"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[edthecynic]

Ted Cruz taking on three Leftist idiots at once

Cruz got his moronic ass spanked in that debate!

Cruz was arguing the Constitution requires that assault weapons and child pornography books cannot be banned or restricted in any way.

 

[Jroc]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

And what exactly are American principles as set forth by those who wrote our Constitution? Oh yes, slavery is fine. Blacks and women cannot vote. In fact, only land owners can vote. Hell, women could only own land under certain special circumstances. I'm a bit tired of right wing nutters assuming their version of America is the only one that is legitimate.

This guys post is proof of the narrow minded non thinking of the left America haters

 

[Jroc]

Ted Cruz taking on three Leftist idiots at once

Cruz got his moronic ass spanked in that debate!

Cruz was arguing the Constitution requires that assault weapons and child pornography books cannot be banned or restricted in any way.

LOL Yeah? People can judge it for themselves. It'd take all three of those liberal morons combined to eqaul the I.Q. of Ted Cruz

 

[Cecilie1200]

You don't get "just once more" when we all know that you are far right and reactionary in your actions. You would not vote for RR, and you don't get to deflect.

The far right cannot win this election for the GOP without pulling the center.

What? You mean someone changed the rules of debate where you can accuse me of anything you like without any evidence and I am supposed to just shut up and take it? When the fuck do you think that happened, Chuckles? I don't give a damn what you think "we all know" it's pretty apparent you don't know very much.

All through this thread you've had the chance to tell us what is "radical" about conservatism, what is "far right" other than "conservative" and how my views are different than Ronald Reagan. You have simply continued to fail. All you can do is keep on lying and trying to draw attention to yourself like a dummycrat rodeo clown.

The only reason I wouldn't vote for Ronald Reagan in 2016 is because he's dead and not running! IF he were alive and running, I would vote for him again just like I did in 1980 and 1988 when I worked on his fucking campaigns! So would MILLIONS of other conservatives who did not vote for McCain or Romney and won't vote for Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

Newsflash to any Elite Republican reading this thread: Here is a devout Socialist who wants to change America into the Soviet Union run by Hillary Clinton... He is telling you that we need to run another fucking moderate for president in 2016! Do you really want to go with HIS advice here? Really???

My ex-husband and I were discussing potential candidates for the Republican nomination the other day. I was mentioning how glad I am that, unlike the Democrats this time around, we are not stuck with a tired, worn-out retread as the anointed candidate. So far, I think the field of potential choices is looking quite fresh, different, and interesting. My favorites at the moment are Governors Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal (I was actually watching a video clip of Jindal addressing an audience in New Hampshire, and he's one of the few politicians I've encountered recently that I will actually listen to all the way through the speech). I'm a big believer in executive experience. Although I am dubious about Senators as Presidential candidates, particularly new Senators, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio so far don't seem objectionable.

However, I informed my ex that if the Republican Party insisted on sticking us with the mushy moderate pseudo-retread of Jeb Bush, I planned to stay home. He said, "So you're just going to stand back and let Hillary walk away with it?" I responded, "If that's the best plan the Republican Party can come up with, we're doomed anyway and I'm going to concentrate on hunkering down and prepping for the apocalypse."

I never underestimate the GOP's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but going with a mushy moderate for popularity reasons is dumb even for them.

 

[Boss]

Again we see the deliberate deception of the Far Right by controlling the language. "Tax hike" means "tax hike" not "income tax hike." St Ronnie raised every kind of tax except the PROGRESSIVE income tax. Reagan raised all the regressive taxes he could like payroll taxes and gas taxes and cut the progressive income tax. As a result the total taxes paid by the wealthy went down and the total taxes paid by the middle class went up. Reagan started the destruction of the middle class.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up from 17.7% to 18.4%, shifting some of the tax burden from the PROGRESSIVE income tax to the REGRESSIVE payroll tax.

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

To pull a Bossy here, by that YOU MEAN you can't dispute the numbers.

Yet, you didn't post where you got those numbers from. Paul Krugman? And since when does he qualify as a valid source? Can you confirm those numbers with something other than his website?

Edwin's sources are most often liberal blog sites where they have manipulated and massaged the raw data to derive the results they need to make their invalid points.

President Reagan had to work with a Democrat congress under Tip O'Neil, and his tax plan was the result of negotiations with the Democrats in order to get it passed. Now, after the fact, Reagan gets blamed for all the stuff Democrats demanded back then. As if the President enacts laws all by himself without any input from Congress and no negotiation.

