Originally posted by Zindaihas Ronald Reagan didn't have half the education most of these "geniuses" have, and he ran rings around them when he was President.
Ronald Reagan this, Ronald Reagan that, Ronald Reagan hit me with a whiffle ball bat. When Reagan was governor here, he oversaw the largest tax increase in California's history. (Which Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back when he came into office.)
As President, Reagan expanded the Federal government by 90%, bombed Libya, funded murderous contras, sold missiles to Iran (let me repeat that - he sold missiles to Iran), and gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
I will never understand you Republicans that revere Reagan so much...
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything.
Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers.
Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything. Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers. Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
You are so misguided, it's downright sad. You sound a lot like Siobabble, making stuff up, most likely because it puts you in a state of tranquility.
The garbage you spout doesn't even deserve a response, because to do so would be to validate it. But so as to not allow you to claim I am dodging your post, I will do it anyway. The only way government can transfer wealth is to take it from one group and redistribute it to another. Cutting taxes does not transfer wealth, it merely gives it back to the people who worked for it to do what they want with it; save it, spend it, invest it or whatever.
Your definition of supply-side is completely convoluted. Nothing is taken from labor. The idea is that tax rates will be reduced, adding more supply to private sector, thereby spurring economic growth.
And your claim that he nearly bankrupted government is ridiculous. If you had simply read the link that I posted above you might not have embarrassed yourself with that claim. Bullet point #1 states:
"Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue."
Government had plenty of money. The problem is it became addicted to all that extra money and spent like there was no tomorrow. But as we all know now, there was.
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything.
Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers.
Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
Hmmm. You claim to have been a Republican. When? Anti-Reagan, anti-Bush. When precisely WERE you a Republican,and why?
Reagan wasn't an economist, he was a President of the United States. He wasn't actually a supply-sider, although he subscribed to some supply side ideas. He was as fond of Milton Friedman as he was of Laffer and the supply-siders.
He was basically your average pro-capitalist, pro-free market conservative who believed in lowering taxes to keep more money in the hands of earners so that the entire economic pool would grow. To extent that he did that, it worked.
He far from nearly bankrupted the government, his deficit, as a percent of the GDP was smaller than the one under Kennedy and many other earlier presidents.
At any rate, rather than arguing with those minor points (which you probably will so you can ignore the thrust of what I write, as usual), I am still MUCH more interested in finding out now WHEN were you a Republican. If it wasn't under Reagan, and it wasn't under either Bush, that would make you either a NIXON or an Eisenhower republican. You certainly aren't a Goldwater Republican, since you favor big government (even though you have some vaguelly populist views).
When were you Republican, and what Republicans have you supported and why? Why did you stop and go LEFT from there?
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything. Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers. Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
You are so misguided, it's downright sad. You sound a lot like Siobabble, making stuff up, most likely because it puts you in a state of tranquility.
The garbage you spout doesn't even deserve a response, because to do so would be to validate it. But so as to not allow you to claim I am dodging your post, I will do it anyway. The only way government can transfer wealth is to take it from one group and redistribute it to another. Cutting taxes does not transfer wealth, it merely gives it back to the people who worked for it to do what they want with it; save it, spend it, invest it or whatever.
Your definition of supply-side is completely convoluted. Nothing is taken from labor. The idea is that tax rates will be reduced, adding more supply to private sector, thereby spurring economic growth.
And your claim that he nearly bankrupted government is ridiculous. If you had simply read the link that I posted above you might not have embarrassed yourself with that claim. Bullet point #1 states:
"Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue."
Government had plenty of money. The problem is it became addicted to all that extra money and spent like there was no tomorrow. But as we all know now, there was.
Good post. I just wish Reagan has been able to cut government spending MORE, he never really cut domestic spending -- rather, all he could do was cut the rate of growth. Ah, what a better place we would be today had he actually fully succeeded in his mission -- gotten rid of the NEA and all that. That would have really been something.
