Limbaugh: "Where Did You Get This Silly Notion That Reagan Raised Taxes?"
February 04, 2011 1:57 pm ET
From the February 4 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
But hey, Raygun's rhetoric about how "government is evil" was dead-on accurate....He PROVED it!
It has nothing to do with reality, it's all about the talk.
In my lifetime, the Dems have generally been much more fiscally responsible, and the Repubs have consistently screwed up the economy. But what do the wingnuts say any time their leaders "problems with money" are mentioned?
"Well, they're acting like Democrats"
Because their religion tells them that Republicans are fiscally responsible, despite the facts.
no TRUE republican would do those things, thus those that do are acting like democrats
The 2007 bill was written by republicans. Bush could have vetoed the 2008 spending bill. The debt increased $1 trillion in Bushes last year.
Ever hear Anchor Baby Malkin say that Raygun doubled the social security withholding tax?
Ever hear Insean Vannity say that Raygun raised taxes 7 times?
In 1982 alone, Raygun signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Raygun signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate.
This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Raygun signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act.
This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.
Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years.
And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Raygun presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
But, should we really be surprised? We know it's a well established fact that conservatives are best at growing the government and debt.
Just like his followers.
If you're just saying it to be flippant, then you're dishonest and again, are part of the problem.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say you actually, truly believe that liberals support terrorism. What terrorist activities conducted by terrorist groups in, say, the past 50 years, have liberals supported?
Because this is what Reagan believed:
"We the people’ tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the people’ are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast."
The type of rhetoric that Republicans love - the whole "government isn't the solution; government is the problem" thing - is paradoxical because our constitution frames it so government does provide the solutions to our problems. Republicans don't believe that government is the problem. If they truly felt that way, then they'd put their money where their mouth is by advocating it's elimination in favor of anarchy.
No, the truth is that Republicans just want to be the ones in control, but lack the integrity to state their case that way, instead relying on false platitudes whose sole purpose is to garner votes that place them in power.
Typical of Reagan worshipers, you care only about what he said. He talked a good game, and that's what matters- to you.
He shifted the responsibility to the states.
http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html
"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan (Governor of California), quoted in the Sacramento Bee, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park, March 3, 1966
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." --Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980
"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas." --Ronald Reagan (candidate for Governor of California), interviewed in the Fresno Bee, October 10, 1965
"...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers." --President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985
"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." --Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976
"...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts." --Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Description of Medicaid recipients.)
"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders." --California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966
"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet." --Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964
Let's share the whole quote:
"Speaking before a Junior Achievement Banquet, Reagan cautioned against turning the country into a welfare state, which he described as 'a faceless mass, looking for handouts.'"
those behind the new deal never tried to hide the fact that their plan was modeled after Mussolini's, that Mussolini himself "praised" FDR for the new deal, and that FDR admired Mussolini because he "makes the trains to run on time".
I am not surprised by your ignorance of Reagan, and the ignorance of most of those in here. After all, those behind the "hate-Bush" campaign have been on a "destroy-Reagan" campaign long before GW took office and the internet made spreading propaganda so easy.
Here's a short list: Funded Nicaraguan death squads, sold arms to terrorists, gave money to terrorists, tried to overturn democratically-elected governments. Just Google 'Iran-Contra.'
If Reagan were alive in the current political climate, the teabaggers would throw him under a bus. Limbaugh himself would have a huge problem with a President who deals with terrorists.
Right-wingers like Limbaugh have to lie to themselves about Reagan in order to continue to worship him. The deflection in these comment threads ("Why don't liberals love him then?") just go to show you how desperately the right-wingers want to forget reality and adopt a fantasy world.
No, he wouldn't if it were a Republican. He'd find a way to rationalize it. Remember, we're talking about the guy who used to believe that drug offenders should be locked up and the key thrown away... until he himself was found to have an illegal pill habit.
Barnes & Noble and Borders Books are just front-companies for their subversive activities. Rush says that George Soros is the major stockholder in those companies. Think about it - both companies are losing money every quarter, but they're still operating? And without any TARP funding?
