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.
True. The lesson from the Reagan Administration is that large tax breaks and increased spending results in large deficits. David Stockman nailed it and he has been proven right time and again.
the lesson is increased revenues will still not cover even more spending. Revenues went up. Spending went up even more.
Quote:
VA is a wreck. However, there are government agencies and programs that work extremely well. A scandal in one should not taint them all.
Maybe they are or maybe we are still turning our eyes away from the problems.
Quote:
I pay into it and I fully expect to have its benefits when I retire. I have seen it work too many times to be negative on it.
But you think others shouldnt want what they paid for?
Sounds like a great plan! I'm behind anything that takes down the recalcitrant GOP. Which is exactly what you're advocating here.
Then the big question is what happens to the Tea Party once they've destroyed their host? They are looked upon favorably by about 21% of the population, so it's unlikely they'll be able to hold any kind of real power without the Republican party. Once you drive the GOP into the ground, what do you think becomes of the Tea Party?
But hey, don't let reality stop you. Go for it!
They are looked upon favorably by 21% of the population, and people who look favorably upon the Tea Party are going to be people who are passionate about politics. So your assessment of reality is pretty well flawed. But that's normal. People tend to want to find reasons to make what they wish to be true into actually being true. I mean, the Democrats rely upon that with their identity politics. They count on ignorant idiots to believe that the economy can turn out just fine even with hundred of billions of dollars in deficit spending if we just make the rich pay their fair share. They count on ignorant idiots to believe that rampant institutionalized racism supported by evil Republicans is holding the black community back, even though the problems with unemployment, broken families, drugs, and violence were actually better prior to the Civil Rights Amendments than afterwards. They count on ignorant idiots to believe that if they just put reasonable and common sense restrictions on firearms in place that our communities will be so much safer, even though statistics from cities with strict gun control versus areas without it show no drop in violent crime whatsoever. So it is unsurprising that someone who believes the rhetoric that Democrats throw at you will also believe that the Tea Party is an irrelevant force in politics.
But the thing is that the 21% of the population that approves of the Tea Party aren't the apathetic ignorant masses, they are people who care about politics and will make an effort to get the polls, will contribute to campaigns, will volunteer their time, etc. It doesn't really matter if there are many more people who disapprove of the Tea Party than don't when the people who don't are the less motivated people who aren't as likely to vote in the first place. People who are in the Tea Party will for sure go to the polls to support a Tea Party candidate, but people who don't support the Tea Party are a lot less likely to go to the polls to oppose a Tea Party candidate. That's just how human nature works. To get them to the polls you're going to have to motivate them with something they can get enthused about. The Republicans do not have to work hard to motivate the Tea Party - they are already motivated, or they wouldn't be in the Tea Party in the first place.
So it's nice wishful thinking you've got going there, but a critical analysis of the situation doesn't really support it. And your Democrat leaders know it, which is why they spend so much time demonizing the Tea Party in the first place. If the Tea Party were really so irrelevant, then Democrat Senators wouldn't be using their time on the Senate floor to denounce them.
But the thing is that the 21% of the population that approves of the Tea Party aren't the apathetic ignorant masses, they are people who care about politics and will make an effort to get the polls, will contribute to campaigns, will volunteer their time, etc. It doesn't really matter if there are many more people who disapprove of the Tea Party than don't when the people who don't are the less motivated people who aren't as likely to vote in the first place. .
Oh, so the TP must have been Obama voters than in 2012, since only they regularly vote. Got it-LOL!
Wow, so they won one election out of how many this cycle? Last time I checked, the tea party didn't give that guy much support at all. In fact, he barely campaigned at all, which shows how much he expected to win. I would say that was more a repudiation of Eric Cantor than anything.
Okay since you don't really know anything about Tea Party victories except what MSLSD tells you, how about these:
Dan Bongino-MD 6th congressional
Curt Clawson-FL 19th congressional
Ken Buck-CO 4th congressional
Alex Mooney -WV 2nd congressional
Ben Sasse- NE US senate
Dave Brat- VA 7th congressional
John Ratcliffe- TX 4th congressional
That is just the last 5 weeks! You will be hearing plenty from the Tea Party for many years to come.
Ronald Reagan and small government lol? Are you really kidding me? Ronald Reagan BALLOONED the federal government. Taxes stayed pretty much stagnant during his reign in office as well. Yes he cut them in 81, but then raised them again in 82,83,84,85,and 87. You could argue for less regulation, but most of that began under his predecessor so it's not like he started the avalanche with that one. Don't get me wrong, I think Ronald Reagan was a fine President. After the disappoint of the prior few he made people proud of the Presidency again. However, this belief that Ronald Reagan was a no compromise, take no prisoners conservative ala the tea party simply isn't true. Tip O'Neil said in his book, to his great disappointment, that the legislative team under Ronald Reagan was the best of all the Presidents he worked for in the Congressional leadership. He also said that he got more compromise out of him than he did under Jimmy Carter. So again, I think you need a history lesson .
You are wrong again. Reagan did increase military spending which led to the end of the Cold War. But Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term. And he did that with democrats controlling both houses. Carter decreasing regulation? haha He created the Dept of Energy and the Dept of Education. You have a lot of home work to do.
Please conservatives hate those Americans who the Democratic Party represents in their minds too much to support Democrats.
conservatives will fall in line behind conservative candidates.
The Establishment GOP sound like conservatives and fool most into believing it. But mostly they are for big government and are controlled by donors just like the left wing lunatic democrats.
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.
.
.
