Were all the Republican presidents prior to Ronald Reagan “RINOs”?

Home Forums History Were all the Republican presidents prior to Ronald Reagan “RINOs”?

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #135875
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Were all the Republican presidents prior to Ronald Reagan "RINOs"?

    • #135876
      Anonymous
      Guest

      All Republican presidents have been scrote moving subhumans. All Democrat presidents since Wilson have been DINOs

    • #135877
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Actually Reagan was the first RINO

    • #135878
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #135879
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Even among households that did fall into the 91 percent bracket, the majority of their income was not necessarily subject to that top bracket. After all, the 91 percent bracket only applied to income above $200,000, not to every single dollar earned by households.
        This kind of progressive taxation is exactly what people want to happen today but neocon constituents are too stupid to understand it.

        • #135885
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >This kind of progressive taxation is exactly what people want to happen today but neocon constituents are too stupid to understand it.
          >calls anybody stupid, when he can’t even read a basic article stating that effective real tax rate was 42%
          typical chinlet

          • #135888
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Please have a nice day you low IQ cretin

            • #135890
              Anonymous
              Guest

              imbecile

              do facts and reality trigger you bunkercuck?

          • #135904
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >when he can’t even read a basic article stating that effective real tax rate was 42%
            Not him but if the real tax rate back then was higher than what our stated (so not real) tax rate is right now, then that’s at least a start to work from

            • #135905
              Anonymous
              Guest

              did you even read the article leftoid?

              • #135908
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Yeah, and they paid 6% more than they do now (or rather than they did in 2014).

                • #135910
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  the number of people who qualified for that bracket was way lower back then. What are you even trying to say? At least read the article before trying to spew your ideological nonsense.

                  • #135914
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >the number of people who qualified for that bracket was way lower back then.
                    Yeah no shit, we also have 3 times the population we did back then.
                    >What are you even trying to say?
                    There’s more people now we can tax at that rate and yet despite that we’re still taxing them less than we could.

                    • #135915
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >There’s more people now we can tax at that rate and yet despite that we’re still taxing them less than we could.
                      just because we can doesn’t mean we should you leftist boot licker

                      • #135917
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >just because we can doesn’t mean we should
                        Yes it does. Nations aren’t built on "every man for himself", we’re all in this together, and if you’re succeeding more then you need to contribute more, no one would ask a poor person to contribute as much to the pie as a rich person because they’re not capable of doing so without starving themselves.

                      • #135921
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Yes it does. Nations aren’t built on "every man for himself", we’re all in this together, and if you’re succeeding more then you need to contribute more, no one would ask a poor person to contribute as much to the pie as a rich person because they’re not capable of doing so without starving themselves.
                        this is why children aren’t allowed on the internet.. They have no understanding of basic society and nations.

                      • #135922
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        A nation can only stand when every single man, woman, and child is mobilized to sustain its existence. The state is the nation and the nation is its people. Nothing exists outside of the state, everything is within it.

                      • #135923
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        there is better ways to contribute to a country as a corporation than being taxed.

                        >The state is the nation and the nation is its people.

                        after 1945 nobody left alive believes this anymore.

                      • #135926
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >after 1945 nobody left alive believes this anymore.
                        The state is more than just a country’s government

                      • #135928
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >better ways to contribute to a country as a corporation
                        And corporations, by nature, aren’t interested in them. The entire trend for decades has been minimizing any possible positive offshoot of corporate activities.

              • #135912
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Just from a googling, in 2021, the top 1% of income earners in the US paid 25.4% of their income in taxes. According to that article, in the 1950s they paid 42%.
                It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t really 91% like people say, the reality is we squeezed more out of them than we did now.

      • #135889
        Anonymous
        Guest

        imbecile

    • #135880
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ronald Reagan was the single worst president in American history and the disastrous state the country’s currently in is largely a result of his godawful economic policies intended to break the American population and redistribute wealth from them to the rich. He was just an utter wretch who traded away the longterm wellbeing of the country in order to give quick, short term rewards to his wealthiest donors.

