posted 08-23-99 02:13 AM ET     

Well, I have been gone for a while, but being as Mcerion is still here, babbling his liberal crap, I decided to make a very obvious response, and proof that Mcerion(or Genejack, as he is now called) never read my post.

Your statement that tax cuts were only for those making 200K or over proves that you have no idea what you are talking about, and didn't even read my post.
Proof(once again):

From 1980-1990, the percentage share of tax burden among all five quintiles
Lowest, 1.6%-1.6%
Second, 7%-6.6%
Third, 13.4%-12.6%
Fourth, 22.2%-21%
Fifth, 55.7%-58.1%

Oh dear, it seems that while the lowest did stay the same, the highest was the only on that rose. It would seem that Reagan made tax cuts for the poor and middle class, while raising tax burden for the rich. That combined with overall lower taxes makes tax cuts for the lower classes huge. The main reason the poor stayed relatively the same is through welfare(more liberal crap) and the long term damage it has inflicted on this nation.

One thing you must remember(or sometime be taught) is that most truly "rich" people live like middle classers. They simply invest their money and/or time much more wisely. Want Proof? Read "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley, and someone else who I can't remember off hand.

What this means is that the rich gradually get richer when the economy is good(for obvious reasons of money sense), while the poor have no way to get out of the pit made by the liberals with welfare. The middle class is(and was) borrowing too much money, and not investing it where they should.

Supply Side Economics helps those who help themselves

Sorry if your idea of an economy's prosperity is the size of your welfare check

As to your pathetic statements about credit cards and car loans, the tax cuts weren't THAT big to begin with, you don't HAVE to pay everything with a credit card, and you don't NEED a big fancy car. Plus, these setbacks were made well into Reagan's presidency, and show no (or very little) impact on my long running statistics.

Reagan helped those who helped themselves.

As to the Soviets, the fact that their economy might have collapsed doesn't mean that the Cold War would have ended. With all those nukes and military personnel in the wrong hands could have been real trouble.

It seems a coincidence that Gorbachev was appointed, and tensions began to warm, at the same time Star Wars and other large defense projects came into being.

The main reason the Soviet economy collapsed when it did was because of far too much defense spending, trying to compete with Reagan. It could probably have kept chugging along, fueled by vast(untouched) oil reserves. It didn't start having real problems until Reagan came along.

Watch PBS's documentary on Reagan: although poor in some areas, it gives an accurate view of what I am saying.

Also, Stalin did very little to help the Soviet Union in the long run. In fact, with his poisoning(not in the literal sense) the government and putting to death many of Russia's backbone, many Socialists believe their expirement would have succeeded if not for Stalin. You can never believe a socialist, though, and I probably disagree with the last statement, but its still interesting to point out.

High Priest

PS I'm not saying there isn't good info out there that can refute what I say, but stop the stupid, uninformed propoganda.

PSS Opposing arguments have simply reinforced my ideals, thanx Mcerion