You are so misguided, it's downright sad. You sound a lot like Siobabble, making stuff up, most likely because it puts you in a state of tranquility. The garbage you spout doesn't even deserve a response, because to do so would be to validate it. But so as to not allow you to claim I am dodging your post, I will do it anyway. The only way government can transfer wealth is to take it from one group and redistribute it to another. Cutting taxes does not transfer wealth, it merely gives it back to the people who worked for it to do what they want with it; save it, spend it, invest it or whatever. Your definition of supply-side is completely convoluted. Nothing is taken from labor. The idea is that tax rates will be reduced, adding more supply to private sector, thereby spurring economic growth. And your claim that he nearly bankrupted government is ridiculous. If you had simply read the link that I posted above you might not have embarrassed yourself with that claim. Bullet point #1 states: "Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue." Government had plenty of money. The problem is it became addicted to all that extra money and spent like there was no tomorrow. But as we all know now, there was.
Good post. I just wish Reagan has been able to cut government spending MORE, he never really cut domestic spending -- rather, all he could do was cut the rate of growth. Ah, what a better place we would be today had he actually fully succeeded in his mission -- gotten rid of the NEA and all that. That would have really been something.
Unfortunately, government spending is never going to be brought under control until someone has the guts to tackle entitlements. That accounts for over half the federal budget and is considered off limits. But the taxpayers are not going to be able to sustain this restricted part of the budget for more than about another 25 years or so without taxes going so high that working is no longer worth the effort. Something is going to have to give.
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything.
Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers.
Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
Hmmm. You claim to have been a Republican. When? Anti-Reagan, anti-Bush. When precisely WERE you a Republican,and why?
Reagan wasn't an economist, he was a President of the United States. He wasn't actually a supply-sider, although he subscribed to some supply side ideas. He was as fond of Milton Friedman as he was of Laffer and the supply-siders.
He was basically your average pro-capitalist, pro-free market conservative who believed in lowering taxes to keep more money in the hands of earners so that the entire economic pool would grow. To extent that he did that, it worked.
He far from nearly bankrupted the government, his deficit, as a percent of the GDP was smaller than the one under Kennedy and many other earlier presidents.
At any rate, rather than arguing with those minor points (which you probably will so you can ignore the thrust of what I write, as usual), I am still MUCH more interested in finding out now WHEN were you a Republican. If it wasn't under Reagan, and it wasn't under either Bush, that would make you either a NIXON or an Eisenhower republican. You certainly aren't a Goldwater Republican, since you favor big government (even though you have some vaguelly populist views).
When were you Republican, and what Republicans have you supported and why? Why did you stop and go LEFT from there?
At 28 he had to be a Bush republican.
Probably like I was a Democrat for a year or so because my parents were. Carter knocked that out of me. Hopefully you don't have to see a repeat of the unemployment and disasterous econemy of the Carter years. OH, I see Russia is using the Panama Canal, which Carter gave away. And also, Carter was very intellegent.
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything.
Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers.
Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
Hmmm. You claim to have been a Republican. When? Anti-Reagan, anti-Bush. When precisely WERE you a Republican,and why?
Reagan wasn't an economist, he was a President of the United States. He wasn't actually a supply-sider, although he subscribed to some supply side ideas. He was as fond of Milton Friedman as he was of Laffer and the supply-siders.
He was basically your average pro-capitalist, pro-free market conservative who believed in lowering taxes to keep more money in the hands of earners so that the entire economic pool would grow. To extent that he did that, it worked.
He far from nearly bankrupted the government, his deficit, as a percent of the GDP was smaller than the one under Kennedy and many other earlier presidents.
At any rate, rather than arguing with those minor points (which you probably will so you can ignore the thrust of what I write, as usual), I am still MUCH more interested in finding out now WHEN were you a Republican. If it wasn't under Reagan, and it wasn't under either Bush, that would make you either a NIXON or an Eisenhower republican. You certainly aren't a Goldwater Republican, since you favor big government (even though you have some vaguelly populist views).
When were you Republican, and what Republicans have you supported and why? Why did you stop and go LEFT from there?
At 28 he had to be a Bush republican.
Probably like I was a Democrat for a year or so because my parents were. Carter knocked that out of me. Hopefully you don't have to see a repeat of the unemployment and disasterous econemy of the Carter years. OH, I see Russia is using the Panama Canal, which Carter gave away. And also, Carter was very intellegent.
Yeah I thought of that but how does someone flip LEFT from Bush, when they dislike Bush as much as he does? Makes no sense.