      >inb4 akktually the worst president was Lincoln/Cleveland/Wilson/FDR/Eisenhower/LBJ/some other contrarian, dibshit answer where actually the good presidents are bad and the bad presidents are good

      • #135881
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Reagan literally saved America from stagflation

        • #135891
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Stagflation continued well through Reagan’s term, it was also largely created as a result of post-war US foreign policy so stagflation was largely self-inflicted by the west and not because of domestic spending. The big concern was that the US was losing its economic dominance over the rest of the first world (along with military dominance over the third) and that a wealth redistribution had to take place in order to kick wealth from the American people upwards and increase government support for US business so that it’d be able to compete with far superior West German and Japanese corporations. Reagan was the king of deficits, debt, reckless government spending, growth of the federal government, tariffs, government subsidies in support of US business, and increasing military spending in order to help US business.

          Inflation’s also a non-crisis that’s always easy to solve, it’s just considered difficult within the ideological framework that everyone’s demanded to adhere to.

          • #135893
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >not because of domestic spending
            I’d argue building tanks and guns for war is domestic spending
            >Inflation’s also a non-crisis
            How to spot a braindead socialist

            • #135897
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >I’d argue building tanks and guns for war is domestic spending
              It’s not. You’d have to actually be braindead to think it is.

              • #135898
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >paying people to build guns in your country with printed money isn’t domestic spending
                lol okay

                • #135899
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Infrastructure and funding of public services is domestic spending, giving government money to some bloated defense contractor to put another 3500 tanks in Afghanistan to never be used until the Taliban eventually captures them all without firing a shot is not. The first is domestic spending which benefits the country, the second is a giant government handout to a business to waste resources and man-power in exchange for the nanny state ensuring the company remains profitable and financially afloat.

                  This isn’t hard to understand.

                  • #135900
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >building things for war with money that doesn’t exist is not domestic spending
                    >benefits the country
                    Why? It operates the exact same way

                    • #135907
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >paying people to build guns in your country with printed money isn’t domestic spending
                      lol okay

                      Military expenditure is mostly consumption. Having spent that money, you’re not actually in a better economic position or left with any semi-permanent improvement to the country’s economic base. Even direct stimulus effects are limited because the enterprises that supply the modern military are generally specialized around that, and have limited spinoffs in the civilian economy. Thus, the 1990s downsizing of the military and reduction in acquisition caused defense companies to shrink and consolidate while sloughing off employees. They didn’t just pivot to servicing consumers.

                      • #135909
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Then all you’re really debating is if you think government expenditure and war both create an end product, not that it is printing money that boosts the economy

                      • #135918
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There is no boost other than temporary, is the point. Long-term growth occurs through investment. Defense spending is mostly mal-investment (though the segment of the 40s-50s spending that went into infant technological fields was highly productive). Thus, the Cold War’s massive budgets didn’t turn into outsize economic gains for either of the superpowers, while countries that spent significantly less on their militaries (above all, Japan), poured the savings into investment and reaped in large segments of market share.

                      • #135919
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        most domestic spending never turns a profit either

                      • #135913
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Military expenditure is mostly consumption. Having spent that money, you’re not actually in a better economic position or left with any semi-permanent improvement to the country’s economic base
                        Oh boy are you going to be shocked when you find out where most non-military spending goes (Hint: It’s not infrastructure)

                      • #135924
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I’m not claiming that social spending is infrastructure; it is mostly also consumption.
                        That said, Social Security-type programs decrease risk in old age, which promotes consumption and risk-taking during the working years. Medical programs similarly reduce the need to hedge against medical disaster, while promoting productivity: a sick worker is not an effective worker.
                        Even with that (and distinctly unlike claims for military keynesianism), the primary case for social spending is not the economic effects.
                        Governments have obligations towards their citizens that government don’t have towards tanks or rifles.

