Reagan: The Great American Socialist

by: Ravi Batra, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Ravi Batra: Reagan was the

Ravi Batra comments that if Democratic President Barack Obama is a "small" socialist, then Reagan was the "Great American Socialist." (Photo: University of Texas)



    Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

    "Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

    Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

    Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

    The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

    In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. 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?

    Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

    Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

    Wake up America and elect leaders with a heart - not those who would tax your unemployment benefits and cut the capital gains tax.

    -------

    Dr. Ravi Batra, a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, is the author of five international best sellers. He was the chairperson of his department from 1977 to 1980. This article is based on Batra's two books, "The New Golden Age" and "Greenspan's Fraud." His web site is Ravibatra.com.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



I like this article and it's

I like this article and it's historical and factual accuracy. However, I would prefer to see this news site fighting back against the negative status currently associated with the word "socialism". In no way was Reagan a socialist unless we reduce the definition of the word to one who redistributes the means of production, wealth, and federal government responsibility for its poorest citizens to a "free-for-all". Reagan began the great age of free market capitalism that has brought this *world* to its knees. Let us call a zebra a zebra and a lamb a lamb. There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- wrong with socialism and there *should be* a socialist party (with seats in the legislature and a chance for the white house) is this grand country. Defend the word accurately -- not by making hackneyed comparisons between one of the worst presidents in US history and one who will hopefully put us on a more even (read "fair") track.


Nice comment Karen, Reagan,

Nice comment Karen, Reagan, however, didn't spearhead the capitalist revolution (along with Margie Thatcher). That title goes to Milton Friedman who led the charge with the notorious Pinochet gang in Chile. In all interesting read... thx


Interesting U.S. History

Interesting U.S. History Re-Visited


I agree with Karen. Reagan

I agree with Karen. Reagan was a grand redistributionist, but in the direction of more inequality. Socialism should be reserved for policies that promote GREATER equality, justice, and fairness in the distribution of wealth, not less. In that sense, bank bailouts are not socialism in any form. Oligarchy, perhaps.


Bravo Dr. Batra! But we are

Bravo Dr. Batra! But we are still placing a system over a system. It's still exploitation oriented. We have so called bright minds, can't we come up with something less divisive? It's still high, middle, low class. What's next, casts? I have no need to be better than you, I am grateful for your goodness.


All ideologies are harmful

All ideologies are harmful and its followers , delusional. It matters not whether they be socialism or republicanism or religious, etc. What people want and need are fairness and justice. No matter who governs, the people get neither. Let's pick 600 citzens at random, place in the Congress for 5 years and let them use nothing but common sense to do the best for this country and its people. There can be no funds flowing to any locale or state, no lobbyists, no campaigns. Anyone who servess their country can only do so one time ... absolutely no exceptions. Then we get 600 more citizens to serve. It cannot be worse than anything we have so far had.


I think someone needs to

I think someone needs to read about socialism. Just because wealth is being re-distributed doesn't mean that it's socialism. Socialism is more about distributing wealth in more of an even sort of way. Reagan screwed the working class, yes. But that is hardly socialism. I would call it possibly monarchism, or feudalism. Most certainly not socialism...


"Fascism: a system of

"Fascism: a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." Yes my friends, FASCISM should be the word and the dictator(s) are the corporations who buy our politicians and that's why we need to sponsor our politicians through our budget.


When I read comments like

When I read comments like those above, I thnk what an intelligent population we have. A democracy depends on a well-informed public? Why is it that it seems as if the mean/ignorant seem lately to be more in control than the intelligent and those who want the best for the WHOLE country? I wish someone would present us with a solution for our current financial crisis..