In order to cut tax rates significantly for those who pay the most tax, the tax base has to be broadened unless you are going to make draconian cuts in spending. So when the base is broadened to include a percentage who were previously not paying taxes, well that becomes morphed into millions of poor people who Reagan snatched the last crumbs from their mouths and left to die of starvation in the streets because he was so evil.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Boss claims, without evidence here, that "I am a Conservative, but I identify myself as a moderate because my personal views are moderate. That is why I can confidently challenge any Bozo here who wants to claim I am "far right:" or "radical extremist wacko right" or "fascist right" because they can't back that argument up with anything I've ever posted here. "

You can claim you are a zebra with as much effectiveness as the above: in other words, none. In fact, several times above Boss has clearly been pegged with his own remarks that he is indeed far right. One example is that he confuses socialism and fascism, refusing to accept the traditional definitions that fascism is a right wing progressive philosophy that merges state, party, and government under the leadership of the Leader.

fas·cism ˈfaSHˌizəm/ noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
   synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Sorry, JakefromStateFarm, you fail again. The only mention I've made of Fascism here was when I said that none of the candidates are Fascists, unless you consider Hillary and Obama Fascists. There is no question they are Socialists.

So if that is your example that shows me to be "far right" and "extremist" then you've failed on two fronts. First by it not being my position and second by it not being an extremist position.

I am a Conservative who holds a Conservative philosophy. I often identify as a "moderate independent" but I am not ashamed of being a Conservative. Among my moderate viewpoints, I favor Federal decriminalization of marijuana and regulation by the states. I oppose the Federal government dictating what marriage means, gay or straight. I think it should be left to the individual to define and if government must have some label to identify those in a domestic partnership, it should be generic civil union contracts between two adults. I also believe abortion should be legal but regulated by the states and restricted in any way the people of the state so choose. So there are the Big Three social issues, all of which I have a somewhat moderate independent viewpoint on, and my view is rooted in my conservative philosophy.

You may disagree with my views, but anyone can clearly see they are not extreme or "far" anything.

You're not a leftist, hon. By their definition, the left is the "mainstream moderate" position, and anything else is extreme.

 

[Boss]

Conservative votes stayed at home.

That lie has already been debunked in this very thread. Parroting it again does not make it any less a lie. A greater percentage of CON$ervoFascists voted for Bishop Willard and McSame than for either Reagan election.

The first number is the total number of conservatives who voted for the Republican candidate. The second is the conservatives' percentage of the total vote. In 2012, 37 million conservatives voted for Mitt Romney, and conservatives were 35% of the total who voted.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%

But your stats are incorrect because you're counting people on the basis of how they self identify and we know that isn't accurate. You honestly believe that less than half the votes George W. Bush received in 2000 were from conservatives? Smoke a lot of crack in the mornings, do ya?

All this statistic shows is how popular or unpopular it was to call yourself a conservative at the time. In means absolutely nothing in terms of who voted. Stats such as these completely dismiss ALL moderates and independents as "not conservative" votes. The truth is, MOST of the independent and moderate votes are conservatives. They may not be comfortable self identifying as such, but they are philosophically conservative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what isvital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen.

Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.

T

he typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions

Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.

So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the

]Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.

(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)

Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/

Ah, yes, the vaunted historical site of the Daily Caller.

 

[Toro]

Your attempt to redefine moderate is self-serving. Moderates are not conservative. They are moderates. People self-identify as conservative, moderate or liberal. They do not identify themselves as conservative, conservative or liberal. Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe. They are neither inherently conservative or liberal.

The idea that "if only people knew what I believe, they'd support what I believe" is a narcissistic ideological trap.

Conservatives who believe that the best way to win moderates is to get even more conservative misunderstand moderates and politics.

Why does this keep happening? We keep getting "geniuses" telling us how things are but not offering examples or evidence. Here's another page reeled off by liberal lefties, inserting their unfounded opinions as facts and attempting to shut down the debate.

There are VERY few ACTUAL political moderates. I've covered this already, it's part of the human psyche. People would rather be identified as "moderate" than any form of extreme. They may view "liberal" and "conservative" as extremes and simply call themselves a "moderate" because that's what they believe they are. When you begin questioning a moderate on specific issues where a position is required, they are mostly conservatives or liberals. Likewise, the label "independent" does not mean moderate.

Moderates agree with some things conservatives believe and some things liberals believe.

Or is this what you've told yourself makes a moderate? Moderate is neither an ideology or philosophy, it is a measure of degree. Generally speaking, it is the opposite of "extremist." Aside from the fact that most people would rather identify as moderate as opposed to extreme, their political views lean left or right most of the time. For instance, how many ACTUAL people do you know who are, say... opposed to legalizing marijuana but favor gay marriage? Or they are opposed to gay marriage but they are pro-choice?