Yeah, carter is clear proof that there is no correlation between IQ, education, and a successful presidency. It's simply not relevant. A president is a decision maker, not an intellectual. Deep thinking is for one's advisors and policy wonks.
Hopefully you don't have to see a repeat of the unemployment and disasterous econemy of the Carter years. OH, I see Russia is using the Panama Canal, which Carter gave away. And also, Carter was very intellegent.
LOL HAHAHAAHH!!!
I think I speak for the overwhelming majority when I say, no hopefully we want see a repeat of the Bush administrations failure.
It will be fun to compare the accomplishments of ex-president Bush to what Carter has done tho.
You are so misguided, it's downright sad. You sound a lot like Siobabble, making stuff up, most likely because it puts you in a state of tranquility. The garbage you spout doesn't even deserve a response, because to do so would be to validate it. But so as to not allow you to claim I am dodging your post, I will do it anyway. The only way government can transfer wealth is to take it from one group and redistribute it to another. Cutting taxes does not transfer wealth, it merely gives it back to the people who worked for it to do what they want with it; save it, spend it, invest it or whatever. Your definition of supply-side is completely convoluted. Nothing is taken from labor. The idea is that tax rates will be reduced, adding more supply to private sector, thereby spurring economic growth. And your claim that he nearly bankrupted government is ridiculous. If you had simply read the link that I posted above you might not have embarrassed yourself with that claim. Bullet point #1 states: "Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue." Government had plenty of money. The problem is it became addicted to all that extra money and spent like there was no tomorrow. But as we all know now, there was.
Good post. I just wish Reagan has been able to cut government spending MORE, he never really cut domestic spending -- rather, all he could do was cut the rate of growth. Ah, what a better place we would be today had he actually fully succeeded in his mission -- gotten rid of the NEA and all that. That would have really been something.
Unfortunately, government spending is never going to be brought under control until someone has the guts to tackle entitlements. That accounts for over half the federal budget and is considered off limits. But the taxpayers are not going to be able to sustain this restricted part of the budget for more than about another 25 years or so without taxes going so high that working is no longer worth the effort. Something is going to have to give.
Yup, which is one major reason why I can't vote Republicrat.
It's a great time for socialism in america, ain't it folks? Bailing out Banks! Bailing out AIG! Bailing out automakers! Thanks GOPs! Thanks for taking on the risks of the private sector but reaping none of the rewards! But wait! We get to reap the rewards now after this last bailout! Henry Paulson has graciously allowed his fat cats on wall street to reward the government with non-voting stock! Thanks Henry for helping your buddies on wall street avoid the next administration having a say in what these companies do with out tax dollars! Once again, thanks GOPs!
Oh and by the way here is what insurance Giant AIG is doing with our money:
Don't fret over it though, there's nothing you or even the government can do about it, because we only have non-voting stock! Sweet! And AIG gets 85 billion of our hard-earned dollars, awesome.
But when were you a Republican, as you have said in the past, and why were you a Republican?
I was a Republican when I supported small-businesses, tax reform for fixed-income Americans, and a foreign policy that avoided multiple foreign wars. I was consistently pro-Constitution.
When the Republicans took-over everything, they implemented tax, fiscal, economic, and even foreign policies that redistributed income UP. Government grew at unprecedented levels, and Bush himself was appointing people in responsible positions who were his friends (or his father's friends).
Republican policies (tax, foreign, economic, fiscal, monetary, health care, military, etc.) tend to redistribute income UP and harm ordinary people.
Ordinary have lost much (wealth and rights) in the past decade under Republican control.
Democrats, though pro BIG BUSINESS and pro BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans, are at least more pro-ordinary person on issues of health care, taxes, infrastructure (let these people get to work quickly for crying out lout), etc.
Aside: Now, if the mass working-class of this country wants to take-away their own rights and redistribute income up, then I am 100% fine with that. I suspect, however, similar to amending their Constitution to take-away their right to contract, they get duped.Yes, you can fool the masses some of the time, especially on certain issues. Take-away their guns to make them safe. It makes them less safe.
Ordinary Americans loss much under Republican control and as a net total lose both rights and wealth.
Quickly, I realized they were not (1) pro-small business; (2) tax reform for fixed-income wage-earners; or (3) even pro-Constitution. And they never were, and they never will be.