Ah, yes, Reagonomics and the

Ah, yes, Reagonomics and the "trickle down" theory. Well, didn't anybody look up the definition of "trickle"? While the rich(not opulent, they aren't "superior in quality") got buckets and barrels of money, the rest of got what "trickled down", drips and drops.


to anonymous 03:39--For a

to anonymous 03:39--
For a solution to our current financial crisis we need serious monetary/bank reform. Most people are arguing ideology and a rare few are watching the bankers and understanding what the fractional reserve banking, and private ownership of the system does to this country. It means that private bankers can control credit, money supply, create downturns and depressions at will and "harvest" the stock market when they feel like it. It is the legalized transfer of wealth from the folks who worked for it to the bankers. Economics is a zero sum game--for the millions of people who lose money, homes, retirement accounts, buying power, a few private bankers get that much wealthier. Ooops! I got on the soapbox again. Probably better if you just look at or read some very good material that comes with some answers on how to fix it. I'd suggest the long but informative video "The Money Masters" or "Money as Debt" or the well researched and very detailed book "The Web Of Debt and How We Can Break Free." They are must-read and must-see for everyone who hopes that one day, we might live in peace and prosperity. Oh yeah, also the video "From Freedom to Fascism" is good too. Forget ideology folks, it is a red herring that bankers' shills throw out there to control the public discussion and keep us from focusing on the real issue--where the overall flow of money is going which is out of the pockets of folks who earned it and out of the country and why it does that. Understand that and it will be obvious what to do.


Dr. Batra's article should

Dr. Batra's article should become part of the high school history curriculum countrywide. Just one little advice: Since so many intelligent people commenting the article here do not seem to understand that he uses the term "socialist" in an ironic sense, mocking the republicans' no. 1 stereotype argument, the students might come to misunderstand too. A footnote might be needed.


Footnotes for the sources of

Footnotes for the sources of the info in this article would be nice. The tax charts I found do not back up the claims made about the 1986 tax rates. Here's the charts I'm looking at: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html


The tax rates mention for

The tax rates mention for 1986 do show up in the charts for 1990. But now the tie to Regan is unclear to me. Again here are the charts: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html


An essential step toward our

An essential step toward our society becoming more fair and unified is to have a tax system which is based on consumption not income. Income is subject to definition by the political class and their enablers. This power is used to divide the people and to retain and enhance the power of the political class( elected officials, their appointees, academics, media, like minded business) . This political power is exercised to reward their friends and punish their enemies thereby creating more power for themselves and dependency of the people. This cycle can only begin to be changed by changing the federal tax code. The FairTax (fairtax.org) is a replacement for the current income/payroll tax system. It is revenue neutral, provides a prebate which mitigates the tax on essential goods and services, has no exceptions or exclusions, is transparent, visible, and more progressive than the income/payroll tax system it replaces. Go to the website (fairtax.org), learn about the FairTax, think about the impact it will have on our nation, read the research upon which is based, consider the benefits it will create in our current financial crisis ( wage earners will receive all their earnings each pay-period without any with holding for income /payroll taxes). The FairTax is transformational. Study and learn and then advocate for the FairTax


The problem with the "Fair

The problem with the "Fair Tax" is that it is not fair. If consumble items are to be taxed, like sales taxes already, everyone pays the same rate on the purchase of the product bought. A poor person won't pay just 1%, but 8% or 9% (now up to 10% in California) for the same good a rich person will. what is needed is a flat progressive tax with absolutely no deductions, credits, or loopholes. Let's just say that with a really good tax accountant a very wealthy person with multiple properties, investments here and abroad, and an income that is based on dividends alone, can probably get away with paying no Federal Income Tax. Even when the rates were high, as in 1980, a wealthy millionaire named Ronald Reagan paid $0.00 Federal Income tax that year. My flat progressive tax would be 35% on any income of any sort over $5 million dollars, $1 million up to $5 million would be taxed at 33%; $500k up to $1 million would be taxed at 30%; $250k up to $500 k at 25%; $100k up to $250k at 20%; $50k to $100k at 15%; and anyone making less that $50k at 10%. Taxes collected from any individual would be divided up so that a qaurter would be towards a Medicare for all Americans plan along with a Social Security for all Americans plan, and the rest for all other budget expenditures needed (military, EPA, Amtrak, etc.). Also, all profitable corporations would be required to pay taxes, but loopholes and deductions for businesses would remain; but no overseas shenanigans!


