon, Reagan and Bush jr.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)since we live in his hometown i'm going facebook this so they see this. whenever i get the chance i rub it in.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)brought him over to the dark side.