reason10

That is a stupid LIE.

If California was SERIOUS about paying slave reparations to those who deserve them...

You are an entitled !DIOT. "Ignore" is for the IGNORant.

I'll take my reliable sources over fake news any day. Reagan is the standard for today's Republicans. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP went right along with the Reagan model of tax cuts and deregulation, which rescued us from the Obama DEPRESSION and gave us the best economy of the 21st Century.

Canadians, I'm starting to find out, are as dumb as they come. Reagan was the greatest president in American history. The world is SAFE because of him.

Another LIE.

That is a LIE. And you are a LIAR.

It's a LIE. JImmy Carter empowered Islamofascism with his cowardly decision not to rescue the hostages. Those ragheads would have shit themselves if they saw attack helicopters moving in a day after they were taken.

Get a life, creep.

The stupid ones do. They still sling their lies and bullshit whenever I post. They're just childish immature brats who have shelves full of participation trophies. They're not used to losing arguments. There is good news. You goose steppers can fill out a form and send it to the chaplain.

Unelected Joe IS a traitor. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT REAGAN was the greatest president in history.

The REAL Reagan Record. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569 What was Reaganomics? Reaganomics was based on the Laffer Curve. Economist Arthur Laffer developed it in 1974. The curve showed how tax cuts could stimulate the economy to the point where the tax base expanded. Tax cuts reduce the level of federal taxation immediately. These same cuts have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money in consumers' pockets, which they spend. That stimulates business growth and more hiring. The result? A larger tax base. Reaganomics was consistent with the theory of supply-side economics. It states that corporate tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy. When companies get more cash, they should hire new workers and expand their businesses. It also says that income tax cuts give workers more incentive to work, increasing the supply of labor. That's why it's sometimes called trickle-down economics. Tax Cuts Reagan cut tax rates enough to stimulate consumer demand. By Reagan's last year in office, the top income tax rate was 28% for single people making $18,550 or more. Anyone making less paid no taxes at all. That was much less than the 1980 top tax rate of 70% for individuals earning $108,300 or more. Reagan indexed the tax brackets for inflation.3 Reagan offset these tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere. He raised Social Security payroll taxes and some excise taxes. He also cut several deductions.45 Reagan cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40% in 1987.6 But the effect of this break was unclear. Reagan changed the tax treatment of many new investments. The complexity meant that the overall results of his corporate tax changes couldn't be measured. Slow Spending Growth Government spending still grew, just not as fast as under President Jimmy Carter. Reagan increased spending by 9% a year, from $678 billion at Carter's final budget in Fiscal Year 1981 to $1.1 trillion at Reagan's last budget for FY 1989. Carter increased spending by 16% a year, from $409 billion in FY 1977 to $678 billion in FY 1981. Reduce Regulations In 1981, Reagan eliminated the Nixon-era price controls on domestic oil and gas.8 They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan also deregulated cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. He eased bank regulations, but that helped create the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. Reagan increased, not decreased, import barriers. He doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.1 He did little to reduce other regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. Carter had reduced regulations at a faster pace. Tame Inflation Reagan had campaigned on ending galloping inflation. That's when inflation rates reach 10% or more. In 1980 the inflation rate was 12.5%. These rates hurt the economy because money loses value too fast. Business and employee income can't keep up with rising costs and prices. Galloping inflation was already being addressed by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. He used contractionary monetary policy, despite the potential for a recession. In 1979, Volcker began raising the fed funds rate. By December 1980, it had reached 20%.9 These high rates choked off economic growth. Volcker's policy triggered the recession of 1981-1982. Unemployment rose to 10.1% and stayed above 10% for 10 months.10 This painful solution was necessary to stop galloping inflation. Had inflation not been tackled in this way, the economy would have fared far worse. Volcker's policies knocked inflation down to 3.8% by 1983.11

The failing left wing goose stepping New York Times? The sleazy rag that compaigned AGAINST Reagan. Bottom line, Reagan was the greatest president in history. Gave American the greatest economy, SLASHED gasoline prices, ENDED inflation and defeated America's deadliest enemy (Soviet Union) without firing a shot. History remembers Reagan as the best. https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY? Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990: Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3 As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4 Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase. HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING? Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s: Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7 Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.) HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH? Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth: This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10 The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11 From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12 HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN? Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation: In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd. The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14 Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15 These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16 Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects. Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups: For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989; For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989. On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups: For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989; For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989; For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

https://www.foxnews.com/media/anti-capitalist-teacher-promotes-anarchy-loves-students-no-respect-authority Anti-capitalist teacher promotes anarchy, 'loves' when students have 'no respect for authority' A Minneapolis science teacher, who recommends teachers include anti-capitalist materials in their classrooms, praised the idea of having no respect for authority. The teacher at Highland Park Middle School, Mandi Jung, frequently posts videos on TikTok espousing anti-capitalist and anarchist philosophies. Anarchism is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish systems like capitalism, which it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy. Jung also said that she identifies with the Industrial Workers of the World, an ideological union with ties to socialism and anarchism. "My students this year have no respect for authority," the Saint Paul district teacher said. "And I love that in a person because I have no respect for authority whatsoever. But it has been a frustrating year because I am the authority. So I'm like, ‘Damn the man,’ but I am the man." Gee! Florida public schools teach Math, English, Art, Music, History, Geography, Civics, Science. Stuff people actually NEED to survive in society. And a Minneapolis teacher goes the opposite way? This being in the same Minneapolis that gave America this? Yup. Seems to show that "no respect for authority" thing. Gee! What are they teaching those brats in Minneapolis? Uh, fellas. DON'T MOVE TO FLORIDA. Our teachers are superior. They don't put up with this crap. And if you riot, you'll go to jail and likely have a felony on your record. Just stay in your shithole blue state, pay higher taxes and burn all the private businesses you want.