Karen, in Bolivia the

Karen, in Bolivia the Indians and socially marginalized people had the opportunity to elect a president on the platform of the "Movement Toward Socialism" party. The traditional parties were wipe out. That's a democratic process. In a place were only two parties share the pie and manipulate the electoral process with the exclusion of an authentic the people's voice, can't hardly qualify as democracy. As per Reagan's socialism, I think it is a good intellectual and statistical though futile exercise. A beautiful academic aberration.


To the poster who insists on

To the poster who insists on linking to Tax Foundation charts without bothering to read them: The perverse rates cited (when the wealthy payed a rate 5% lower than the middle-income) applied, according to your very own charts, in 1988, 1989, 1990. In your chart's very own words: "Last law to change rates: Tax Reform Act of 1986," just like Dr. Batra said. As with many changes in tax law, the new rates were implemented gradually over two years to prevent politicians from having to face immediate voter ire over such a drastic reapportionment of the tax burden.


The US has been socialist

The US has been socialist for a long time. Any statement that denies this truth is a propagandist lie. What is the critical issue is do we prefer a fascist national socialism that benefits only a few elite criminals as the republican regimes practice, or do we want a democracy governed socialism that seeks to serve the nation and all it's people.


Too bad that L.D. Freitas

Too bad that L.D. Freitas seems not to have read the FairTax.org information or he would have known that under the FairTax the poor would not bear the burden of tax at all. The pre-bate mitigates the tax for everyone on essential goods and services thereby untaxing all who only spend up to the poverty level. L.D. please keep an open mind until you have studied the FairTax. It is possible that you will then know that it is more progressive than the current system, does not lend itself to manipulation by special interests, and it taxes wealth when it is spent on consumption. In particular, I invite L.D and others to read the paper posted on the fairtax.org website on why democrats should support the FairTax. Upon studying the FairTax I think L.D. will find that it lives up to it's name--it is fair( not perfect) when compared to the current system.


Income tax by the way, is

Income tax by the way, is unconstitutional. The 16th amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of states, but it was pushed through anyway by bankers in a setup move before the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The reason they had to have this in place was so that when the FED became the sole legal issuer of money (and the Gov't consequently had to borrow from them) it would be guaranteed that the gov't (via income taxes) would be able to come up with the interest. The principal on the federal debt is never paid back, only gets bigger so guess what happens to the interest and thus our taxes? Interesting, huh?


I'm sorry, but I still

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. Incomes should be taxed. They should be taxed fairly and without any deductions, credits, or loopholes that keep tax accountants and tax lawyers employed. Businesses need tax breaks, and those should be regulated closely so there is are no shenanigans. And corporations with phony addresses abroad need to pay taxes too. Obviosly there are sales taxes everywhere. I do not like sales taxes because they are across the board the same for everyone. How is someone's financial status going to be checked at the cash register? You're talking about some sort of nightmare with what, ID cards for those living in poverty? Lastly, my idea of a progressive flat tax taxes incomes at rates that are FAIR! Multi-billionaires can live on 65% of their incomes. A student bagging groceries can live on 90% of his or her income, as could entry-level teachers or nurses making less than $50,000 per year. A middle level manager of a corporation making $200,000 per year should be able to live on 80% of his or her income. The most important idea I have is that a quarter of Federal Income taxes collected would go to a budget for every one American's free national health care and retirement plan, otherwise known as Universal Medicare and Social Security. Madoff scandals would disappear and no one would not have health coverage. Of course wealthier people would get higher Social Security retirement payments, as now for those with higher incomes who contribute, but again paid at fair amounts based on how much a wealthy person paid into the system; but everyone would get the same health care, and if a wealthy person wanted to opt out and pay for private insurance, that would be okay; but the taxes would still be collected during that wealthy person's income-producing life. Obviously very wealthy retirees would still be paying into the system, as would poorer retirees. The system, therefore, should never go broke, and no one Congress or President should raid it for other purposes.


