Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Not true. Reagan did increase defense spending in an effort to put pressure on the USSR and win the Cold War, and he succeeded in that.
But he actually cut non-defense spending by a small amount, despite facing a Democratic-controlled House for all 8 yrs of his 2 terms:
Real Annual Growth rate of federal spending (minus defense, homeland security and entitlements)
Johnson...+4.3%
Nixon/Ford..+6.4%
Carter........+1.6%
Reagan.......-1.4%
HW Bush.....+3.8%
Clinton........+2.1%
W Bush........+4.5 Leviathan on the Right: how big ... - Michael Tanner - Google Books
Source: Steven Slivinski, Cato Institute
Note that Reagan is the only one with a minus sign. Reagan was a true conservative.
Ah, the many Myths of the Great Saint Raygun! Who, among other things, doubled state spending as CA governor, and as Prez, raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including another four times in just two years! And as Obama is fond of pointing out, Pres. Reagan really did raise the Debt Ceiling 18 times!
Or as former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” once told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
What we need a parliamentary system and 4 major political parties:
- far right (the religious right and the Pat Buchanan types)
- center right (the Republicans)
- center left (the Democrats)
- far left (Obama, Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Reid, the Black Panthers, etc)
Sen. Reid and the Black Panthers? LOL. That would be a hilarious convention. If you consider Reid "far-left" I have no idea who would populate your hypothetical Democrats.
If there were a four-way splinter of the two major parties, the libertarians would gain enough of the bleed-off to become a fifth party.
Ah, the many Myths of the Great Saint Raygun! Who, among other things, doubled state spending as CA governor, and as Prez, raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office, including another four times in just two years! And as Obama is fond of pointing out, Pres. Reagan really did raise the Debt Ceiling 18 times!
Or as former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” once told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
Cherry-picked, distorted, misleading propaganda. This is a pretty good summary of tax bills during the Reagan admin. Reagan cut some rates, raised some, eliminated some breaks/loopholes, and created others. Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overall, the tax burden as a percentage of GDP went down under Reagan
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
According to a United States Department of the Treasury economic study, the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, in the short term, increased total tax revenue and reduced the tax burden on the economy (~-1% of GDP
Most people do not like extremes in either direction to the far left or the far right. Most people live someplace in the middle. Most people also understand that if you don't nominate a candidate that can win, you have wasted your time. There are a significantly lower number of Republcian voters than Democrats, therefore Republicans depend on attracking Independents to them to secure an election. You do not do that with a far right candidate that only appeals to the extreme side of the party. It's about broader appeal. In Utopia, it might be nice to be able to nominate a candidate that represents the extreme side of the party who make big, splashy comments about what they will ...."on day one" eliminate and defund and such, but in the real world that won't happen that way overall and it would be chaotic if it did.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,455,696 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Cherry-picked, distorted, misleading propaganda. This is a pretty good summary of tax bills during the Reagan admin. Reagan cut some rates, raised some, eliminated some breaks/loopholes, and created others.
Speaking of "cherry picking", we also haven't mentioned that of those 11 tax increases, Reagan specifically targeted people down the income ladder (while his administration and the Washington press corps called the increases “revenue enhancers”). In fact Reagan raised Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax. And of course we all know that Social Security taxes most impact just the folks whose income is derived from wages (aka working stiffs, not the wealthy)! So yeah, income did go up, except not for everyone... and it's a trend that continues up 'til today (you know, with the "1% vs 99%" thang and all that). But hey, don't stop there, let's get even more "conservative"!!
If you talk to the GOP grassroots, they are really pretty far to the right. If you listen to conservative talk radio, there are few moderates calling in. Callers are either solidly right Republicans, or indys and Democrats who call in to argue with the host. If you read publications like National Review, the IBD editorial page, or American Spectator, they too are well to the right.
Yet one after another GOP presidential candidate turns out to be a moderate, 'big government' conservative. IMO we really haven't even had a conservative candidate since Reagan. HW Bush, Dole, W Bush, and McCain were all big-government guys.
Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." George W Bush said, “When someone is hurting, government has got to move.”
Why do so few true conservatives seem able to climb the political ladder when? Why do we always wind up with candidates who are to the left of base? Any theories out there?
The GOP as a whole is no more conservative than the Democrat party is liberal. At election time both parties pander to the members that actually embrace the ideals they falsely claim to represent so their candidate can be elected.
Once elected their candidates will unsurprisingly ignore the wishes of those that put them in office and focus their efforts on growing government at the expense of their constituents.
Anyone that buys into the crap our two party system is spewing is a fool.
Not true. Reagan did increase defense spending in an effort to put pressure on the USSR and win the Cold War, and he succeeded in that.
But he actually cut non-defense spending by a small amount, despite facing a Democratic-controlled House for all 8 yrs of his 2 terms:
Real Annual Growth rate of federal spending (minus defense, homeland security and entitlements)
Johnson...+4.3%
Nixon/Ford..+6.4%
Carter........+1.6%
Reagan.......-1.4%
HW Bush.....+3.8%
Clinton........+2.1%
W Bush........+4.5 Leviathan on the Right: how big ... - Michael Tanner - Google Books
Source: Steven Slivinski, Cato Institute
Note that Reagan is the only one with a minus sign. Reagan was a true conservative.
What an idiotic accounting -- first off, by what logic does spending on defense/security/entitlements not get counted? Hello? Bueller? They're still spending! The second idiotic aspect of your list is that, by your logic, Carter and Clinton are the second and third most conservative Presidents of the last five decades ...
Here's another set of data -- Reagan is the only post-Nixon President to preside over a per capita growth in the number of federal civilian employees:
I suppose you'll try and spin that as conservative...
You're so caught up in Reagan-worship that you can't honestly assess his administration.
@mateo, why bother quoting me and then not addressing anything that I said? You just go off on another, new cherry-picking expedition.
@voyageur, we went over the head count thing in the other thread. As a taxpayer, I'm interested in overall tax levels, not head count. Again under RR, tax burden/GDP went down.
As far as the accounting that you find 'idiotic,' look back at post #18. There you will find the reason for taking out defense/homeland security. The reason for taking out entitlements is that it is autopilot spending that goes on whether the admin is R or D, liberal or conservative. Not so 'idiotic' after all.
PS it is not 'my list.' Reread the post and check the link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.jpg)
