/p/
Toledo Talk forums search sign-up login

Reagan poisoned school children's minds by preaching tax cuts

Here's part of Ronald Reagan's speech which was shown to school children nationwide on 3 different days:

"Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.

I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

Q. My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?

PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them. Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government. And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher. And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low.

created by pink_slip on Sep 06, 2009 at 09:50:08 am     Politics     Comments: 51

source      versions

Comments ... #

What a hero. Best president since Washington.

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 12:18:50 pm     #  

So it's ok for a Republican to preach right-wing policy to schoolchildren, but it's not ok for a Democrat to talk about "working hard" and "staying in school"?

posted by pink_slip on Sep 06, 2009 at 12:29:07 pm     #  

Yes

posted by deere1 on Sep 06, 2009 at 12:38:01 pm     #  

Did you even read the little speech above Pink Slip? Right Wing policy? It's not right wing. It's simply common sense.

I think after all the hubbub raised, O. is probably having his upcoming speech revised to sound a little more mainstream and a little less "cultish".

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 12:52:09 pm     #  

By the way, I find it hilarious that you refer to cutting taxes as "poisoning young minds".

How terrible! How could he!? LOL

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 12:53:42 pm     #  

It's pretty-well accepted that tax-cuts for the wealthy (or supply-side economics) is right-wing Reaganism at it's worse.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 06, 2009 at 01:06:54 pm     #  

Point out where tax cuts for the "wealthy" are mentioned.

And define Wealthy.
And why would cutting taxes for anyone be bad?

As Glenn Becks always says, "a poor guy never gave me a job".

Do you advocate taking wealth from one person and handing it to another? Based on what? How do you decide who gives and who gets? Who is standing on the moral high ground that gets to make that decision? Some bureaucrat?

Is it okay if that person on the receiving end just expects it and does nothing to help himself because he knows that he'll be taken care of anyway?

Also, after all the hard work of earning so much money, what is the incentive to continue if you just have to keep giving it some other schmuck that's not working for it?

The incentive of hard work and innovation is the reward your reap.

If welfare could solve poverty, why hasn't it yet?

Even Jesus said there would always be poor people.

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 01:49:40 pm     #  

He literally defines supply-side tax cuts in the speech.

The idea of progressive taxation (taxing the wealthy more) was put forth in the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. So, yeah I guess I'm ok with taxing the wealthy more.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 06, 2009 at 01:59:52 pm     #  

I'm more of a Flat Tax believer, but I've about given up on anyone getting enough courage to make it happen.

Anyhoo, the rich spend the most...especially on shit they don't frickin need. What better way than to flat tax (Fair Tax) products?
It would also help the environment through conservation.

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:03:42 pm     #  

"If welfare could solve poverty, why hasn't it yet?"

Poverty rates dropped dramatically since LBJ's war on poverty increased spending on welfare programs.

Conversely, can you show me that states with lower tax rates have lower poverty rates? (good luck with that)

posted by pink_slip on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:14:01 pm     #  

Prove yours first. :)

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:15:06 pm     #  

Google turned up this pretty quickly:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/budget%20tax/article/20569/LowTax_States_Cut_Poverty_Rates_Study.html

Low-Tax States Cut Poverty Rates: Study
Budget & Tax News > March 2007
Welfare
Welfare > Poverty

Written By: Jessa Haugebak
Published In: Budget & Tax News > March 2007
Publication date: 02/01/2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Fiscally prudent states appear to be winning the war on poverty, according to a recent study by the Goldwater Institute, which found low-tax and low-spending states are more successful at reducing poverty than their high-tax, high-spending counterparts.

The 10 states with the lowest tax burdens saw a 13.7 percent decline in poverty during the 1990s (more than double the national average), according to the study. Meanwhile, the 10 states with the highest tax burdens suffered an average poverty rate increase of 3 percent. The poverty rate dropped nationwide during the decade, the report notes.

The same correlation was found with spending. The 10 states with the lowest per-capita spending benefited from a sizable decrease in overall poverty. The 10 biggest spenders saw poverty increase 7.3 percent.

"How to Win the War on Poverty: An Analysis of State Poverty Trends," by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., examined general and childhood poverty rates nationwide from 1990 to 2000. The report was released in November.

Private-Sector Jobs Vital

"Private-sector growth possesses much greater power in the fight against poverty than government programs," said Ladner, vice president of research at the Goldwater Institute, in an interview for this article. "When the private sector grows, aided by low taxes, more jobs are created. When more people have jobs, per-capita and median family incomes rise. Jobs, not government spending, lift people out of poverty."

Ladner conducted his research using data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Letter grades were assigned to each state based on the amount of progress each made in reducing poverty.

Top scorers Minnesota and Mississippi each earned an A+ for reducing poverty by 22.5 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

Rhode Island and Hawaii earned the lowest grade, an F-, for significant poverty increases of 24 percent and 28.9 percent, respectively.