Thx to Shaw (03/02/09) for

Thx to Shaw (03/02/09) for correcting my error regarding Milton Friedman's essential role in convincing the world that Free Market Capitalism would save the world (from people like democratically elected Allende in Chile). As an historian I need to keep such relevant facts in front of my head -- too many in this country have the shortest attention spans for history: this fact verified by how lauded Friedman was upon his death 1.5 yeas ago and fact he ever won Nobel Prize for anything....


Tax wealth, Not

Tax wealth, Not Wages. People should not be taxed for the labor they do. Taxing working people and letting "investors" use loops holes and lobbying to pay low or no taxes destroys the middle class and infrastructure. Things could be taxed. A house could be taxed because the people living in the house would want the infrastructure to support it such as roads, schools, police, etc... Churches should be taxed. If someone works their butt off 70 hours a week, that should not pushed them into a higher tax bracket. But if some generational trust fund baby is just mooching off labor, then hell yeah their capital gains should be taxed.


let's distinguish between

let's distinguish between "investors" and "players", when it comes to Capital Gains... & let's tax the players as the manipulators & gamblers that they are. People who are buying and selling a stock, bond, new house, etc simply to accumulate wealth from the perceived value therein aren't "investors"... and should pay to play. We need a two-tiered Capital Gains tax, to encourage Real investment- and to make the distinction between them & the Wall Street gamblers. ^..^


It's a moral outrage to pay

It's a moral outrage to pay any taxes at all! Why? Because our government simply does not respect the taxpayer. Until, and only if, the government ends the seemingly intractable corruption and malfeasance, taxpayers should do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes of any kind. Tax evasion is the only moral thing to do until the nitwits in Washington learn some respect.


All income should be taxed

All income should be taxed the same regardless of the source. Naturally those with capital, and most got their money the old fashioned way, they inherited it, want a tax system that gives more favorable treatment to people who do not work for a living while enjoying all the benefits of this country and a government that will spend trillions of workers tax dollars to bail them out when their investments go bad. But none of what Mr. Batra relates could have occurred with both Reagan and Bush-Cheney but for an exceedingly gullible public. Millions of people with small businesses or people making under $300,000 a year voted for Republicans who then passed the regressive tax laws that benefited 1% of the wealthy elite at the expense of everyone else.


Eat the Rich and use their

Eat the Rich and use their money to re-build America. The Rich could use a little winnowing...


Agreed and yes, I'm ill

Agreed and yes, I'm ill beyond eternity and through a day with Reaganitis....(but his flock is enormous!...) Comparisons to what? Names and Definitions are just that, they just muck it all up by causing a "disagreement" and "deflecting" our attention(see above). WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? Seems to me only a very small fraction of our population has learned anything since FDR(yes, I'm extrapolating here). The Grand Ol Plan works well you see....they have had plenty of time to craft their response(S)....but we do not volley. We whine...But we pay our taxes. Evasion is just not the answer...unless everyone participates..impossible thanks to electronic banking(ouch). We MUST correct the code TODAY to reflect COMMON SENSE and end ALL ridiculous TAXES and LOOPHOLES(And give the small businesses a BONUS at this point - if there are any left)...First things first, we have to stop calling each other "names" and "defining"our political INFECTION and then, maybe then, we will get something DONE!!!Until then, enjoy the comments and hopefully we will collectively learn something generations from now when it's too late......


