Because the democrat controlled congress at the time over spent the income increases....

 

Exactly.

Under Reagan revenues to the federal government increased.

But so did spending. Congress (which holds the purse strings and NOT the POTUS, @Distant Lover)---led by Dems who love to spend money like it's going out of style when it's other people's---blew through it like drunken sailors at a whorehouse on shore leave.

 

It’s nothing but a gimmick. The current Congress won’t impeach Trump no matter the evidence and the next will impeach him regardless of any lack of it.

The one thing neither will do is what is right for the country. They will only continue to fuck each other over at our expense.

That’s why I’m Libertarian. Smoke a bowl and none of it bothers you anymore

 

Come on Randy, you are not that stupid.

The Democrats only controlled the House of Representatives.

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a period of bold new initiatives in domestic spending. What increased was defense spending.

 

House of Representatives is where all the money bills have to be done....

 

Can you tell me what Article 1 Section 7 says, DL? Who was the Speaker of the House during Reagan's term? (Hint: He wasn't a member of the GOP.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origination_Clause

 

Distant Lover you just have to face the fact the majority of politicians no longer have their constituents best interests at heart. It's another one of those pesky facts that appear to be impossible to change. Our representatives can clearly see how easily we are manipulated. Hence the division in the country as never before. We were fortunate to elect a non politician and we have a chance to finally cleanse our political system, but the elitists that control the USA are pulling out everything they have to maintain the status quo. The foolish will continue to support their masters. It really is tragic so many people can so easily be deceived. Remember it wasn't the people that put minorities in poverty, It's not the people that keep them there through deceitful policies. Remember what President Lyndon Johnson remarked to a colleague, we'll have those N-----S voting for us for 200 years. You know what is tragic? We are still falling for their lies...

 

During the Carter administration the top tax rate was 70%. Under Reagan that declined to 28%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

According to the Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, during President Ronald Reagan's eight years in office income tax receipts increased an average of $24.175 billion in 2009 dollars every year.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, during President Jimmy Carter's four years in office income tax receipts increased and average of $40.275 in 2009 dollars every year.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

 

The Constitution of the United States:

Article. I., Section 7

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

---------

The implication of what you are saying is that the president has little control over taxing and spending. If that is true, why do presidential candidates propose new tax rates and spending programs?

Regardless of what the Constitution says, the way the budgetary process works is that the presidential administration composes a budget, and presents it to Congress. Congress adds and subtracts, and returns the budget to the President, who can sign it or veto it. According to George Will, if every one of Reagan's budgets had been approved of in its entirety, the increase in the national debt under Reagan would have only been ten percent less than it was.

 

In many respects the 1950's was the golden era of America's white working class. There were plenty of reasonably well paying jobs for white males with only high school degrees. A white male with one of these jobs could expect a yearly pay raise that beat inflation.

Ronald Reagan won the votes of most white blue collar workers by appealing to the nostalgia most white blue collar workers had for the 1950's. When inaugurated President Reagan tried to restore the economic status quo of the 1920's, when labor unions were weak, and when the top tax rate declined to 25%. During the 1950's the top tax rate was usually 91%. One third of the work force belonged to labor unions.

Donald Trump also won the election by appealing to white working class nostalgia for the 1950's. The "again" implied by Trump's slogan, "Make America great again," was the 1950's. Once again Trump is trying to restore the economic status quo of the 1920's. He ran as a new kind of Republican. He is governing as the old kind of Republican, the kind who never really accepted the reforms of the New Deal.

 

That's 574,357,000 Rubles. That's probably not enough to tempt a Russian mobster, but if Putin wanted Trump out of office, Flint's offer would be a great cover, with deniability for the Kremlin.

Flint's $10 million is probably safe, since it will only be a month or two before the Mueller investigation issues a subpoena to the President. Once under oath, he will be unable to avoid perjury, mostly because he's told so many lies, he can't keep story straight. Everything Flint wants will be printed in the New York Times and eventually in the Congressional Record.

 

Top Dem: Trump will win again if Dems are too liberal

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) predicted that Democrats would lose to President Trump again in 2020 if they are too liberal.