Today, government is enormous; there are at least 3 million federal employees, not including state and local employees, and the fixed-income wage-earner must support them. The health care benefits, and other perks such as retirement accounts (NON-contributory and contributory) are paid for by the massive working-class of this country. Businesses are allowed to zero-out, and received, from fixed-income wage-earners, via the Treasury, credits for engaging in certain business activities. The corporate farming industry (must family farmers rent from corporate farmers) to the defense industry to finance to pharmaceutical companies are sucking this country dry. Republicans tend to aggressively support these policies, and these special interest groups own both parties.
Fine. I say, fine! I will concede BIG GOVERNMENT. I will concede BIG BUSINESS. Let them have their money, their bail-outs, and not pay taxes (in fact, get subsidies, government contracts, and free government health care).
But, let's try to help ordinary people then too.
If we must have BIG GOVERNMENT for BIG BUSINESS, then let's help the little guy as well.
Democrats, unlike Republicans, though owned by the same special interest groups, at least see the profound unfairness and burden on the shoulders of the working-class in this great country.
I have said, and I stand by this statement, if the working-class masses of the United States were aware (or even studied) the laws, they would revolt. They are, however, today, amending their own state Constitutions to take-away their rights (whether it is a right they exercise or not).
Democrats will support BIG BUSINESS and BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans do, but at least Democrats want to help and make things even slightly more fair for the workers.
But when were you a Republican, as you have said in the past, and why were you a Republican?
I was a Republican when I supported small-businesses, tax reform for fixed-income Americans, and a foreign policy that avoided multiple foreign wars. I was consistently pro-Constitution.
When the Republicans took-over everything, they implemented tax, fiscal, economic, and even foreign policies that redistributed income UP. Government grew at unprecedented levels, and Bush himself was appointing people in responsible positions who were his friends (or his father's friends).
Republican policies (tax, foreign, economic, fiscal, monetary, health care, military, etc.) tend to redistribute income UP and harm ordinary people.
Ordinary have lost much (wealth and rights) in the past decade under Republican control.
Democrats, though pro BIG BUSINESS and pro BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans, are at least more pro-ordinary person on issues of health care, taxes, infrastructure (let these people get to work quickly for crying out lout), etc.
Aside: Now, if the mass working-class of this country wants to take-away their own rights and redistribute income up, then I am 100% fine with that. I suspect, however, similar to amending their Constitution to take-away their right to contract, they get duped.Yes, you can fool the masses some of the time, especially on certain issues. Take-away their guns to make them safe. It makes them less safe.
Ordinary Americans loss much under Republican control and as a net total lose both rights and wealth.
Quickly, I realized they were not (1) pro-small business; (2) tax reform for fixed-income wage-earners; or (3) even pro-Constitution. And they never were, and they never will be.
Today, government is enormous; there are at least 3 million federal employees, not including state and local employees, and the fixed-income wage-earner must support them. The health care benefits, and other perks such as retirement accounts (NON-contributory and contributory) are paid for by the massive working-class of this country. Businesses are allowed to zero-out, and received, from fixed-income wage-earners, via the Treasury, credits for engaging in certain business activities. The corporate farming industry (must family farmers rent from corporate farmers) to the defense industry to finance to pharmaceutical companies are sucking this country dry. Republicans tend to aggressively support these policies, and these special interest groups own both parties.
Fine. I say, fine! I will concede BIG GOVERNMENT. I will concede BIG BUSINESS. Let them have their money, their bail-outs, and not pay taxes (in fact, get subsidies, government contracts, and free government health care).
But, let's try to help ordinary people then too.
If we must have BIG GOVERNMENT for BIG BUSINESS, then let's help the little guy as well.
Democrats, unlike Republicans, though owned by the same special interest groups, at least see the profound unfairness and burden on the shoulders of the working-class in this great country.
I have said, and I stand by this statement, if the working-class masses of the United States were aware (or even studied) the laws, they would revolt. They are, however, today, amending their own state Constitutions to take-away their rights (whether it is a right they exercise or not).
Democrats will support BIG BUSINESS and BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans do, but at least Democrats want to help and make things even slightly more fair for the workers.
