Obama IS, as Reaqan WAS.

.
Or at least that's the take from this article from CNN/Money.
.
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan
.
Those who oppose higher taxes and are fed up with record levels of U.S. debt may pine for Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government.

But it's worth considering just what Reagan did -- and didn't do -- as lawmakers grapple with many of the same issues that their 1980s counterparts faced: a deep recession, high deficits and a rip-roaring political divide over taxes.
.
Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.
.
I just LOVE that last line! Having a paycheck under Reagan as opposed to not having a paycheck under Carter was no different because of broadened tax bases. Aw, bull loney! Here's why it had to be better, many of us were WITHOUT any job, or had a shitty bad paying job under Carter. The economy was in a shambles, and it all got better under Reagan even according to this article. I'm just not sure who it was, except elected Democrats, who DIDN'T do better, make more money, etc under Reagan.
.
The article goes on to say.
.
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)
.
And just how brain dead do you have to be to believe that? Is it going to "drop thereafter" just like un-employment has? I'm guessing the writer thinks if 5% was good, 9% is better when talking about federal deficits?! And beyond that, where did they find someone still this enamored of Ospenda the Great, to write this crap?
.
At the heart of it, what this article leaves out is the whole, re-build a 600 ship Navy, re-build the two marching troop services, re-build the Air Force, and DEFEAT THE SOVIET UNION part of Reagan's spending spree!! And the bottom line is, regardless of the SPENDING, business was UP, people were WORKING, and the deficit was DOWN! And best of all, Carter was gone. I'll be glad when I can say that about the present Goon in Chief too.
.
The article also fails to get into the Republican President / Democrat Congress issue too. Regardless of who, when, how much, I wouldn't care if they were currently spending money like drunk sailors, if they weren't borrowing to do it, and if the spending was for defending the country or closing the borders. But they've spent tons and I'll be damned if I can see where it went.
.
I miss the 80's.
.
.
Schteveo