Arizona/California Contrasts

The study also examines an interesting relationship between two states that embraced opposite fiscal strategies during the 1990s.

In 1990, Arizona had the nation's fifth-heaviest tax burden and a poverty rate well above the national average. California's tax burden was much lower, ranking 24th in the nation. In 1990, Arizona's poverty rate was 25 percent higher than California's.

During the 1990s Arizona cut taxes, bringing its tax burden down to 25th highest in 2000. California kicked spending and taxation into high gear, raising the state's ranking from 24th to ninth highest by 2005.

Consequently, Arizona enjoyed a significant poverty rate decrease. California's poverty rate actually increased, from 12.5 to 14.2 percent.

The study notes California's high taxation has been so damaging to the economy that it is on track to have a higher percentage of its population living in poverty by 2010 than Mississippi.

Big Government, Slow Growth

"There is a clear relationship between the size of government and economic performance," said Daniel Mitchell, the McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Heritage Foundation. "As taxes and spending rise, growth begins to suffer. The poor are the biggest victims of economic stagnation."

Ultimately, "states that fail to limit the size of government will be harming the less fortunate," said Mitchell. "People in other states will reap the benefits as jobs and capital flee for jurisdictions that encourage private-sector growth."

Ladner's study suggests the most effective way to reduce poverty is through private-sector job growth. The best anti-poverty strategy policymakers can employ, according to Ladner, is to cut taxes and lower government spending. That will create an economic climate favorable to business creation and job growth.

PINKSLIP - now you will proceed to provide your own statistics or disprove my source above. Which is fine. Whatever. I'll do the same...and so on and so forth.

I can agree to disagree. I believe you are wrong and you believe I am wrong. That's okay with me.

What I can't stand is when people on this forum deny facts - such as Van Jones being a racist radical and a Communist. He dug his own hole.

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:32:16 pm     #  

Johnsons' "war on poverty" has only helped destroy minority nuclear families. There's more poverty in America now than ever, and throwing MORE money at failed social programs is asinine IMO. Good posts, Ahuvia!

posted by Wulf on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:45:15 pm     #  

http://www.heartland.org/

The publisher of this slanted piece was The Heartland Institute, hardly an unbiased source of facts and information.

posted by holland on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:52:01 pm     #  

For some balance here's an old but very relevant discussion about conservative think tanks ( institutes) and how they skew facts to shape the debate.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy/ConservThinkTanks.html

posted by holland on Sep 06, 2009 at 02:55:24 pm     #  

(Quoting above senseless person)"During the 1990s Arizona cut taxes, bringing its tax burden down to 25th highest in 2000. California kicked spending and taxation into high gear, raising the state's ranking from 24th to ninth highest by 2005.

Consequently, Arizona enjoyed a significant poverty rate decrease. California's poverty rate actually increased, from 12.5 to 14.2 percent.

The study notes California's high taxation has been so damaging to the economy that it is on track to have a higher percentage of its population living in poverty by 2010 than Mississippi.

Big Government, Slow Growth"

California can't pay it's own employees and has had that problem since I can remember - no matter what the taxes were, or who was leading it.

It is illogical to take two sets of numbers and two sets of facts and tie them together as though nothing else in the world exists. Arizona was the fastest growing state in the nation, thriving on building, and being able to build year round because of the climate - the housing market fell, and all those houses are empty now because the people who bought them couldn't afford them and went back to California where the wages are HIGHER - Take a drive through AZ and look at all the build or half build houses just sitting there. I just moved to FL from there, and bore witness to all of it. I also know that it was near impossible where we lived to find work over 12 dollars per hour.

And yes - talking to children about things that have nothing to do with children is brainwashing. They're not old enough to form opinions about that stuff yet, and only know that if the Great president of the United States is saying it, then it must be true - so I see why those apposing President Obama's talk are so afraid! Shoe is on the other foot, and it scares them half to death. Reagan's speech was something for college students to hear, not little kids. President Obama's speech is about working hard, and staying in school.

Those of you with a bit of sense, please sign our petition! Let the President speak in school!

posted by PeggyHall on Sep 06, 2009 at 03:19:29 pm     #  

So Pinko,

Was it wrong for Reagan to speak to the school children?

and

Is President Obama taking questions from the kids?

posted by Molsonator on Sep 06, 2009 at 05:42:41 pm     #  

All these years propaganda has been used and now you are getting upset? That's funny.

posted by hockeyfan on Sep 06, 2009 at 10:29:52 pm     #  

Propaganda from a Marxist mystery man vs. Ronald Reagan - the man the helped bring down the Iron Curtain.

Gee. Not even close to being a tough call.