Sorry, I see it the complete opposite. The Democrats are COMMITTED to the evil that destroyed the Republican Party inadvertantly. They Democrats are openly supporting the wrong side of things, while the Republicans slide there.
I can see that it is your view of politics as a way to divide a pie among "classes," rather than the way to promote a bigger pie, places you as someone who always belonged with the Democrats. they tend to view government that way overall (which is a myth, but it is mostly a Democrat myth). They also tend to view people as classes and groups, rather than as individuals as well.
Yes you have found your home in the party of collectivism.
Yes you have found your home in the party of collectivism. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Several Seasons of Star Trek have Proven that wrong :P
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Comments
Ronald Reagan this, Ronald Reagan that, Ronald Reagan hit me with a whiffle ball bat. When Reagan was governor here, he oversaw the largest tax increase in California's history. (Which Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back when he came into office.)
As President, Reagan expanded the Federal government by 90%, bombed Libya, funded murderous contras, sold missiles to Iran (let me repeat that - he sold missiles to Iran), and gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
I will never understand you Republicans that revere Reagan so much...
The Reagan record
'Nuff said!
Reagan was a big wealth transferer, and the last tax reform that occurred was during his administration, in which the average fixed-income wage-earner pays for everything.
Worse, Reagan was a supply-side economist. Taking from labor --services and manufacturing-- and giving it to the producers.
Even worse, he nearly bankrupted the government to give the wealthy tax breaks and subsidies. Paul Volker had to step-in the Fed Reserve and raise interest rates to correct "reaganomics."
You are so misguided, it's downright sad. You sound a lot like Siobabble, making stuff up, most likely because it puts you in a state of tranquility.
The garbage you spout doesn't even deserve a response, because to do so would be to validate it. But so as to not allow you to claim I am dodging your post, I will do it anyway. The only way government can transfer wealth is to take it from one group and redistribute it to another. Cutting taxes does not transfer wealth, it merely gives it back to the people who worked for it to do what they want with it; save it, spend it, invest it or whatever.
Your definition of supply-side is completely convoluted. Nothing is taken from labor. The idea is that tax rates will be reduced, adding more supply to private sector, thereby spurring economic growth.
And your claim that he nearly bankrupted government is ridiculous. If you had simply read the link that I posted above you might not have embarrassed yourself with that claim. Bullet point #1 states:
"Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue."
Government had plenty of money. The problem is it became addicted to all that extra money and spent like there was no tomorrow. But as we all know now, there was.
Hmmm. You claim to have been a Republican. When? Anti-Reagan, anti-Bush. When precisely WERE you a Republican,and why?
Reagan wasn't an economist, he was a President of the United States. He wasn't actually a supply-sider, although he subscribed to some supply side ideas. He was as fond of Milton Friedman as he was of Laffer and the supply-siders.
He was basically your average pro-capitalist, pro-free market conservative who believed in lowering taxes to keep more money in the hands of earners so that the entire economic pool would grow. To extent that he did that, it worked.
He far from nearly bankrupted the government, his deficit, as a percent of the GDP was smaller than the one under Kennedy and many other earlier presidents.
At any rate, rather than arguing with those minor points (which you probably will so you can ignore the thrust of what I write, as usual), I am still MUCH more interested in finding out now WHEN were you a Republican. If it wasn't under Reagan, and it wasn't under either Bush, that would make you either a NIXON or an Eisenhower republican. You certainly aren't a Goldwater Republican, since you favor big government (even though you have some vaguelly populist views).
When were you Republican, and what Republicans have you supported and why? Why did you stop and go LEFT from there?
fishermage.blogspot.com
You are so misguided, it's downright sad. You sound a lot like Siobabble, making stuff up, most likely because it puts you in a state of tranquility.
The garbage you spout doesn't even deserve a response, because to do so would be to validate it. But so as to not allow you to claim I am dodging your post, I will do it anyway. The only way government can transfer wealth is to take it from one group and redistribute it to another. Cutting taxes does not transfer wealth, it merely gives it back to the people who worked for it to do what they want with it; save it, spend it, invest it or whatever.
Your definition of supply-side is completely convoluted. Nothing is taken from labor. The idea is that tax rates will be reduced, adding more supply to private sector, thereby spurring economic growth.
And your claim that he nearly bankrupted government is ridiculous. If you had simply read the link that I posted above you might not have embarrassed yourself with that claim. Bullet point #1 states:
"Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue."