                  • #135902
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >a giant government handout to a business to waste resources and man-power in exchange for the nanny state ensuring the company remains profitable and financially afloat.
                    That’s both domestic and defense spending.

        • #135894
          Anonymous
          Guest

          you mean. he saved the capitalist class from "stagflation" meanwhile screwing everybody else. there was no trickle down.

          • #135895
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Nobody calls it trickle down

          • #135896
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >he saved the capitalist class
            >unironically using "capitalist class"
            opinion discarded you will be escorted to the nearest sub reddit.

        • #135931
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >he thinks the president actually has an effect on the economy
          This mindset is the biggest obstacle to intelligent discourse in America. The Federal Reserve can barely influence the economy, and they’re fully independent from the government

          • #135932
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Presidents can have a NEGATIVE effect on the economy

    • #135882
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How did the Reagan administration fund the government if he cut the taxes more than half?
      t. non-American

      • #135883
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >How did the Reagan administration fund the government if he cut the taxes more than half?

        He doesn’t know…

        • #135887
          Anonymous
          Guest
          • #135892
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Any time conservatives pass tax cuts democrats raise the federal budget (which is paid by taxes). This is a political move so that they can claim that the republicans are runnign a budget deficit. Reagan may have increased the deficit, but deficit related spending fell by 100% in comparison to GDP. By deregulating (regulations are essentially fines that the federal government forced businesses to pay) he allowed businesses to expand and offset the lower amount of money gained from income and other related taxes. So instead of taxing people massively during economic downturns like the democrats used to do, he taxed them during economic booms. Nowadays both teams deficit spend like it doesn’t mean anything

            • #135901
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Any time conservatives pass tax cuts democrats raise the federal budget
              If you’re in a position to lower taxes, you’re in a position to control the budget.
              >Reagan may have increased the deficit
              >may have
              Dude, lower taxes and increase military spending. One wonders what that will do fiscally.
              > offset the lower amount of money gained from income and other related taxes.
              That never happened, as shown by the deficit figures, or even the GDP figures. Contrary to the common belief, taxes/regulations are not remotely the primary constraint affecting economic performance.

              • #135903
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >If you’re in a position to lower taxes, you’re in a position to control the budget.
                >doesn’t know what midterms are

                • #135911
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Deficits start popping up well before Midterms in basically all cases. Capital investment isn’t even something companies start in a year or two.

                  • #135916
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    I never said it was just because of midterms. Democrats always want more money for their failed projects, regardless of the economic situation. My point was they will pass some sort of scrotebrained spending bill and then turn around and berate the president for runnign a increasing deficit.

                    • #135925
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      You’re the one that brought up Midterms.
                      Your point was/is wrong, again, as data shows. Deficits aren’t being retroactively assigned to (R). (R) likes unilaterally cutting revenue, increasing military spending (or why not both?), then acting surprised at the result.

                      • #135927
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Deficits are tied to the economy, your graph proves nothing. What it does prove is that as soon as the economy is doing well congress expands their own budget to continuously run a deficit

                      • #135929
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Deficits are tied to the economy,
                        The graph shows all possible patterns other than deficits decreasing during a recession (which would be silly, which is why it doesn’t happen).
                        > as soon as the economy is doing well
                        Congress was MIA during the late 1980s, and 1990s? And 2004?

                      • #135930
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Congress sometimes doesn’t raise the budget enough to run deficit like during Clinton’s presidency, you know, when republicans controlled congress?

      • #135884
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Not all the taxes, but the taxes on very highest income households.

    • #135886
      Anonymous
      Guest

      there was a different mindset back then at the top level. Welfare distributive policies to some degree were presented as a bipartisan selling point of the western system instead of a slippery slope to socialism.

    • #135906
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #135920
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The top tax rate is a meme anyway, its not like Bezos or Buffet derived their wealth from a $1 billion/year salary or some shit.

    • #135933
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Reagan
      >anything but a liberal

      • #135934
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >scrote worshiper
        >having non-schizophrenic opinions

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.