Perspective: How It All Happened

[Meister]

Where do you come up with this shit Meister? Both parties have moved to the right. I remember voting for a Republican Senator (Javits) who was proud to be a liberal Republican. The Governor of New York was proud to be a liberal Republican.

John F. Kennedy was proud to be a liberal.

Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

From your source:

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
What happened along the way?????
You people have morphed the word "liberal".

More from your source:

I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.

What happened?????
You people morphed the word "liberal".

What happened? Republicans were in power, they vastly EXPANDED government, they wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars on Hirohito sneak attacks and illegal wars...and they didn't even have the decency to put all that war spending on the books. They didn't even put it in the budget...until Obama did the responsible thing.

WHO expands government?

From your source:

These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level
Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Now that makes more sense, doesn't it?

 

[Bfgrn]

From your source:

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
What happened along the way?????
You people have morphed the word "liberal".

More from your source:

I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.

What happened?????
You people morphed the word "liberal".

What happened? Republicans were in power, they vastly EXPANDED government, they wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars on Hirohito sneak attacks and illegal wars...and they didn't even have the decency to put all that war spending on the books. They didn't even put it in the budget...until Obama did the responsible thing.

WHO expands government?

From your source:

These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level
Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Now that makes more sense, doesn't it?

Obama has expanded government? Funny how close the two graphs are...NOW what???

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

 

[Oddball]

Then you agree that these repeated attempts to somehow malign the current Democratic Party by making some guilt-by-association connection to it and the conservative faction of the Democratic Party in the South from 50 years ago or more

is idiocy.

No, I don't agree...The current Democrat Party is self-maligning...They don't need anyone's help.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland wing of the Democrat Party?

Okay, so right after you said there is no connection between the current Democratic party and the conservative Southern Democrat party of yesteryear now you're saying there is.

Which is it? And stop being a fucking asshole about it.

I'm saying there's no correlation between the democrats of Grover Cleveland's day and the Marxist useful idiots infesting the Democrat Party today.....I'm saying that your party has been in the process of marginalizing and chasing out all the blue dogs like Scoop Jackson, still quite the 20th century progressive, because they're not Marxist enough for you.

That clear enough, dickweed?

 

[BlindBoo]

"The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans."


Isn't it amusing how many of the things you fervently believe, actually have no basis in fact?

PC, it is not a matter of belief. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 the Republicans began to win more and more in the South and today it is their stronghold.

The south voted democratic at all levels for the next one hundred years. In 1948 Strom Thurmond, a Democratic Senator from South Carolina, ran for president as a "Dixiecrat" after disagreeing with Truman over civil rights. Truman won anyway, despite Thurmond's dividing the Democratic vote. This let the Democrats know they could win without southern votes. Then in the 60s Democrats Kennedy and Johnson angered the south by forcing desegregation and civil rights on the south (ignoring identical problems in the north), and the south turned Republican, joining the "party of Lincoln". Ideologically the parties had traded places in the century since the Civil War.

The voting patterns of the southern states after the civil war was nicknamed

The fact that I have an empty milk jug in my hands is not proof that I drank the milk. You equate one fact with another fact, and reach a false conclusion over cause and effect.

Democrats ruled the South for over a century as a one party fiefdom. If you wanted to vote for any local or state offices, you registered as a Democrat because the vast majority of the electoral decisions were made in the Democrat primary. The party machine was so entrenched that Republican candidates were few and far between. In the early periods of this fiefdom, a White Republican was just as likely to be lynched as a Black man.

Consequently, when the Democrat machine was finally broken in the 60's and early 70's, the Republican party began to emerge as a real political force, and the people who were Democrats in name only, began to switch to the Republican party. I would assume that some racists did change party, but that had nothing to do with the resurgance of the Republican party.

Anyone who traveled to the South in the 60's would have been startled by the concept of leaving a modern world and traveling back in time at least two decades. That was the result of long term Democrat rule, and still applies in many places where Democrats have held power for long periods of time.

That is why the South went Republican. And, that is why it will probably remain Republican until those with memories of the evils of Jim Crow Democrats remain alive.

Interesting take on the matter, thanks. So, what was the straw that broken the camels back in the 60's and early 70's that gave the Republicans an inroad?

I'd say that a lot of racist moved to the Republican party and a lot of racist stayed with the Democrat party too.

