Frank The Bunny wrote:Reagan fucked up the economy, just as Dubyah has.
It doesn't matter who Reagan came after. HE FUCKED UP.
He gave tax breaks to the rich and huge corporations.
The money didn't "trickle down"
His tax cuts took food out of the mouths of children and lined the pockets of the wealthy.
During both Reagan and Dubyah, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer and the middle class has eroded.
If by "fucked up the economy" you mean greatest era of economic expansion ever, then yes, he fucked it up bad. Also, letting people keep more of their own money isn't a gift, nor is it taking it away from anyone else.
And yes, it did "trickle down", if by "trickle down" you mean more people having jobs and making more money.
You say it doesn't matter who Reagan "came after", but then you also say the "poor got poorer." Poorer than... when? If the poor got poorer under Reagan, than they must have been richer.....when? The fact is the "poor", like everyone else, have become progressively better off for the past 30 years. Here is a great chart that shows just well the economy did during the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years:
Another fact you have "overlooked" is that the "Rich" currently pay a higher percentage of total tax revenues and the "poor" less then they ever did under Clinton. The bottom 50% pay 3%, and the top 10% of income earners pay 70%. (You might want to check that because that is from memory, I will correct later...) (Also, this is getting dangerously close to the point where a minority pay ALL of the taxes, at which point the democratic system collapses. But that is for another topic...)
Why can't you just give Clinton his due without engaging in the mental gymnastics required to escape the facts in order to fit your agenda? This little snippet you copied from somewhere is a perfect example:
in hs first two years, (with a Democrat-controlled Congress) he set the roadmap for the nation's most prosperous times ever. Even with a hostile Republican Congress for the remaining 6 years, the Clinton Administration was able to balance the Federal Budget, and drive down the growth of our National Debt - which grew only 0.32% during his last year in office.
The writer of this has to employ this "set the roadmap in the first two years" theory because the Republicans took over congress in '94 and the budget was balanced in '98. This "set the roadmap" is the only way to make it seem like it was a Clinton/Democrat thing.(Although it does not pass the laugh test.) Why twist the facts when you can just give Clinton the credit he is due? (And yes, I do understand that congress is only interested in balanced budgets when it's the other party's president.)
The fact is, you are not making fair statements, you're just trying to push an agenda for a political party you advocate, and attacking one you hate. I see a U.S. economy that has had an amazing 30 years of growth. If you want to give the '93-'94 congress credit for that, that's fine. It just doesn't square with reality.