Government had plenty of money. The problem is it became addicted to all that extra money and spent like there was no tomorrow. But as we all know now, there was.
Good post. I just wish Reagan has been able to cut government spending MORE, he never really cut domestic spending -- rather, all he could do was cut the rate of growth. Ah, what a better place we would be today had he actually fully succeeded in his mission -- gotten rid of the NEA and all that. That would have really been something.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Good post. I just wish Reagan has been able to cut government spending MORE, he never really cut domestic spending -- rather, all he could do was cut the rate of growth. Ah, what a better place we would be today had he actually fully succeeded in his mission -- gotten rid of the NEA and all that. That would have really been something.
Unfortunately, government spending is never going to be brought under control until someone has the guts to tackle entitlements. That accounts for over half the federal budget and is considered off limits. But the taxpayers are not going to be able to sustain this restricted part of the budget for more than about another 25 years or so without taxes going so high that working is no longer worth the effort. Something is going to have to give.
Hmmm. You claim to have been a Republican. When? Anti-Reagan, anti-Bush. When precisely WERE you a Republican,and why?
Reagan wasn't an economist, he was a President of the United States. He wasn't actually a supply-sider, although he subscribed to some supply side ideas. He was as fond of Milton Friedman as he was of Laffer and the supply-siders.
He was basically your average pro-capitalist, pro-free market conservative who believed in lowering taxes to keep more money in the hands of earners so that the entire economic pool would grow. To extent that he did that, it worked.
He far from nearly bankrupted the government, his deficit, as a percent of the GDP was smaller than the one under Kennedy and many other earlier presidents.
At any rate, rather than arguing with those minor points (which you probably will so you can ignore the thrust of what I write, as usual), I am still MUCH more interested in finding out now WHEN were you a Republican. If it wasn't under Reagan, and it wasn't under either Bush, that would make you either a NIXON or an Eisenhower republican. You certainly aren't a Goldwater Republican, since you favor big government (even though you have some vaguelly populist views).
When were you Republican, and what Republicans have you supported and why? Why did you stop and go LEFT from there?
At 28 he had to be a Bush republican.
Probably like I was a Democrat for a year or so because my parents were. Carter knocked that out of me. Hopefully you don't have to see a repeat of the unemployment and disasterous econemy of the Carter years. OH, I see Russia is using the Panama Canal, which Carter gave away. And also, Carter was very intellegent.
Hmmm. You claim to have been a Republican. When? Anti-Reagan, anti-Bush. When precisely WERE you a Republican,and why?
Reagan wasn't an economist, he was a President of the United States. He wasn't actually a supply-sider, although he subscribed to some supply side ideas. He was as fond of Milton Friedman as he was of Laffer and the supply-siders.
He was basically your average pro-capitalist, pro-free market conservative who believed in lowering taxes to keep more money in the hands of earners so that the entire economic pool would grow. To extent that he did that, it worked.
He far from nearly bankrupted the government, his deficit, as a percent of the GDP was smaller than the one under Kennedy and many other earlier presidents.
At any rate, rather than arguing with those minor points (which you probably will so you can ignore the thrust of what I write, as usual), I am still MUCH more interested in finding out now WHEN were you a Republican. If it wasn't under Reagan, and it wasn't under either Bush, that would make you either a NIXON or an Eisenhower republican. You certainly aren't a Goldwater Republican, since you favor big government (even though you have some vaguelly populist views).
When were you Republican, and what Republicans have you supported and why? Why did you stop and go LEFT from there?
At 28 he had to be a Bush republican.
Probably like I was a Democrat for a year or so because my parents were. Carter knocked that out of me. Hopefully you don't have to see a repeat of the unemployment and disasterous econemy of the Carter years. OH, I see Russia is using the Panama Canal, which Carter gave away. And also, Carter was very intellegent.
Yeah I thought of that but how does someone flip LEFT from Bush, when they dislike Bush as much as he does? Makes no sense.
Yeah, carter is clear proof that there is no correlation between IQ, education, and a successful presidency. It's simply not relevant. A president is a decision maker, not an intellectual. Deep thinking is for one's advisors and policy wonks.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Hopefully you don't have to see a repeat of the unemployment and disasterous econemy of the Carter years. OH, I see Russia is using the Panama Canal, which Carter gave away. And also, Carter was very intellegent.
