“Are you entitled to the fruits of your labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?”

I always knew he was a Democrat...

An overly simplistic view of the world, aimed at overly simplistic people (his art).

I see where he is going, but it is more of a presumptive wrong, more of assumption of a power they, especially at federal levels, should not have.

And in the end, Ronald Reagan's government, through heavy spending without adequate taxation ran up what was then the highest debt in US history. George Bush, with the same philosophy has exceeded Ronald Reagan's debt and run up a debt in his brief 5 years greater than the combined debts of every other president in history. So much for walking the talk. Funny also - those most opposed to taxation don't seem to mind the enormous amounts of their taxes wasted on the military or given back to the already rich and the wealthy corporations . What they can't stand though is the idea of the peoples taxes actually going to benefit the people. Strange.

This from a president who spent like it was going out of style. Reagan's Social Security reform commission's plan increased government revenues by raising social security payroll taxes, a tax increase that left the poorest 40% of income earners with higher federal taxes than before Reagan's income tax cuts. To cover the budget deficit which was exacerbated by Reagan's military buildup, the administration borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, and by the end of Reagan's second term the national debt held by the public rose from 26% of GDP (1980), to 41% in 1989, the highest level since 1963. By 1988, the debt totaled $2.6 trillion. The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. - source: Wikipedia.

What he should have said is 'does government have the right to just borrow and borrow and borrow?' Is there any Constitutional right of Congress to borrow with no limit? What fools we are!! We let the government borrow every dollar in circulation -- and the rivers of interest flow to the Fed private bankers. This whole 'tax the rich, and give to the poor' nonsense is just a diversion for the common man so that he never figures out the game is rigged.

Actually Robert, Reagan was one of many "New Deal Democrats" who left the Democratic Party.

Reston, Victoria, and Occidental know the truth. Thank you three for expressing it so well.

The 2 parts of this question are at law unrelated but, as a whole, it brings attention to 2 wrongs that are generally tied together by despots and those who desire to forcefully impose their secular theocracy on the rest of us. First, the fruits of my labor are more than a rightful entitlement, the fruits of my labors are at law my sole possession. Second, government has NO rights (presumptive or otherwise), but duties only. Government's duty is to spend within Constitutional limits. Knowing that the government can do nothing more than is specifically stated in the Constitution, I've looked for bailout, stimulus, imperialism, social insurances, and entitlement authority. hmmm, not there. When Reagan was at the head of the alien and despotic theocracy that infests this land, he was influential in lowering the level of capitation to increase frns input and a spend, spend, spend policy that was ever increasingly devastating. Though Reagan's actions were hypocritical to the above statement, I gave it 5 stars because of the overall sentiment.

As to Reagan's spending, only Congress can spend, and he had a democrat congress to contend with.

Before Ronald Regan became President of the U S and A 95% of the wealth was owned by 5% of the population. When he left 98% of the wealth was owned by 2% of the population. Does that tell you something?

Half of what Ronald is quoted to have said he didn't. The trickle down theory really worked (for the wealthy). His economic aftermath still affects us today. I'll give this three stars regardless who wrote it.

Ronald Reagan was a confused alzheimer infected sometime poet. To answere his question; no government does not have a presumptive right, the taking of money from individuals for the common good is decided by the individulas together via the political process known as democracy or the republican form of government. It is refreshing to see so many this AM who know the truth about the Reagan/Bush/Bush scam. When Reagan virtually doubled the Social Security Tax in 1983 he then drastically cut the income tax rates in 1985. We have been running things on excess social security and borrowed money from the sale of bonds ever since them. Anonymous from Reston has it exactly right, it is easy to be run by simpletons when you have one leading the pack as Reagan did. I give it a thumbs down because Reagan has not said anything here he is just asking a question.

I enjoy the comments more than the quotes sometimes, and today is one of those times. I do agree with Mike, Norwalk. Duties not rights, something most have forgotten. Any TEA party attenders here???

Why will no one accept my offer of 100 pounds of money for just describing the money that our Marxist misleaders spend? Find the answer here: www.morpix.biz/dc Speaking of income tax, Reagan said that Marx was the first one who thought of it. In fact, it fills the second plank of Marx;s Communist Manifesto. Another question: With all of us dependent on strips of paper that the first users get in unlimited amounts for nothing, WHOSE insependence is celebrated annualy on the FARCE of July? Right after his first inauguration as president, Reagan said : "We must respect the independence of the Fed," : I heard him! Keep this in mind when the FARCE of July rolls around again.

Well, said, Mike.

Yes, Well said Mike.

Content to be slaves, under socialistic rule. Reagan knowing very well the outcome of any president that bucks the bank, dies ! The individual sovereign reduced to wage slavery, never knowing WHAT OUR FORM OF LIBERTY IS. The wake up call is to come to the realization, Liberty was taken away at the point of a gun ! and Chains put in place. Biblically it is termed a drag or net placed upon the people by the money changers, making merchandise of our Liberty and Freedom. This done by over reach and private interpretation of our Constitution. With no regard for our Declaration of Independence, which is our OATH TO GOD as a Freed People. Independence though granted, is rarely taken in hand due to the responsibility of ones on actions. Fear sets in with the first encounter of the " Tax man ". Most are just willing to go along with the crowd, which is exactly the type of behavior wanted. An education sometimes, can afford one to get ahead of the economic curve, but will never remove the chains upon ourselves or our children who will never inherit the fruit of their labor. Who cares ? Some know and do care ! The Oath is more than just words ! Parents should lay up for their children, Liberty and Freedom. Semper Fi

No matter the ad hominems (here stated or implied - by degree accurate or otherwise) the statement, in and of itself stands absolutely correct. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, with its immoral caste system of elitists vs. helots, serfs and slaves (using anti-law / socialistic dogmas and morés as a front and rationalization) have and will, as Ronw13 has stated, eliminate anyone that acts, with any degree of success, contrary to the funny money system.

AND, for the Wofflers of the world, one difference between a democracy (mob rule, government of men) and a representative republic (a government of natural law - in the de jure USA's case, the laws of nature and of nature's God); a democracy can engage theft as a practical and ongoing practice - might makes right; a representative republic calls larceny a crime - no matter who is involved in the act. By way of example, Waffler, you and I can agree to rob a bank but, when I drop out and refuse to go through with it, you can not sue me for breach of contract. The agreement was void ab initio (from the beginning) as it concerned the performance of an illegal / unlawful act. If you, me and over half the people in the USA got together to say we are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labors, that would be / is an illegal / unlawful act ab initio in a de jure representative republic.

Loved what Reagan said. What he ended up doing is a whole different matter.

Sorry Mr Reagan supporters but we Americans don't appreciate being made to think our governmental institution is the enemy. We the People Americans know our arrangement is full of flaws, but we are to access all known available resources to solve the institutional problems of US government. We the People Americans labor fruits are devoted to a better America for the best interest of all. And as always Socialism, where we never plagiarize, and give credit where credit is due, is the challenge of social abilities to create.