I grew up in the South, in the 60's. Luckily, we lived in big cities but I do remember going to the Grandparents house in our hometown a couple of three times a year and looking back after I became an adult, it was like traveling backward in time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The circumstantial evidence is clear: conservative politics dominate the south. Through the eaerly 1960s, white conservatives voted Democratic. 1968 to 1988 on, white conservatives voted 5 out of 6 times for conservative (Republican, American) presidential candidates, while voting generally for democratic conservative candidates at the local to state level. By the end of RR's terms, most white conservatives had or were migrating to the GOP.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What's odd about this topic is, no matter how many times conservatives start threads about it, which is many many many times,

not one of them has ever been able to adequately articulate what exactly the POINT of these threads is.

There isn't one. When you ask, they have nothing. This is just a finger in the eye thread wrapped in false concerns. And when you tear away the pretty wrapping it's just a nasty ball of racist bullshit inside

 

[Foxfyre]

What's odd about this topic is, no matter how many times conservatives start threads about it, which is many many many times,

not one of them has ever been able to adequately articulate what exactly the POINT of these threads is.

There isn't one. When you ask, they have nothing. This is just a finger in the eye thread wrapped in false concerns. And when you tear away the pretty wrapping it's just a nasty ball of racist bullshit inside

Whether or not the discussion has addressed it, or referred to it, or pointed to it, the point of the OP should be crystal clear to anybody with an 8th grade education. Of course the point is extremely uncomfortable to those accommodating and perpetuating the concept the OP puts out there for us, so they quickly change the subject.

But it is unfortunate that the topic would be of disinterest to any U.S citizen whether or not they agree with the conclusion offered in the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's odd about this topic is, no matter how many times conservatives start threads about it, which is many many many times,

not one of them has ever been able to adequately articulate what exactly the POINT of these threads is.

There isn't one. When you ask, they have nothing. This is just a finger in the eye thread wrapped in false concerns. And when you tear away the pretty wrapping it's just a nasty ball of racist bullshit inside

Whether or not the discussion has addressed it, or referred to it, or pointed to it, the point of the OP should be crystal clear to anybody with an 8th grade education. Of course the point is extremely uncomfortable to those accommodating and perpetuating the concept the OP puts out there for us, so they quickly change the subject.

But it is unfortunate that the topic would be of disinterest to any U.S citizen whether or not they agree with the conclusion offered in the OP.

And yet once again, you are incapable of articulating that point in plain English, which it is fair to say indicates that there is, so far, no point to this topic from those who keep bringing it up.

Why?

 

[asaratis]

boo hoo

So....the essence of your pithy and well thought-out post is not that there are any errors in the OP...

....but that you just don't care.

And that is the source of so very many of America's problems.

Perhaps there aren't any errors, but you're just rehashing ancient history..., AGAIN!! WHY?!?! Could it be that Republican policy is indefensible? I assume, if you could defend it, you would. Since you apparently can't, you've decide to bore us with another "more of the same" diversionary post. It doesn't even belong in the 'Politics' forum, IMO. It's a 'History' post at best. *YAWN*

Any attempt to show that the liberals (mostly Democrats) do not sincerely have the betterment of conditions in the black community in mind justifiably includes the HISTORY of their actions.

From the dark days portrayed in the Opening Post, moving ahead 50 years to the present day:

"Those goddam darkies are destroying America! They must be stopped! Vote GOP."

Sadly true.

Who are you quoting? Certainly not the Republican platform.

It's curious that PC, who is an immigrant, would choose to come to a country that she so obviously and openly hates.

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

She seems to attack liberalism...not American values. American values include the allowance of disagreement. That people disagree with your socialist views does not constitute anti-Americanism. America is not and should not ever be a socialist nation.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

Which American values do you speak of?
Or, is it your liberal views that she attacks, Carb?
Learn to differentiate between the two.

My liberal views are mainstream American values. I hold very few views that are not supported by a majority or a plurality of Americans.

So you follow the polls? What a sheep you are!

I notice you have no reason why a black person should be taking advice from a Korean girl. Thanks again for proving my point that you just say things but don't know why you say them. It's just a girl thing

I'm not taking tips from someone who isn't in the community and just observes from a perch doesn't know anymore than Pailin knows about Russia just because she can see it.

Keep up with the insults, when you have nothing you stick out your tongue. It's funny.

What's pathetic is that you only see the world via skin color.

Here the question: why won't the less informed, you, take qualified instruction from the more informed, me.


The answer is the same as the reason why you remain less informed.

Insults?
I don't insult you.....I describe you.

You are simply next-day delivery in a nanosecond world.
Don't ever change.