LOL HAHAHAAHH!!!
I think I speak for the overwhelming majority when I say, no hopefully we want see a repeat of the Bush administrations failure.
It will be fun to compare the accomplishments of ex-president Bush to what Carter has done tho.
Good post. I just wish Reagan has been able to cut government spending MORE, he never really cut domestic spending -- rather, all he could do was cut the rate of growth. Ah, what a better place we would be today had he actually fully succeeded in his mission -- gotten rid of the NEA and all that. That would have really been something.
Unfortunately, government spending is never going to be brought under control until someone has the guts to tackle entitlements. That accounts for over half the federal budget and is considered off limits. But the taxpayers are not going to be able to sustain this restricted part of the budget for more than about another 25 years or so without taxes going so high that working is no longer worth the effort. Something is going to have to give.
Yup, which is one major reason why I can't vote Republicrat.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Big Government for Big Business is not going anywhere, no matter who, or what party, controls Congress and the Presidency.
ALL you can hope for is that Big Government supports ordinary people.
Ordinary people deserve a bail-out, too, not just finance people. At least, geez, I think so.
You want BIG GOVERNMENT to become pro working and middle-class. Not just pro Business, pro special interests, and pro banking.
But when were you a Republican, as you have said in the past, and why were you a Republican?
None of what you advocate sounds anything like anything I have ever heard from any Republican anywhere,
fishermage.blogspot.com
It's a great time for socialism in america, ain't it folks? Bailing out Banks! Bailing out AIG! Bailing out automakers! Thanks GOPs! Thanks for taking on the risks of the private sector but reaping none of the rewards! But wait! We get to reap the rewards now after this last bailout! Henry Paulson has graciously allowed his fat cats on wall street to reward the government with non-voting stock! Thanks Henry for helping your buddies on wall street avoid the next administration having a say in what these companies do with out tax dollars! Once again, thanks GOPs!
Oh and by the way here is what insurance Giant AIG is doing with our money:
http://www.financialpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=866284
Don't fret over it though, there's nothing you or even the government can do about it, because we only have non-voting stock! Sweet! And AIG gets 85 billion of our hard-earned dollars, awesome.
"It's better to burn out, than fade away!"
I was a Republican when I supported small-businesses, tax reform for fixed-income Americans, and a foreign policy that avoided multiple foreign wars. I was consistently pro-Constitution.
When the Republicans took-over everything, they implemented tax, fiscal, economic, and even foreign policies that redistributed income UP. Government grew at unprecedented levels, and Bush himself was appointing people in responsible positions who were his friends (or his father's friends).
Republican policies (tax, foreign, economic, fiscal, monetary, health care, military, etc.) tend to redistribute income UP and harm ordinary people.
Ordinary have lost much (wealth and rights) in the past decade under Republican control.
Democrats, though pro BIG BUSINESS and pro BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans, are at least more pro-ordinary person on issues of health care, taxes, infrastructure (let these people get to work quickly for crying out lout), etc.
Aside: Now, if the mass working-class of this country wants to take-away their own rights and redistribute income up, then I am 100% fine with that. I suspect, however, similar to amending their Constitution to take-away their right to contract, they get duped.Yes, you can fool the masses some of the time, especially on certain issues. Take-away their guns to make them safe. It makes them less safe.
Ordinary Americans loss much under Republican control and as a net total lose both rights and wealth.
Quickly, I realized they were not (1) pro-small business; (2) tax reform for fixed-income wage-earners; or (3) even pro-Constitution. And they never were, and they never will be.
Today, government is enormous; there are at least 3 million federal employees, not including state and local employees, and the fixed-income wage-earner must support them. The health care benefits, and other perks such as retirement accounts (NON-contributory and contributory) are paid for by the massive working-class of this country. Businesses are allowed to zero-out, and received, from fixed-income wage-earners, via the Treasury, credits for engaging in certain business activities. The corporate farming industry (must family farmers rent from corporate farmers) to the defense industry to finance to pharmaceutical companies are sucking this country dry. Republicans tend to aggressively support these policies, and these special interest groups own both parties.
