The President is a Socialist

President Ronald Reagan was a vicious socialist, he and his commie buddies systemically turned America in a tax heavy welfare state.  Under his term Ronald Reagan raised taxes every year he was in office.  Even while raising taxes he managed to triple the national debt.

Yes he TRIPLED the national debt all while RAISING TAXES EVERY YEAR that he was in office after the first with a total of 11 TAX INCREASES. 

Under Reagan the federal government consumed 23.5% of the national income, the highest in American history.  This was in 1983, after his big tax cut and reforms.  Also the four years in which the federal government consumed most of the nations income were all under Reagan 1983, 1982, 1985, and 1986.

Reagan raised taxes on gasoline and cigarettes in 1982, in 1983 he raised taxes on payrolls (Obama lowered them recently in a deal with the Republican party that allowed them to keep their tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans)

In 1986 Reagan slashed taxes for the top bracket alone, causing a disparity in where the highest earners paid 28% on their income taxes and the bracket beneath that paid 33%.  While he slashed taxes for the wealthy he raised the for the poorest americans raising the lowest bracket from 11% to 15%

It's clear that Reagans aim was the socialist goal of wealth redistribution.

He also signed into law a sweeping amnesty act for every illegal immigrant who had entered the country before 1982.  HE GRANTED AMNESTY TO EVERY ILLEGAL WHO ENTERED THE COUNTRY BEFORE 1982

I chose to put things in caps and reiterate them because it seems that a lot of people here don't seem to get it the first time when they read something they don't like.

>>5 umad?

I do, however, agree with you on an economic issue.
I think that the market-form you are getting at is perfect competition (directly translated out of my language).
It means that there are plenty of players on the market to compete with one another.
Quality is high and prices are low. (cuz of competition)
Problem is that you cannot get "economies of scale" (dunno if this word is correctly used).
So this might be good in some sectors, it might also be bad in other sectors.
I think the sectors that benefit of these economies of scale should be under control of the state.

What you said about power also applies to government.
Too much power in the hands of a few will always result in greed(hedgefunds, banks-> no-prime/sub-prime loans to obtain  exorbitant bonuses for the risks taken, not with their own money, but with deposits).
We need to make the states more transparant, so we can show the world the weapondeals made by prominent government agents all across the world.

There is also a huge flaw in representative democracy: In which way does it represent us??
If we look at pol-sci studies, we see a minority lower class citizens.
How can we call this "representation" and a "reflection of the society" when we don't even have the chance to represent our segment of society.

If this problem of representation cannot be fixed, then what other options do we have left?
Maybe decentralised, transparant direct democracy?