Pay for Play: Conserv. Group offers to sell endorsement to FedEx then flips

[Chicken Little]

Every time I look at the tax rates from that era, I do not see an increase.  You must have had some deductions that you lost.  FWIW, I never called you lazy. 

Maybe if you take off your rose colored spectacles...Reagan raised taxes, and he raised them because he saw that his 1981 tax cut was not working, which is something Bush Jr. never did.  I don't know why some of y'all choose to live in a fantasyland.  We're in a mess today, and it started long before Obama.  It started with Reagan telling us tax cuts and trickle down would be good for America.  It wasn't, and even Reagan knew it:

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase...

...Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility; or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent; but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

2004 editorial from Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html

And back on topic...to reiterate usrufnex's request:  which liberal groups were/are doing pay for play?  You guys said it, but I'm with the soccer fan; you should prove it.

[guido911]

And back on topic...to reiterate usrufnex's request:  which liberal groups were/are doing pay for play?  You guys said it, but I'm with the soccer fan; you should prove it.

I do not think they constitute a group, but I thought Illinois/Chicago DEM Blago has been indicted in a pay for play scandal and Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination over the same. Seriously, how is this a "scandal" Oh I know, because there are "neocons" involved.

[Conan71]

Maybe if you take off your rose colored spectacles...Reagan raised taxes, and he raised them because he saw that his 1981 tax cut was not working, which is something Bush Jr. never did.  I don't know why some of y'all choose to live in a fantasyland.  We're in a mess today, and it started long before Obama.  It started with Reagan telling us tax cuts and trickle down would be good for America.  It wasn't, and even Reagan knew it:

2004 editorial from Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html

And back on topic...to reiterate usrufnex's request:  which liberal groups were/are doing pay for play?  You guys said it, but I'm with the soccer fan; you should prove it.

Wow, taxes shot up a whopping .7%!

The article does not specify whether the % represented as FICA was the total FICA paid on behalf of the taxpayer or the taxpayers 1/2.  If it represents the total collected, that's a rate hike if .35% on the taxpayer.

[Chicken Little]

I do not think they constitute a group, but I thought Illinois/Chicago DEM Blago has been indicted in a pay for play scandal and Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination over the same. Seriously, how is this a "scandal" Oh I know, because there are "neocons" involved.

I'll give you points for Blago...thanks, Guido.  I don't doubt that both sides are doing this kind of thing, but just saying so isn't the standard we should hold for discussion.  TN forums are more fun when we apply a little rigor.   

[Chicken Little]

Wow, taxes shot up a whopping .7%!

The article does not specify whether the % represented as FICA was the total FICA paid on behalf of the taxpayer or the taxpayers 1/2.  If it represents the total collected, that's a rate hike if .35% on the taxpayer.

Actually, I think it does specify:

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent; but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

(Emphasis mine).  And yes, it may have been a small net gain, but remember, he slashed taxes before he flip-flopped and raised them again.  So, to recap:  Reagan raised taxes on middle-income Americans, (a net positive change, not just a yo-yo); he did it because he saw the evidence and realized that tax cuts and trickle down was fiscally irresponsible.  And even with the course correction, Reagan still drove the debt through the roof:

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Bush repeated all of Reagan's mistakes...and did so without even a tinge of guilt.  Remember what Cheney said, "You know, Paul (O'Neill), Reagan proved deficits don't matter,".  Well, guess what, they really do matter.

[Conan71]

Actually, I think it does specify:
(Emphasis mine).  And yes, it may have been a small net gain, but remember, he slashed taxes before he flip-flopped and raised them again.  So, to recap:  Reagan raised taxes on middle-income Americans, (a net positive change, not just a yo-yo); he did it because he saw the evidence and realized that tax cuts and trickle down was fiscally irresponsible.  And even with the course correction, Reagan still drove the debt through the roof:

Bush repeated all of Reagan's mistakes...and did so without even a tinge of guilt.  Remember what Cheney said, "You know, Paul (O'Neill), Reagan proved deficits don't matter,".  Well, guess what, they really do matter.

If the net increase was .7% I doubt that was anywhere close to keeping up with the rate of inflation, as far as net spendability to the government and the taxpayer, the increase was negligable. 

[USRufnex]

I do not think they constitute a group, but I thought Illinois/Chicago DEM Blago has been indicted in a pay for play scandal and Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination over the same. Seriously, how is this a "scandal" Oh I know, because there are "neocons" involved.

Comparing the American Conservative Union to Blago is like comparing apples vs. unicorns.....

I hate Blago; he was a corrupt governor who replaced another corrupt governor (George Ryan)... he'll literally say anything to win an election; Blago vs. Judy Baar-Topinka?  Talk about a choice between lesser evils....

The Blago scandal was ALL OVER THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA!

This Pay for Play scandal by a conservative group?  Sound of crickets....

When politicians are corrupt, it's "dog bites man."

When a conservative group violates its own principles and scruples to ask FedEx for bribes, it's "man bites dog."

I can come up with a huge list of corrupt politicians... but name another 527 in past few years, or a PAC from 80s who's stooped this low?

Why do I not see this scandal in the national media?

If MoveOn.org did the same thing, I can guarantee you the national "liberal" media would be reporting on it and the Hannity's of this world would be HOWLING IN PROTEST....

The big losers here are the card carrying supporters of the American Conservative Union, btw.

Bill Buckley must be rolling over in his grave about now....

[Chicken Little]

If the net increase was .7% I doubt that was anywhere close to keeping up with the rate of inflation, as far as net spendability to the government and the taxpayer, the increase was negligable. 

.7% of total income, but another way of saying it is that taxes on working Americans went up by 8.5% under Reagan...which they did.  Reagonomics reduced income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket from 70% to 28% in 7 years, while social security and medicare taxes increased.  He simply shifted the tax burden to the middle class.  Toss in a little dangerous deregulation, and oh yeah, keep growth strong by borrowing like an SOB.  And there ya have Reagonomics in a nutshell.  We still haven't paid off the debt that Reagan racked up in the 80's.

All this mythology about Reagan is particularly stupid today.  Obama is simply deficit spending...something that Reagan pioneered, and baby Bush foolishly pantomimed to fuel an economic bubble and land us on the brink of a Great Depression.  The differences are pretty subtle, and if I can admit that, then so can you wingnuts.  

Obama isn't crassly proposing new giveaways to the rich, but he hasn't yet eliminated any of Bush's giveaways either.  Obama is deficit spending to keep us from sinking into an economic depression, and that's a dangerous game.  Bush did a h*ll of a lot more deficit spending than either Reagan or Obama, and he did it all apparently for sh*ts and giggles.  If you want to whine about the deficit, then honor Reagan and that cretin Bush accordingly.