Fine. I say, fine! I will concede BIG GOVERNMENT. I will concede BIG BUSINESS. Let them have their money, their bail-outs, and not pay taxes (in fact, get subsidies, government contracts, and free government health care).
But, let's try to help ordinary people then too.
If we must have BIG GOVERNMENT for BIG BUSINESS, then let's help the little guy as well.
Democrats, unlike Republicans, though owned by the same special interest groups, at least see the profound unfairness and burden on the shoulders of the working-class in this great country.
I have said, and I stand by this statement, if the working-class masses of the United States were aware (or even studied) the laws, they would revolt. They are, however, today, amending their own state Constitutions to take-away their rights (whether it is a right they exercise or not).
Democrats will support BIG BUSINESS and BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans do, but at least Democrats want to help and make things even slightly more fair for the workers.
I was a Republican when I supported small-businesses, tax reform for fixed-income Americans, and a foreign policy that avoided multiple foreign wars. I was consistently pro-Constitution.
When the Republicans took-over everything, they implemented tax, fiscal, economic, and even foreign policies that redistributed income UP. Government grew at unprecedented levels, and Bush himself was appointing people in responsible positions who were his friends (or his father's friends).
Republican policies (tax, foreign, economic, fiscal, monetary, health care, military, etc.) tend to redistribute income UP and harm ordinary people.
Ordinary have lost much (wealth and rights) in the past decade under Republican control.
Democrats, though pro BIG BUSINESS and pro BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans, are at least more pro-ordinary person on issues of health care, taxes, infrastructure (let these people get to work quickly for crying out lout), etc.
Aside: Now, if the mass working-class of this country wants to take-away their own rights and redistribute income up, then I am 100% fine with that. I suspect, however, similar to amending their Constitution to take-away their right to contract, they get duped.Yes, you can fool the masses some of the time, especially on certain issues. Take-away their guns to make them safe. It makes them less safe.
Ordinary Americans loss much under Republican control and as a net total lose both rights and wealth.
Quickly, I realized they were not (1) pro-small business; (2) tax reform for fixed-income wage-earners; or (3) even pro-Constitution. And they never were, and they never will be.
Today, government is enormous; there are at least 3 million federal employees, not including state and local employees, and the fixed-income wage-earner must support them. The health care benefits, and other perks such as retirement accounts (NON-contributory and contributory) are paid for by the massive working-class of this country. Businesses are allowed to zero-out, and received, from fixed-income wage-earners, via the Treasury, credits for engaging in certain business activities. The corporate farming industry (must family farmers rent from corporate farmers) to the defense industry to finance to pharmaceutical companies are sucking this country dry. Republicans tend to aggressively support these policies, and these special interest groups own both parties.
Fine. I say, fine! I will concede BIG GOVERNMENT. I will concede BIG BUSINESS. Let them have their money, their bail-outs, and not pay taxes (in fact, get subsidies, government contracts, and free government health care).
But, let's try to help ordinary people then too.
If we must have BIG GOVERNMENT for BIG BUSINESS, then let's help the little guy as well.
Democrats, unlike Republicans, though owned by the same special interest groups, at least see the profound unfairness and burden on the shoulders of the working-class in this great country.
I have said, and I stand by this statement, if the working-class masses of the United States were aware (or even studied) the laws, they would revolt. They are, however, today, amending their own state Constitutions to take-away their rights (whether it is a right they exercise or not).
Democrats will support BIG BUSINESS and BIG GOVERNMENT like Republicans do, but at least Democrats want to help and make things even slightly more fair for the workers.
Sorry, I see it the complete opposite. The Democrats are COMMITTED to the evil that destroyed the Republican Party inadvertantly. They Democrats are openly supporting the wrong side of things, while the Republicans slide there.
I can see that it is your view of politics as a way to divide a pie among "classes," rather than the way to promote a bigger pie, places you as someone who always belonged with the Democrats. they tend to view government that way overall (which is a myth, but it is mostly a Democrat myth). They also tend to view people as classes and groups, rather than as individuals as well.
Yes you have found your home in the party of collectivism.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Several Seasons of Star Trek have Proven that wrong :P
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Several Seasons of Star Trek have Proven that wrong :P
True. But they are still a force to be reckoned with so the parallel still applies.