Places like that aren't MY America!
For 10 bonus points, as a life guard how many Lives did Ronnie save ?
a. 12
b. 53
c. 77
That's a taxpayer-funded, socialistic occupation. All those swimmers and bathers should have enough of their OWN training and skill to get themselves out of trouble in the water, even if the weather unforseeingly goes bad.
/snark/
I'm betting there's a call screener looking for work today.
He tried it with this one, but the caller just kept returning to the same question, which Blimpy refused to answer. It made me tingle.
"Your interpretation of Reagan is flawed" ( meaning "factual", not following the revisionist history of the reagan Cult)
and
"You represent the inability to bridge the gap" - which is meaningless gibberish, but might mean the gap between the callers cold hard facts, and Rush's right wing fiction.
Both of these statements by Rush basically say the same thing - " I can't argue with anyhting you're saying, so I'll just tell you that you're wrong, because you don't support the things I say".
Nice job, caller, whoever you are.
'Y-Y-You're just one of these people who needs to be defeated!!!!!'
Fatty fall down and go boom?
Then, any future senator could fly into Reagan Airport, tip the porter with a Reagan $1 bill, then drive down Reagan Avenue to the Reagan Office Building.
All Reagan, all the time.
At least Reagan isn't on our currency, yet.
At least Reagan isn't on our currency, yet.
What I can't believe is that they named an airport for the man who fired over 11K air traffic controllers who wanted a raise {the irony of this is even more delicious than that of Darrell Issa -- a man who was busted for GTA three times -- using his voice on an auto theft deterrent system of his own invention.}
There's already an organization dedicated to naming a notable landmark in EACH state and ALL 3,067 US counties after Raygun.
Give it time.
Just call it by it's "real" name: Marion Morrison. :)
And I use my airport {SDIA}, too; who cares if it's named after a WWII isolationist [Capt. Charles Lindbergh] . . .
{Besides, it's runways are so short, all flights leaving the continental US must stop at LAX, anyway.}
He was caught absolutely flat, finally.
The caller was one of our MMfA regulars here.
Good job whoever you are!!!!
kudos
Have a topic or point, but don't sound too smart if you're disagreeing. They don't like a real challenge.
I found that I got through a lot if I acted not too bright ( to the screener), and not sure where I stood on an issue, that way, the ego of people like Rush takes over, thinking they can "win you over".
Don't lie about your purpose, or the subject you want to talk about. It may get you through, but you'll generally be cut off, with some comment about the "dishonesty of the left".
Be prepared. The hosts/engineers/screeners on righty shows play a lot of games, cutting the sound in and out,changing subjects, etc.
I got through to Rush only once that I remember. He hung up on me, and told his audience that I had hung up, at which point he asked a bunch of logically flawed questions that he really wished I was around to answer.
If you do it, have fun, but don't take it too personally or get frustrated. The playing field is tilted in their favor, they have a delay ( 7-10 seconds or more), control of the volume, and a staff helping them. They get to get rid of you at any time, and get the last word in (generally against some straw man).
What?
Oh.
Never mind.
It's about hypocrisy.
I found it funnier still when, towards the end of the clip, Limbaugh told the caller that he was the kind of person that must be defeated.
Defeated, yes, for daring to speak the truth. That's something that just cannot be tolerated by Rush, eh?
I don't see anybody here running away from that fact, or blaming Clinton or blaming Congress. If anything most people here probably applauded Clinton and the Congress for doing the right thing.
It's you conservatives that go bat sh!t crazy when someone raises taxes, whether there is a Democratic or Republican president or Congress.
What this thread is trying to point out, is that it's a BIG LIE that under Regan taxes were reduced. The fact remains under Reagan's presidency, taxes in totality went up. The problem is they went up for the lower and middle class, but went down for the wealthy. And he presided over the first massive increase in the deficit.
The spending that increased under Reagan the most was defense. Remember the 1000 ship navy, the MX ballistic missile, and of course last but not least the Star Wars missile defense. All that for a supposed enemy that at the time probably couldn't have mustered enough troops for one good battle.