Interesting takes on an open

Interesting takes on an open market capitalistic society, from a very different perspective of my own. 2 points to consider in a socialistic idealistic society, that differ largely from a free market society. Socialism does not have the check and balance that capitalism does, aka the free market. If a business doesn't produce, it fails. Socialism doesn't have that check and balance, if the governing body in a Socialistic society fails, no one is the wiser, until it's too late...see the USSR. Those command economies that have opened themselves up to more of a free market approach are starting to blossom, see China. I notice that most people are trying to blame wall street, bankers, etc and not looking at the real problem, ourselves. Everyone wants to point a finger at someone, instead of looking in the mirror. Yes, government can influence us, as can businesses, but it's us that needs to look in the mirror and see that the real problem is that no one wants to be accountable to ourselves, both sides want to play the blame game. We're adults, at some point we all need to take responsibility for our actions. I'm sure I'll get flamed a ton for not citing some academic source, website, tax code or whatever, but as any student of Economics can tell you, as well as any Academe, you can find facts to back up your argument pretty much anywhere. Statistics can be massaged to show just about any point, one of many things I learned pursuing my useless, Economics degree. Face it people, both sides need to realize the problem isn't in if Democrats or Republicans are right or wrong in their policies, we as Americans need to be wiser with our money, wiser in our decisions, accountable to our own actions, and quit pointing fingers.


Well put, "Interesting

Well put, "Interesting takes...."my anger on this topic crowds the clarity right out of my head. Thanks.


There is a lot of talk about

There is a lot of talk about "gullibility" of people, especially those who are less educated (like, products of America's public schools?) as a reason for much or most of the financial mess the world is in. Decrying "gullibility" is an easy and pejorative way to blame the majority for being victims, but it is also turning a deaf ear and blind eye to the billions spent on advertising bad financial steps to that same majority. Does advertising work? Yes, and poor, elderly, or overworked, or ill people are more vulnerable to it. Conditioning also works, as does falsely engendered "peer pressure"--"gullible" could be re-framed as "insecure and feeling unsure of how to afford to live." Reagan sold soap before he went into politics, and sold the nation on "deregulation." Time to get the huxsters identified and outed as beneficiaries of their predatory policies.


To call Reagan a socialist

To call Reagan a socialist is an iffy subject if you look at the history of socialism from a Fabian or Debsian point of view. Mr. Batra is right in his assumption, provided one defines socialism in its broadest terms. The right is shouting down socialism as it is expensive and that Hitler was a socialist. He was and he wasn't. He adopted a party that called itself socialist and proceeded to mold it in his own form. It was fascism, a formless system that, unlike capitalism, communism and orthodox socialism, does not have a manifesto. Fascism is the politics of convenience, socialist, communist and capitalist when felt necessary. It was created by disillusioned socialists and became a laboratory for ultra-capitalists like Milton Friedman. Fascism is steely pragmatism. And Ronald Reagan, once a left wing Democrat and eventually the leader of right wing Republicanism, was that convenient pragmatist. Funny, now that Reagan has fallen well out of favour, socialism has gone form a profanity to a buzz word.


We don't need politicians

We don't need politicians with a heart - we need brains, balls and integrity. Heart's cheap; my mother was compassionate until the end of time while committing some of the dumbest and most self-destructive things ever seen. Lots of heart; no brain. - It really doesn't require anyone to CARE about the poor. -- Poor folks don't have or spend money. Economies run on money. GET IT? -- Care about yourself and your family and think about what's best for them. Maintaining a huge and rapidly growing under class is social suicide. How about we have full employment, clean air and water, universal single-payer health care, a massive investment in education and the future and an equally massive reduction in military expenditure? Nothing to do with heart - it really is just basic common sense. It's stupid to oppress the poor - they tend to run out of patience: ask the Romanovs [if you can find one] or the Cuban emigres in Florida or the people of Viet Nam. -- We have more guns per capita here than is sane. You think the rich account for that stat? -- Just how many rich kids are there in Iraq today? You get the picture? -- 1st world countries take care of their people because the elites [sic] know better. Our elites, represented so elegantly by George W Jerk, really and truly know squat. It's time for some old school socialist re-education.


I'll become a Democrat when

I'll become a Democrat when the left stops calling the wealthy "the rich" and start calling them "the successful".


