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.
Amnesty for millions of Mexicans? A comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for those already here.....
Not only would he be called a RINO - violence might occur if he showed his face at a Trump Rally.
"Legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and;
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982,"
Wow, I can see heads exploding....from here!
For the 3rd or 4th time, the immigration debate was much different then. The US percentage of foreign-born was about 6% in 1980 when Reagan was elected. It is now about 14%.
It's an anachronistic argument. It's like saying that Thomas Jefferson would not be accepted by Democrats today because he didn't support gay marriage.
Reagan would get primaried today by the tea party, too soft and liberal.
You mean the bald faced liar who ran on small government yet increased it tremendously? The one who criticized Carters spending and then spent tons more? That piece of excrement?
Of course and he would be primaried. Reagan would have been a tough take down tho. They didnt call him the great communicator for nothing.
Reagan was pretty conservative. Just not as pure by todays social darwin standards.
Conservative. From the word conserve, use less of. You want to show me where he decreased government?
Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" At the end of Reagans first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, more than doubled to $22.7 billion.
The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase.
Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid rose from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. The exact same garbage lyin Ryan pulled. The increase isn't as much as before so it's a decrease right?
In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year.
In 1983 Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years.
the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.
No, on that note, I am not pursuing this further, as we clearly have different ways of defining the term. You would dismiss anyone I named as less than the true article, anyway.
It's from the word conserve. Use less of. Not too hard if you care about the truth.
Reagan would get primaried today by the tea party, too soft and liberal.
Incorrect, and the more you try to spread this false narrative, it gives those of us with knowledge to articulate how your agenda will no longer work.
It is the Democrats who have gone hard ideologically, not the Republicans.
Just look at the DNC platform in 1996 for Bill Clinton and compare it to 2016 where Hillary ran against virtually everything Bill had done.
Yet the RNC platform was more or less the same.
So Reagan certainly could have gotten the nomination based on ideology, where as Bill Clinton would not come close to getting the (D) nomination.
Jim Webb said he does not even recognize his own party any longer. He was slow to the table, as Zell Miller said the same thing back in the early 2000's.
It's from the word conserve. Use less of. Not too hard if you care about the truth.
I understand the origin of the term. The thing is, many, many self-proclaimed "conservatives" claim that label on the basis of four things: military spending, cuts in social programs, massive deregulation of business, and an embrace of "traditional values." These are the standards they apply to themselves, and the ones I have considered for the purpose of this conversation, and by those standards, Ryan is a conservative, at least in most areas.
As for real small government conservatives, the only ones who probably truly qualify are the (lower-case "L") libertarians.
Just as an aside, I do wish you would stop implying that I don't care about the truth. I do. Regardless of whether or not we agree, I don't believe I have ever suggested that you are less than honest, and I would appreciate you extending me the same courtesy.
For those of us who dont vote on “R” vs “D”, it is an irrelevant question.
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.