When we cut to the core and look at raw definitions, a true conservative is mostly a moderate.

Moderate: kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense.

Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Most moderates are conservatives and most conservatives are moderates. It's merely a different way to describe the alternative of extremist liberalism, which is an ideology.

I'm a moderate, a Republican, and a supporter of capitalism. I voted for Romney.

And, as a moderate, you are wrong. I generally don't want a hardcore conservative as President.

Rather than make rationalizations and twist logic to make yourself feel better, why don't you just ask moderates. It's easier than making shit up, though probably not easier for you to believe because you tell yourself a lie conservatives tell themselves to make themselves feel better.

This is simple math. When Republicans are not competitive with people who consider themselves moderates, they lose.

Which is why Romney the moderate lost...You're clueless, any Republican will be made into a far right winger like Romney was. Better to actually have a real Conservative then a fake one.

Fake or real, any far right reactionary will not get 40% of the vote.

Cruz will not make it out of South Carolina.

LOL... coming form a Ford Republican, are you the last one?

Small Tent Republicans are small.

 

[Toro]

Conservative votes stayed at home.

That lie has already been debunked in this very thread. Parroting it again does not make it any less a lie. A greater percentage of CON$ervoFascists voted for Bishop Willard and McSame than for either Reagan election.

The first number is the total number of conservatives who voted for the Republican candidate. The second is the conservatives' percentage of the total vote. In 2012, 37 million conservatives voted for Mitt Romney, and conservatives were 35% of the total who voted.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%

But your stats are incorrect because you're counting people on the basis of how they self identify and we know that isn't accurate. You honestly believe that less than half the votes George W. Bush received in 2000 were from conservatives? Smoke a lot of crack in the mornings, do ya?

All this statistic shows is how popular or unpopular it was to call yourself a conservative at the time. In means absolutely nothing in terms of who voted. Stats such as these completely dismiss ALL moderates and independents as "not conservative" votes. The truth is, MOST of the independent and moderate votes are conservatives. They may not be comfortable self identifying as such, but they are philosophically conservative.

Except that the range of those who call themselves conservatives have been fairly steady.

Your argument is elitist to its core. People know who they are. Telling people that they are something different than they think is what we expect from liberals who think they know more than individuals do.

It's false logic to assume that a more conservative candidate is more appealing to moderates simply because he's more conservative. That doesn't mean moderates wouldn't vote for a conservative. But you have misdiagnosed the problem if you think just a conservative candidate is the answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reagan didn't "grow the government" because the President of the United States can't do anything more than sign legislation passed by Congress or issue executive orders. Any government growth that happened under Reagan was the result of Tip O'Neil and the Democrat Congress.

Sure Reagan was never president, just a figurehead with a pen, because BobDole and the GOP Senate ran the country. But then Reagan won the "Cold War" even though he was out of office when the wall came down and the Dems still ran Congress. So everything the Far Right gives St Ronnie credit for belongs to the Dem Congress according to a true CON$ervative. That 'ill be the day!

Pursuant to the Constitution, any appropriation bill (expanding of government) must originate in the House of Representatives. I will state it again: ANY Government expansion which took place under Reagan was because of the Democrats who controlled the House.

Also, the ending of the Cold War wasn't the result of a physical barrier being removed in Berlin. The wall was definitely a symbol, but it wasn't what facilitated the Cold War. According to Gorbachev and others who were Soviet and America dignitaries of the time, the thing most responsible for ending the Cold War was Reagan's SDI and his hard line at Reykjavik. A position the Liberal Left opposed vehemently and warned would cause WWIII and a nuclear holocaust.

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Perhaps he did, Reagan was a pragmatic president who had a conservative philosophy and wasn't committed to some rigid ideology. Were these taxes that needed to be raised? We don't know because you didn't say. I can only assume they did because most of the Dems who controlled Congress had to approve it.

But you are right, Reagan wasn't perfect... he also didn't adhere to an ideology. When he first announced he would run for president, Republican elites had a cow. They attacked him relentlessly. George H.W. Bush coined the phrase "voodoo economics" to describe his economic plan. Everyone in the establishment GOP backed Howard Baker and the general consensus was, Reagan could NEVER win the general election... he was "too far right" to pull it off! (Exactly the same things they are saying about Ted Cruz.)

I agree with you more than you realize and think that on the whole, Reagan was a competent president. But the legend of him being this great Conservative is just that: a legend. He governed from the middle, as it should be.

