Barack Obama, you ain't no Johnny Utah. You most certainly aren't Ronald Reagan.But you do have a lot in common with Bodhi.

Do you want to know who had a way with words? Patrick Swayze’s character, Bodhi, in the movie Point Break—but at at the end of the day he was a thief who hid his true identity behind Ronald Reagan’s visage.

Do you know who else has a way with words? Barack Obama—but at the end of the day he wants the government to take your money, while hiding behind Reagan’s visage.

It’s actually rather perverse, what the president does. Just like his attempt to get Americans to believe a definition of judicial activism that only exists in a bizarro universe, his comparisons to Ronald Reagan only ring true if the space-time continuum surreptitiously shifted under our feet and we now exist in a negative dimension.

Have you ever heard a conservative try and pass off Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism as a textbook case for the benefits of limited government? Have you ever heard a conservative try and own FDR’s New Deal by proposing “The New ‘New Deal'”? Have you ever heard a conservative make the case for Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society as the ultimate program in stealth-conservatism? The answer is no.

How anyone with half a brain can listen to Barack Obama compare himself to Ronald Reagan and not laugh is amazing. Obama’s “Buffett Rule” is class warfare at its worst. Confiscate 100% of the wealth of all the millionaires in the United States tomorrow (never mind the impact on Sub-chapter s corporations, angel investors, etc.), and it still wouldn’t register a blip on the national debt radar. It’s a move designed to divide and conquer, only it’s sick and twisted because it’s dividing Americans.

Regardless, here’s the truth about Reagan and taxes, for those who need the proper historical context.

Reagan’s push for tax reform helped lead to landmark reform legislation the following year that broadened the tax base, consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. This is actually pretty close to the framework that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., outlined in the House GOP budget and couldn’t be more far off from Obama’s Buffett Rule gimmick.

Paul Ryan seems like the real deal. I’m looking forward to his run for the presidency, particularly because…he’ll win. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is so fake and desperate that he must hide his liberalism behind the accomplishments of better men.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to watch Barack…errr, Patrick Swayze, steal money from hard-working Americans.

10 comments

  1. Liberal Reality Check, you take from the “rich”, the “rich” fire the nanny, the greensman, the gardner, a couple maids and the amigo that washes the limo. The “rich” cut those workers, when I stopped roofing, 22 Amigos and 4 African Americans, bang. Get the picture? PS I aint rich so my 26 is nothing compared to what will happen when the “rich” have to make more “adjustments”

    1. Some Republicans have laughed at me about this, if O wanted to do something, Give the trully wealthy 0 tax on all domestic manufacturing investment and return, give ma and pa investors 0 tax on all domestic startups they back. No one was ever saved by taking, you help by giving.

  2. Klein’s article you quoted left out some pretty inconvenient facts.

    After Reagan “consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent,” (yay!) he went on to raise taxes 12 times (boo!).

    Let me quote an article as well:

    From http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/the-great-taxer.html

    “The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.”

    “Mr. Reagan’s second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that’s the way it seemed at the time. I’m referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.”

    Oh my goodness! Is that… funding entitlement programs? Oh noes!!!

    Here’s more:

    “For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan’s income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.”

    “Nonetheless, there was broad bipartisan support for the payroll tax increase because it was part of a deal. The public was told that the extra revenue would be used to build up a trust fund dedicated to the preservation of Social Security benefits, securing the system’s future. Thanks to the 1983 act, current projections show that under current rules, Social Security is good for at least 38 more years.”

    Actually, not a bad thing. While I disagree with a lot of Reagan’s “trickle down” economics, he made some smart moves and knew when to change course. But, I guess if enough people say Reagan was the patron saint of tax cuts and sound economic policy, a lot of people will believe it.

  3. Oh, just before I’m branded a liberal boogeyman for disparaging the conservative grandpa everybody loves, let me add that I think Obama’s economic policy is garbage. So is both the democrats’ and the republicans’. Ryan’s policy is a little extreme for my tastes, but at least it’s somewhat better than the rampant fiscal irresponsibility we have had for the past handful of Congresses.

  4. First of all, Republicans never controlled both Houses of Congress under Reagan, and if I remember correctly there was at least one time when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.

    You’re right, Reagan knew when to change course and he knew when to hold his ground. He believed if he could get 60% of 70% of what he wanted, he could always come back for the rest later. He was a smart man, and new how to negotiate. Where did he hone those skills? As the head of Hollywood’s Screen Actors Guild (as a Democrat). One of the reasons I love him is because of his transformation, and since you seem to have read a good number of my posts you probably remember me saying that I too once considered myself a Democrat by default.

    Remember our conversation about Becky? I’ll take her stories about her time with Reagan over the New York Times any day. Reagan was a true conservative, but he also had political realities to deal with. He did a better job than anyone else in recent memory in regards to not compromising on his principles when the politics asked him to.

  5. @susanenglish: The truth is Mitt would not have been my first choice if I were a Republican and as history has proven Reaganomics had minor flaws and with Bush Sr following and not understanding, supporting or having enough faith to allow it to run, well we know what happened. The bottom line to Reagan’s policy was more Americans were working, more Americans had more money in their pockets and DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING was running wide open. Obully’s policy and plan, is a mirror of California. Social Programs and Entitlement are all fine and dandy when things are good and AMERICANS are working in heavy industry, durable goods manufacturing and aerospace. Mitt I fear, ( the ‘new” GOP is why I am no longer a Republican), is going to continue with ZOMBINOMICS, “we say out-sourcing is good, therefore it is”. On the up-side Mitt does understand money and finance, which will not help your average American or the middle class but it won’t make things worse either.

    Here is the bottom line, Mitt has money, Meg Whitman should have been notice to those remaining in the Republican camp that they are just not interested in the best candidate but only in electability and appealing to the greatest number of voters. That is one way of doing it. You have to really believe in what you stand for to risk everything.

    If you really wanted another Candidate, you are the only one who can make a difference, the liberals out pace ALL Republican and Conservatives 5:1 in the volume of Internet Publication and Production, the Liberals have main-stream media and film/television in their back-pockets thanks to the wimps who claim to be Republicans in Hollywood, ( Like my ex-brother in law). Get-mad, Get-mean, but most importantly get to work.

    Sorry Douglas, I will go back under my rock now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s