Before you bring up the "conservative lie" that Reagan won the cold war, I would like to point out we won the cold war with policies that dated back to the 1950's. We stuck to one policy and won. We didn't need a 1000 ship navy, we didn't need the MX missile, and we sure didn't need star wars.
Something tells me his chalk would break, rendering him unable to make the connection.
Yep -- and, who was it who propped up the mujahideen . . . who eventually morphed into the Taliban? Oh, yeah . . .
He created the biggest budget deficit to date back then AND created a huge government stimulus program... ie huge ... billions of dollars increase to the u.s. military budget. The caller was absolutely right about amnesty, the iran-contra affair (arms to terrorists for u.s. captives) and raising taxes. The fallacy was, he said what conservatives love to hear and did exactly the opposite.
Paying taxes is the responsibility of every citizen who wants to live in a free society and enjoy the privileges that come with it.
I agree WK. I don't know why you had to add that last part about taxes, the first part was pretty complete.
REAGAN RAISED TAXES.
That's why Bush 41 promised, "Read my lips. No new taxes."
Rush is a dunce, and so are you.
Forbes Magazine isnt exactly a left wing magazine. Ronald Reagan had to raise taxes after his cuts were sending the deficit spiraling out of control The Bush tax cuts that were continued last December under Obama will send the deficit spiraling even more out of control and of course it will be Obama's fault even though he was opposed to them. So, the short answer is to Rush "I flunked out of college" Limbaugh History and facts gave us this idea. What a buffoon. If he would actually study the topics he spouts off about he might not make these stupid comments.
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: +$57,300,000,000
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 (Socialism!): +$4,900,000,000
Social Security Amendments of 1983: +$24,600,000,000
Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983: +$1,200,000,000
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984: +$25,400,000,000
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985: +$2,900,000,000
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985: +$2,400,000,000
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: +$600,000,000
Continuing Resolution for 1987: +$2,800,000,000
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987: +$8,600,000,000
Continuing Resolution for 1988: +$2,000,000,000
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1990 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), p. 4-4.
In 1981, the former California governor swept into office promising to slash taxes to their lowest-ever levels and with the Economic Recovery Tax Act, that's exactly what he did.
.... [But] In 1982, Reagan agreed to restore a third of the previous year’s massive cut. It was the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
.... In 1983, he raised the gasoline tax by five cents a gallon and instituted a payroll-tax hike that helped fund Medicare and Social Security.
.... In 1984, he eliminated loopholes worth $50 billion over three years.
.... And in 1986, he supported the progressive Tax Reform Act, which hit businesses with a record-breaking $420 billion in new fees.
.... In the 1980 campaign, Reagan pledged to do three things if elected: lower taxes, win the Cold War, and curb government spending. But in his haste to achieve the first two goals, he abandoned the third. On his watch, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 (in contrast, government payrolls shrank by 373,000 during Clinton's presidency).
The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled [under Reagan]. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion. And the United States was transformed from the world's largest international creditor to its largest debtor.
Joseph Goebbels.
- avoid debate
- ignore invitations to debate, never invite to debate
- cut of mics
- scream
- intimitade
- or play with the audio buttons to make a smart caller
disappear.
Ron is admitting a painful possibility, that his father may have been showing early signs of Alzheimer's during his presidency. Michael, ever the dutiful Troglodyte, has reflexively attacked Ron for uttering such blasphemy.
Like I said, these ultra conservatives don't love Reagan, they love the idea of a man that they have created.
The build-up to his 100th birthday has already begun on cable news. Andrea Mitchell was absolutely waxing poetic about the glory days of Ron and Nancy and their beautiful love affair and how she was so looking forward to meeting all the other Reagan era criminals at Simi Valley.