Durbin — the second highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate — said on local Chicago radio station WLS-AM on Sunday that Democrats shouldn't “overdo it” by acting too liberal in response to Trump.

The senator was responding to comments by Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), who the host of the radio show Durbin was on said warned Democrats against moving too far to the left out of fear they could lose votes to Trump.

"We need to be balanced. She's right about that,” Durbin said.

“We don't give up on our values, but we better be sensitive, too, that there are people with more moderate views, and people who may disagree with some parts of the Democratic platform as they are presented. We've got to be open to that possibility," he said.

The host asked Durbin if Democrats could lose seats by “being too liberal.”

"You can," Durbin replied. "I think you can overdo it. We have to really appeal to that sensible center. It's a thin stripe now. It used to be a lot wider stripe, but it's an important and determining factor in most elections."

Democrats are facing an internal battle over how to move the party forward in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s surprise loss to Trump. Some lawmakers are eager to court votes from backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) presidential campaign, while others remain wary of progressive policies like Sanders's single-payer health-care bill.

 

I don’t believe the problem with the Democrats is being too liberal. A single payer system for health insurance would be embraced if it is presented properly. They will have to be able to pay for it and their own animosity toward Russia will work against them in that.

Fanning a new Cold War due to the personal dislike Hillary and Obama had only brings a new need to waste billions on defense to the forefront. Of course, the GOP will always agree to spend money on weapons, so now paying for a single payer system is problematic.

What hey should do is, heal these stupid wounds with Russia- the Crimea was theirs anyway so whining about that is stupid,.

Forgive Putin’s involvement in the 2016 election- Hillary started that by encouraging Russians to protest Putin during his last election.

Agree to allow Bashir Asad to remain in power in Syria- he is their ally and will help keep radical Islam down.

Do these things and Russia will stop posing a threat. Let China have their respect and power in the sphere and reduce our military to a defensive stand- no carriers and only defensive bases- much like China and Russia do now. (I have a lot of thoughts on that issue.)

Do these things and all of a sudden, we won’t be facing new Cold War spending and that will pay for single payer health. It will reduce world tensions and allow us to work together against terrorisn. All this will work and be embraced by voters IF the dems can swallow their pride and stop trying to start a war because they think Putin is a jerk. He is an effective leader who is making peace with Turkey and Saudi Arabia as we speak.

The Democrats have a golden opportunity. Let’s see if they can grasp it.

 

Was Slick Willie trying to do the same thing in 1991, DL?

 

There are liberal issues and liberal issues. Currently Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States. He is certainly ahead of Donald Trump and Paul Ryan.

Some Democrats are talking about letting criminals out of prison and reducing the number of juvenile delinquents that are expelled from school. I doubt that will win many votes.

 

Yes, and he succeeded. The Clinton years were years of robust job creation, shrinking deficits, and low inflation.

 

Wrong again, DL.

Trump was running against the worst POTUS in US history (Obama).

Clinton was running against a man much more honorable than himself (George H.W. Bush). (Bush made the mistake of believing that Democrats were honorable men and women when he went along with the compromise of raising taxes while cutting spending. Like the liars that they are the Dems reneged on their side of the promise and then---despite the fact that they love raising taxes and blowing other people's money---turned around and hypocritically attacked Bush for breaking his "no new taxes" promise.)

You may not know this DL but Reagan also used the same "Make America Great Again" slogan....



And no he wasn't harking back to the 1950s, DL.

He was running against the second worst POTUS in US history (Carter).

 

Under Jimmy Carter more jobs were created per year than under Reagan. The Carter recession was much briefer and less deep than the Reagan recession. There was certainly less deficit spending.

Ronald Reagan was a lazy, stupid, ignorant fool.

 

I don't have numbers just personal experience.

I almost lost everything under the Carter years. I can remember that building came to a screeching halt with interest rates around 17%. People couldn't afford the mortgage. Bad news.

Reagan was elected and after about a year new subdivisions were being constructed, money was flowing. Rainbows and lollypops.

 

During the Carter administration is the first time I heard of the adjustable home mortgage.
Many of the people I knew lost their homes when the payment doubled in a single year.
Houses were standing empty because no one would buy them.
Interest on home loans got as high as credit card interest to those with bad credit today.