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 07, 2009 at 08:21:08 am     #  

Pinko, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't be tryin to compare Obama with Reagan. Babble man Oblama has only babbled tired socialism while Reagan was a true visionary.

posted by michiganbluecollar on Sep 07, 2009 at 09:58:06 am     #  

Just for the record Ahuvia, here's an interactive map on poverty rates in the US by state. You'll notice that at least 3 of the highest states for poverty (Texas, Montana, South Dakota) also have some of the lowest tax rates

posted by pink_slip on Sep 07, 2009 at 10:08:44 am     #  

Ahuvia, I like the way you think!I believe that governments main function is to keep its citizens safe so that they have a good enviroment to live in and to prosper.It is not the responsibility of government to play Robin Hood and to take from those who work hard and give to those who don't want to.Yes we need to have a system in place to help those who can't work or need a little help in getting by during hard times,but dammed if I want to help those who refuse to get up off their lazy asses and do what is necessary to make a living for themselves.

posted by buckeye278 on Sep 07, 2009 at 10:12:10 am     #  

Molsonator, I am not making a statement either way on Reagan or Obama's speech. I'm just pointing the hypocrisy of some to freak out over Obama's speech (which is fairly innocuous)--when Reagan actually was trying to sell policy.

posted by pink_slip on Sep 07, 2009 at 10:15:50 am     #  

I have a child that will be watching the talk. I have no problem with it.

posted by Molsonator on Sep 07, 2009 at 10:22:39 am     #  

If the speech is anything like his usual dribble,he will talk on and on.When he is done,people will wonder what he said.God help the kids if his teleprompter malfunctions!LOL!

posted by buckeye278 on Sep 07, 2009 at 12:34:58 pm     #  

If the speech is anything like his usual dribble,he will talk on and on.When he is done,people will wonder what he said.God help the kids if his teleprompter malfunctions!LOL!

posted by buckeye278 on Sep 07, 2009 at 12:36:49 pm     #  

Sorry about the double post.Duh!

posted by buckeye278 on Sep 07, 2009 at 12:37:22 pm     #  

If you were trying to work your way out of poverty without the help of the government, would you...

a.) Work hard, hope to keep most of your hard earned dollars and curtail spending

b.) Ask a rich relative for some of his money so you didn't have to earn it yourself.

Really, it's that simple!

posted by KraZyKat on Sep 07, 2009 at 01:01:39 pm     #  

I would be worried if Joe Biden was talking to my kid...

"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." --Joe Biden

posted by Molsonator on Sep 07, 2009 at 01:08:54 pm     #  

If our very first black president inspires even one black or white child to do his/her best and make themselves better, then that is a great thing. Everyone is so worried that children are like empty computer hard drives. Whatever is put on it is exactly what it will do.

I would like to believe that children have some kind of adult influence in their lives to explain things like these speeches. That they should make up their own minds when old enough.

If parents put more time into parenting and their children's education when Obama isn't speaking to them, maybe things would be different with younger people.

posted by hockeyfan on Sep 07, 2009 at 02:47:30 pm     #  

Although I'm not sure how many hundreds of millions of children there are here, I'm sure he'll inspire one to make improvements, like hand washing, etc.

posted by Wulf on Sep 07, 2009 at 06:00:11 pm     #  

Hundreds of millions of children in K-6? I love when people think they are leaving a smart ass post and only make an ass of themselves. Check your digits Einstein.
The speech will be over and you all can find your next non-event to start squawking about.

posted by Ryan on Sep 07, 2009 at 06:56:22 pm     #  

Let us all bow down, the mighty, never wrong, all-knowing Ryass has spoken

posted by hockeyfan on Sep 07, 2009 at 09:27:31 pm     #  

Sorry I pointed out that 2/3 of the US population is not made up of 5-12 year olds.

Your bad.

Don't you have a parking lot to bitch about that isn't suitable for your reindeer games?

posted by Ryan on Sep 07, 2009 at 09:34:42 pm     #  

Ryan your responses are great! Hockeyfan seems to be an "expert" in everything. Ask a question and he's sure to answer with the "correct, all-mighty, response." his word is the end-all. not! hockeyfan do your research before you speak! Better yet, take your foot out of your mouth before.

posted by wishiniwasfishin on Sep 07, 2009 at 10:54:28 pm     #  

Really, Ryan; you want this idiot of a president giving some of his smooth talking bullshit to our children. He's got a head full of bad ideas and that's where they should stay. So far he's reneged on every thing he promised. He's a liar and has three moves; fart, start & stumble. This is the most expensive president we've ever had. I warned you guys that he'd spend like a new college kid with daddys credit card.

posted by AmericanPie on Sep 07, 2009 at 10:56:19 pm     #  

Aren't you the one "hoping" for a more violent death for Ted Kennedy?

Your posts are useless. As are you.