But this guy got through and it was beautiful! I loved how Rush just kept stammering--"Well, I, uhh, umm, you obviously,uhh, uhh, umm---" Then he got condescending: "Well I could explain it but you obviously wouldn't understand." But the caller wouldn't let up and kept asking Rushie the same question and insisting that he answer it which he couldnt' do! Finally the big fat idiot couldn't take it anymore and just said,"You are proof there is no bridging the gap between our two sides! You need to just be defeated!" Wow, what a "brilliant" answer Rushie. Face it, El Rushbo, you got your BUTT KICKED!! ROFLMAO!
By living through it? Ronzo raised my taxes. And looted social security too.
Who would trust the word of the fat Druggie ??
In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes in May.
Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.
Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.
Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.
Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, ...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Between his time screwing up this state and screwing up this country and several years before Rush began spewing his bile, Ronnie had a syndicated radio show.
The fact-distorting and factfromassing that flowed from Ronnie's golden throat knew no bounds and I'm certain Rush copied many of Ronnies's tactics.
I don't know if Ronnie was suffering from Alzheimer's back then, but he seemed to be an expert at forgetting facts.
For now, it gets past MMFA's potty-mouth nanny-bot.
Ooops! I think I just blew it!
Crap!
Yeah, I remember that - pegged my Bullschittometer.
Actually, I thought he'd gone into the realm of makes-new-friends-every-day right around the time he was sworn in.
Sums up the rightwingnut mentality perfectly.
Both incidents were tragic, to be sure, but it's a perfect example of Hate Radio hypocrisy.
Glad you mentioned that.
The Trogs also like to make much of Clinton's supposed non-response to the bombing of USS Cole.
Can anyone recall the Raygun response to the attack on USS Stark in 1987?
*crickets*
How ridiculously uninformed the mmfa bloggers are if this is what they settle for!
"Wahh, wahh where is the REST of the video? Where's the part where Rush gives a brilliant response to the caller and makes him look like the stupid lib that he is?? Huh? Where is it??? Wahh, wahh, wahh!"
Aww sorry Doughboy but your hero Rushie got his butt kicked. There is no more video to see of that call. Get over it. Now go have your mom bring you some milk and cookies. :-)
It's the Limpballs Way.
The same as when Limpy takes bits and pieces of Obama's conversations, discussions, etc., and tells his dittos like you what the President is "thinking" and "feeling" . . .
Warning: If you have some fantasy that your portly hero ever addressed the question, or did anything but bluster and ramble on in platitudes and more lies, you're going to be very disappointed.
Sorry, more Rush never equals better Rush, as much as you wish it did.
Most people puddle when questioned or attacked by Limbaugh. I could see Cenk as one of the few that wouldn't be rattled by Limbaugh. The caller knew his facts, articulated them clearly, and was knowledgeable enough to defend them.
Anyway, whoever it was he did a great job.
"Four years later, then-budget director David Stockman, however, stated that Congress substantially upheld its end of the bargain, and cites the Administration's failure to identify management savings and its resistance to defense spending cuts as the key impediments to greater outlay savings."
Hmmmm?
While Defense spending went up from 184.4 to 188.8 under the 1982 Reagan proposal cuts were suggested in other areas so that the TOTAL budget proposal went down from 739.3 to 695.3 in Reagan's proposed budget. What passed congress over Reagan's veto was a budget of 725.3 Statistical Abstract of the USA 1982 Mr. Stockman was incorrect in saying that the Administration did not submit cuts to the budget as promised in the TEFRA budget deal between Congress and the Reagan Administration.
"Supplemental"?
Are you talking about the same supplemental budgets Dumbya used to pay for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars?
I am again not saying that is wrong, necessarily. It's just a fact, like the Reagan tax increases.
Ronnie was the first president to tax unemployment benefits.
I am sure there were more, perhaps a reduction in IRA limits for deductible contributions.
Somehow,(liberal media maybe?) people got the idea that Republicans would spend less even as they spent waaay more.
Reagan's greatest achievement maybe was that he manipulated the media with great artistry.
The sad thing here is that you really do not know how off-target you are on everything you said.
Please provide links where you got your info regarding Reagan and Obama.
Believe all the skewed information that you want. You will never change the Reagan legacy, and you will only look like fools trying to do so.