So once again no reasoning to why I, a black man, should listen to you, a Korean girl about the black community. Duly noted.

While you try desperately to claim that I only see skin color in a thread started by you about blacks. Lol...good luck with that spin sweetie

Yours is such a foolish statement...not to mention racist. What deludes you to think that a Korean (or any other person) is not qualified to recognize and point out to you that Democrats want only your vote and to keep the masses dependent on the public dole? You should listen to the words of Thomas Sowell and other intelligent black men. PC is merely pointing that out to you.

 

[Meister]

What happened? Republicans were in power, they vastly EXPANDED government, they wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars on Hirohito sneak attacks and illegal wars...and they didn't even have the decency to put all that war spending on the books. They didn't even put it in the budget...until Obama did the responsible thing.

WHO expands government?

From your source:

These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level
Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Now that makes more sense, doesn't it?

Obama has expanded government? Funny how close the two graphs are...NOW what???

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

Changing the goal posts once your ass was handed to you???????
I've always said that our politicians have been spending too much, you guys that have your heads up at Obama's ass are always trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Oddball]

From your source:

These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level
Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Now that makes more sense, doesn't it?

Obama has expanded government? Funny how close the two graphs are...NOW what???

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

Changing the goal posts once your ass was handed to you???????
I've always said that our politicians have been spending too much, you guys that have your heads up at Obama's ass are always trying to defend the indefensibly.

You don't think those text bricks and pretty colored charts are there for nothing, do ya?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I don't agree...The current Democrat Party is self-maligning...They don't need anyone's help.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland wing of the Democrat Party?

Okay, so right after you said there is no connection between the current Democratic party and the conservative Southern Democrat party of yesteryear now you're saying there is.

Which is it? And stop being a fucking asshole about it.

I'm saying there's no correlation between the democrats of Grover Cleveland's day and the Marxist useful idiots infesting the Democrat Party today.....I'm saying that your party has been in the process of marginalizing and chasing out all the blue dogs like Scoop Jackson, still quite the 20th century progressive, because they're not Marxist enough for you.

That clear enough, dickweed?

You're complaining because the Democrats abandoned the segregationists.

Yeah that's clear.

 

[Bfgrn]

From your source:

These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level
Read more at Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama

Now that makes more sense, doesn't it?

Obama has expanded government? Funny how close the two graphs are...NOW what???

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

Changing the goal posts once your ass was handed to you???????
I've always said that our politicians have been spending too much, you guys that have your heads up at Obama's ass are always trying to defend the indefensible.

LOL...so typical of the ultra insecure right...faux victory laps...Can't read graphs? And BTW, state and local government workers are STILL government...

Actually, David Stockman, Saxby Chambliss and Charles Krauthammer handed your ass to you BIG time. Read it...own it. It is, in a nutshell how this nation went down the drain...It started with the worst president in my lifetime, Ronbo Reagan, the great American socialist who turned America into a 'welfare queen'. Democrats had been responsibly paying for what they spent, Ronbo said fuck that, we don't need to pay, let of kids and grand-kids pay for what we spend, we'll put it on the Beijing credit card.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Here is one more graph, and one more quote. Read it...own it.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

 

[Locke11_21]

The white southern shift to the GOP?

"We came for the segregation, but stayed for the Gays, Guns, and God."

yep. It's also gonna be about impossible to elect a black republican without ending the redistricting along racial lines. Any one who runs will be asked if they support ending it, and if they say yes, they probably can get elected, but they will face a lot of cat calls.

Seems like the left has a problem with Black republican public figures.
Uncle Toms
House Nigga
Aunt Jemima

Yes, yes, it's a republican thing....couldn't be a left, right thing.

Yep, the lefties sure do have a prob with it. From throwing Oreo cookies at then RNC Chair Michael Steele, and then who can forget radical left-wing racist lawyer Gloria Allfraud going after Herman Cain when he became a threat?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...and Robert Byrd.

'nuff said.

Robert Byrd is dead.

I think the example you were looking for is Zell Miller.

lol, how come the inmates here never want to talk about the old segregationist Democrat Zell Miller when this topic comes up??

He's the only good living example of the kind of villainous Southern Democrat you people are trying to associate with the modern Democratic Party.

Kind of ironic, eh? And messy, when you people step in it like that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

yep. It's also gonna be about impossible to elect a black republican without ending the redistricting along racial lines. Any one who runs will be asked if they support ending it, and if they say yes, they probably can get elected, but they will face a lot of cat calls.