This article forgets to

This article forgets to mention that the Democrats were in charge of the congress when President Reagan was in office. Maybe you forgot that the president cant spend a penny, it takes the congress to spend any money.


Not to confuse you with

Not to confuse you with facts, but the Prime interest rates went to 10% on 10/13/1978. At the Time Jimmy Carter was President. They peaked on 4/2/1980 at 20%. Which I believe is within Reagan's first 100 days in office. Also, Webster's defines Socialism as 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. I found your article short on specific facts.


We're all socialists

We're all socialists now. Have been for a long time.


@ Cityboy, "This article

@ Cityboy, "This article forgets to mention that the Democrats were in charge of the congress when President Reagan was in office. Maybe you forgot that the president cant spend a penny, it takes the congress to spend any money." You forgot to mention that the president writes the budget that Congress votes on! Also @ Cityboy: "I'll become a Democrat when the left stops calling the wealthy "the rich" and start calling them "the successful"." That is true if you only measure success in terms of the size of a persons wallet.


Iam vague on my thoughts and

Iam vague on my thoughts and perhaps should refrain o n posting but what hell.....I question the basis of the concept of growth entirely. I guess thats sustainable growth.. Id like greater minds then mine, and more educated to ponder how growth permeates how we view a multitude of subjects and in my view unrealistically


Dear Dr. Batra, Your ideas

Dear Dr. Batra, Your ideas should be implemented. The consumer is maxed out. Trying to stimulate the consumer to continue the buying spree seems to be an erroneous strategy. However it seems that most can only see the individual trees but not the forest. MJR


citiboy "I'll become a

citiboy "I'll become a Democrat when the left stops calling the wealthy "the rich" and start calling them "the successful". " Not all rich people are successful. Many inherit their wealth and turn out to be Paris Hiltons of the world. I believe we fought a war to free ourselves from "Royalty" and the passing of wealth and power. To those that object to paying taxes, what are your alternatives. How do we pay for the common things we all use and which ones are you willing to forgo so as not to pay taxes. Roads, FAA, police, fire, and thousands of other services that we must pay for. Maybe we can expect the "Successful" to provide these services for us. Right!


Thanks, Dr. Batra, for

Thanks, Dr. Batra, for shooting down another Reagan myth. Here's one more. After the attempted budget slash created the worst recession in recent memory Reagan and his team financed the recovery with massive borrowing, making him not only the biggest socialist but the biggest Keyensian of them all.


Tax money is spent on

Tax money is spent on infrastructure and social stability. These comprise the foundation upon which corporations can make money and thrive. I would like to ask all the Joe the Plumbers out there if they would like to do business in a country with no roads, no interstate highways, no police or fire services and increasing violence from the disenfranchised masses? Look at Colombia, middle class families have to hire private security to protect themselves from the thriving kidnapping trade. Check out countries like Afghanistan, living in the stone age with no infrastructure. Goods and services are transported slowly and painfully from one place to another. Tax money is spent to keep the arteries of capitalism free flowing. The problem is not taxes, it's just what this article says. The problem is some of us at the top are getting a free ride while the rest of us foot the bill. As a small business person, I am struggling to pay my taxes. Now I know why they are so high. Thanks to Saint Reagan, I can never get ahead, just tread water and hope a big wave doesn't come along and drown me.


i am a free market classical

i am a free market classical liberal. i agree with the thesis that reagan was a socialist but i disagree with the supporting arguments. there is more to socialism than simply a military enforced non-voluntary redistribution of wealth. reagan perhaps wrongfully reasoned that he could artificially re-establish a free market through artificial adjustments. i would be open to discuss this as short sighted but i would not call it socialism. ludvig von misses once referred to reagan's idol, milton friedman, as a socialist. by association, reagan must also be a socialist. i am not an expert, but i believe the key to reagan's socialist heart is through the secrets of the federal reserve.


Jungle Shooter

I loved reading this. If you like, check out my web-site.