I would hope that all children have seen the POTUS speak already as it is, no matter what you feel. It's called follow up, try some.

Laughable.

posted by Ryan on Sep 07, 2009 at 11:05:07 pm     #  

Are you sure you aren't talking about Bush, American Pie.

"most expensive president we've ever had"
"new college kid with daddys credit card"

Remember, that was Bush.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 07, 2009 at 11:09:45 pm     #  

American Pie -

Can you explain how you can overlook the spending of the previous president. He came into office with a surplus and left us with a HUGE deficit.

I tend to be moderate. I guess that I find this "hubabaloo" about his speech to be much ado about nothing. Even before the text of the speech was released, I found the approach of his opposition to be based on fear rather than fact.

posted by corky on Sep 07, 2009 at 11:21:47 pm     #  

And I really think that by objecting to even the most benign things that Obama does, his opposition dilutes their own position.

posted by corky on Sep 08, 2009 at 07:30:27 am     #  

Well, whether the contents of the speech will be benign remains to be seen. I'm sure it'll be a lot simpler than he first planned.

One point though that no one here has mentioned is that this sets a precedent. Although previous presidents may have injected themselves into a classroom or two - none of them have done it on a nationwide level with a pre-printed outline and questionnaire for the kiddies. It's got a kind of creepy Big Brother feel to it.

Either way - it's always a good idea to be concerned about or at least aware of what your elected officials are doing and why. It's the beauty of our system! We The People are supposed to be questioning everything the government tries to do. If we don't, then who will?

And yes, I even feel this way about criticizing Republicans or Conservatives.

posted by Ahuvia on Sep 08, 2009 at 12:40:47 pm     #  

So here is the part I don't agree with...

"You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.

How can something, anything be "more" fair? It is or it isn't. And what is fair and who get's to decide the level of fairness? Ditto for being free.

Is the President somehow suggesting that our country is not free? If so that's hypocritical of him. Through his socialist leanings this country will become less free instead of "more free".

posted by KraZyKat on Sep 08, 2009 at 12:49:26 pm     #  

So now you are going to try and pick at wordplay? Not everything is fair and free - that is how it can be MORE.

With every little nothing that you people try to make into something your hole gets deeper and deeper. Keep it up.

posted by Ryan on Sep 08, 2009 at 12:56:04 pm     #  

You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You'll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

How can you even try to devalue this paragraph? As if there is something there that isn't? It shows your out and out blind hate.

posted by Ryan on Sep 08, 2009 at 01:41:42 pm     #  

The perfect one has posted, heed his words!

posted by hockeyfan on Sep 08, 2009 at 02:04:15 pm     #  

Nothing perfect about having common sense.

n. Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

posted by Ryan on Sep 08, 2009 at 02:12:08 pm     #  

Ryan, maybe the wingnuts here don't want there to be a cure for AIDS or cancer. After all, that would mean fewer sexually active people would die, and there would be less money in the hands of insurance companies that don't pay on claims.

And why would anyone want to develop new energy technologies? If we did that, we wouldn't have any excuse to invade sovereign nations and take their oil.

And God knows, fighting poverty, homelessness, crime and discrimination are all so beneath us. Why, it only serves us to fight those things if our corporate masters can become richer because of it!

posted by Anniecski on Sep 08, 2009 at 02:26:11 pm     #  

Great speech. Hell, even Newt agrees:

posted by toledolen on Sep 08, 2009 at 02:52:36 pm     #  

Hey I LIKE the Redwings. I think they already have cures for some of those diseases and aren't letting it be known for fear of no being allowed to make money on them. Actually if there was no cure for aides there would be MORE sexually active people dying not "fewer". I would love to see colar panels on roofs of every house, some small compact wind turbines in every neighborhood, vehicles that run on anything other than gas, but do we need to burn the bridges before we are all the way across? Its all good to fight poverty, homelessness and discrimination but i dont want to pay half my measly wages to cover someone else who wont work. Before you blame the right for special interests and being the stooge of corporations dig into where the donations for some of the left come from.

For too long its been so easy to blame the problems on the OTHER side, I for one KNOW they are both corupt and plan to vote independant for who I think deserves my support. Too long have the government taxed and spent us all to the poor house. The RULING class of folks like ted kennedy the earl of boston, and others who feel they are the true masters of country will find out soon enough it only take a majority to remove them from power. Will see if the pull a chavez and get the rules changed to serve (rule) for life.

posted by Linecrosser on Sep 08, 2009 at 08:42:41 pm     #  

Uh, Linecrosser at least you care. I'm not certain the air you're breathing isn't contaminated with something though. Chavez?

posted by holland on Sep 08, 2009 at 10:30:33 pm     #  

Hah!

posted by toledolen on Sep 09, 2009 at 12:29:50 am     #  

Login or create an account to post a comment.