I have to admit, this leftist plan to be on the right side of history by simply waiting to find out what history approves and then claiming it for yourselves is certainly entertaining, if not accurate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Progressives think freedom and liberty is extreme. ....

Well, it's scary. And if you allow others to have it, they might get rambunctious and express a dissenting opinion where leftists can hear it, puncturing the warm, rosy delusion of universal approval leftists normally live in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To me the 'far right' on the flawed left-right spectrum is extreme nationalist/religious/anti-immigration groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis, Westboro, and parties like UKIP.

Wow, we didn't care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

I agree. It's the wishy washy RINOs that turn people off. If they would choose a candidate that stood by his convictions instead of one who tries to be agreeable with the left, we'd all be better off.

If liberals were more honest regarding their true agenda, people would reject them in a big way. Democrats try to sound more conservative during campaigns with all the family values and lowering taxes. It's conservative values and people love it.

I think a lot of people toward the right of the spectrum also share my antipathy for "anointed" candidates and the mindset of "Never mind what the voters are looking for, it's So-and-So's turn to run". And I've so very much had my fill of political dynasties, it makes me want to hurl. I will never understand the component in human nature that gravitates toward monarchies and the divine right of kings, or whatever is closest to it in the available political system.

 

[hipeter924]

To me the 'far right' on the flawed left-right spectrum is extreme nationalist/religious/anti-immigration groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis, Westboro, and parties like UKIP.

Wow, we didn't care.

Correct term is 'I' fruit loop.

Though good to know that you support the political equivalent of white trash, and hate the very free market system that brought the UK back from the brink.

 

[thanatos144]

To me the 'far right' on the flawed left-right spectrum is extreme nationalist/religious/anti-immigration groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis, Westboro, and parties like UKIP.

Wow, we didn't care.

Correct term is 'I' fruit loop.

Though good to know that you support the political equivalent of white trash, and hate the very free market system that brought the UK back from the brink.

Good to see how ignorant you are of your own ideology.... Democrats made the KKK and socialists are Nazi.... I am sure you wont let small things like the truth to stop your delusions of grandeur.

Thank God that he gave me a brain more complex then a sheeps otherwise I would be a progressive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

And what exactly are American principles as set forth by those who wrote our Constitution? Oh yes, slavery is fine.

Not in the Constitution.

Blacks and women cannot vote.

Also not in the Constitution.

In fact, only land owners can vote.

Not in the Constitution.

Hell, women could only own land under certain special circumstances.

Not in the Constitution.

I'm a bit tired of right wing nutters assuming their version of America is the only one that is legitimate.

Back atcha. I'm tired of leftist lunatics assuming their idiocy is the pinnacle of moral righteousness. And the more immoral it is, the more impressed you are with it.

 

[edthecynic]

Provide links for your bogus numbers

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

To pull a Bossy here, by that YOU MEAN you can't dispute the numbers.

Yet, you didn't post where you got those numbers from. Paul Krugman? And since when does he qualify as a valid source? Can you confirm those numbers with something other than his website?

Edwin's sources are most often liberal blog sites where they have manipulated and massaged the raw data to derive the results they need to make their invalid points.

Hey pinhead, the stats came from the CBO.
Don't you ever get tired of lying?

 

[thanatos144]

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility — or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Paul Krugman is a certifiable lunatic

To pull a Bossy here, by that YOU MEAN you can't dispute the numbers.

Yet, you didn't post where you got those numbers from. Paul Krugman? And since when does he qualify as a valid source? Can you confirm those numbers with something other than his website?

Edwin's sources are most often liberal blog sites where they have manipulated and massaged the raw data to derive the results they need to make their invalid points.

Hey pinhead, the stats came from the CBO.
Don't you ever get tired of lying?

The same CBO that told us obamacare would cost less then 900 billion dollars??????? LMAO

 

[edthecynic]

Conservative votes stayed at home.

That lie has already been debunked in this very thread. Parroting it again does not make it any less a lie. A greater percentage of CON$ervoFascists voted for Bishop Willard and McSame than for either Reagan election.

The first number is the total number of conservatives who voted for the Republican candidate. The second is the conservatives' percentage of the total vote. In 2012, 37 million conservatives voted for Mitt Romney, and conservatives were 35% of the total who voted.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%

But your stats are incorrect because you're counting people on the basis of how they self identify and we know that isn't accurate.

BULLSHIT!
YOU know nothing of the sort!

Irrespective of how many "moderates" are too stupid to know they are moderates, according to you, there were more voters who were not ashamed to call themselves CON$ervatives who voted for McCain and Romney than voted for Reagan .