isn't one bad actor enough?

Question

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.
Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.
The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.
Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.
Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.
This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.
Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).
But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.
No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.
Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.
The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).
Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

Answer 1

How dare you imply that Reagan was a bad leader. He was the finest President this nation has had in a very long time. I suppose you would reccomend another Clinton disaster.

Answer 2

It's evident that you've never had a course in effective communications. What's your point?

Tax revenues increased under Reagan (as THEY ALWAYS DO WHEN TAX RATES ARE CUT!). The deficit increased because spending increased at a faster rate. Some was directly due to Reagan - - increases in military spending which is one of the few valid reasons to tax and spend according to our US Constitution. The rest was due to out of control social programs which are still out of control.

As far as Social Security is concerned, we should privatize the whole thing. It was never an economically viable system. I am responsible for my income during retirement. Back in the olden days, if someone couldn't provide for themselves, their FAMILY helped them out. If they didn't have a FAMILY, the community pitched in to help. We didn't need some inefficient bloated bureaucracy to take care of things. GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

You seem like you could benefit from reading some sound books on economics. I would recommend anything written by Milton Friedman. The man was a genius. I also suggest you actually read Reagan's diaries and become enlightened.

Answer 3

Oh, they are gonna yell at you for throwing facts around and making them think! People love tax cuts (even if they are actually against their own interests) and they really love Regan (because he made them feel reassured and whole again). That was the start of the death of the middle class. Most haven't really thought it through - soundbites are so much easier.

Most of the tax cuts have favored the wealthy, and that wealth has not been put back into the economy in a way that benefits the rest of society.( which was part of the reasoning behind the cuts in the first place)

That said, you really should ask a question, not just post a monologue

Answer 4

Well, I agree with you. I've seen her in twilight, and in many other movies (Zathura, Speak, Snow white, etc.) and I think it's the character (Bella) which restricted her performance. Although she didn't do a better job in Snow white, she was great in Speak and in Zathura. I think that it's a little of both, the characters are not well developed, and she still needs more experience to perfect her acting. That's all I can say about her. Hope it helps! ;)

Answer 5

You know I agree with everything you said. Ronald Reagan was the worst, most pathetic, president we ever had...at least until Dubya. Nonetheless, I object to you making such a pointless question in order to justify what is essentially a long, tiresome, rambling tirade. You, sir, are what is meant by the expression, "sound and fury signifying nothing." Next time you feel a need to vent a rather triflying essay upon all of us, could you at least precede it with a relevant question?

Answer 6

Your poor, naïve, misled, lost, stupid person. Have you got it ALL wrong. Let me guess. You got this from some Howard Zinn teachings? You had to have found it somewhere. It doesn't look like you are intelligent enough to come up with that all by yourself.

Answer 7

Reagan isn't as bad as Bush Jr. I would prefer another Clinton administration to what we have now!

Answer 8

I thought Reagan was a good actor.

Answer 9

Man what a tirade that is, laughable but seeing any answer other than what you believe would be counterproductive to my day, and your wasting it with garbage.

Answer 10

To paraphrase your rant: You do not understand economics.