Seems like the left has a problem with Black republican public figures.
Uncle Toms
House Nigga
Aunt Jemima

Yes, yes, it's a republican thing....couldn't be a left, right thing.

Yep, the lefties sure do have a prob with it. From throwing Oreo cookies at then RNC Chair Michael Steele, and then who can forget radical left-wing racist lawyer Gloria Allfraud going after Herman Cain when he became a threat?

Why do you want rightwing nuts like Herman Cain to dodge criticism by hiding behind their skin color?

That's the perfect example of the race card.

 

[asaratis]

Obama has expanded government? Funny how close the two graphs are...NOW what???

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

Changing the goal posts once your ass was handed to you???????
I've always said that our politicians have been spending too much, you guys that have your heads up at Obama's ass are always trying to defend the indefensible.

LOL...so typical of the ultra insecure right...faux victory laps...Can't read graphs? And BTW, state and local government workers are STILL government...

Actually, David Stockman, Saxby Chambliss and Charles Krauthammer handed your ass to you BIG time. Read it...own it. It is, in a nutshell how this nation went down the drain...It started with the worst president in my lifetime, Ronbo Reagan, the great American socialist who turned America into a 'welfare queen'. Democrats had been responsibly paying for what they spent, Ronbo said fuck that, we don't need to pay, let of kids and grand-kids pay for what we spend, we'll put it on the Beijing credit card.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Here is one more graph, and one more quote. Read it...own it.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

It works for you to stop the graph before Obama spent us up to the present debt. You graph would have to be twice as tall to do that.

Nice try.

Seems like the left has a problem with Black republican public figures.
Uncle Toms
House Nigga
Aunt Jemima

Yes, yes, it's a republican thing....couldn't be a left, right thing.

Yep, the lefties sure do have a prob with it. From throwing Oreo cookies at then RNC Chair Michael Steele, and then who can forget radical left-wing racist lawyer Gloria Allfraud going after Herman Cain when he became a threat?

Why do you want rightwing nuts like Herman Cain to dodge criticism by hiding behind their skin color?

That's the perfect example of the race card.

Why do you left wing nuts hide Obama's complete inadequacy behind the race card?

 

[Bfgrn]

Changing the goal posts once your ass was handed to you???????
I've always said that our politicians have been spending too much, you guys that have your heads up at Obama's ass are always trying to defend the indefensible.

LOL...so typical of the ultra insecure right...faux victory laps...Can't read graphs? And BTW, state and local government workers are STILL government...

Actually, David Stockman, Saxby Chambliss and Charles Krauthammer handed your ass to you BIG time. Read it...own it. It is, in a nutshell how this nation went down the drain...It started with the worst president in my lifetime, Ronbo Reagan, the great American socialist who turned America into a 'welfare queen'. Democrats had been responsibly paying for what they spent, Ronbo said fuck that, we don't need to pay, let of kids and grand-kids pay for what we spend, we'll put it on the Beijing credit card.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Here is one more graph, and one more quote. Read it...own it.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

It works for you to stop the graph before Obama spent us up to the present debt. You graph would have to be twice as tall to do that.

Nice try.

Yep, the lefties sure do have a prob with it. From throwing Oreo cookies at then RNC Chair Michael Steele, and then who can forget radical left-wing racist lawyer Gloria Allfraud going after Herman Cain when he became a threat?

Why do you want rightwing nuts like Herman Cain to dodge criticism by hiding behind their skin color?

That's the perfect example of the race card.

Why do you left wing nuts hide Obama's complete inadequacy behind the race card?

Here is how it works. If you are going to blame Obama for the rising debt, you need to provide the legislation, programs and spending that is his. Because when the economy goes down the drain, revenues plummet, spending skyrockets and the debt increases. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush, Republicans and Wall Street did.

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

 

[asaratis]

LOL...so typical of the ultra insecure right...faux victory laps...Can't read graphs? And BTW, state and local government workers are STILL government...

Actually, David Stockman, Saxby Chambliss and Charles Krauthammer handed your ass to you BIG time. Read it...own it. It is, in a nutshell how this nation went down the drain...It started with the worst president in my lifetime, Ronbo Reagan, the great American socialist who turned America into a 'welfare queen'. Democrats had been responsibly paying for what they spent, Ronbo said fuck that, we don't need to pay, let of kids and grand-kids pay for what we spend, we'll put it on the Beijing credit card.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Here is one more graph, and one more quote. Read it...own it.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

It works for you to stop the graph before Obama spent us up to the present debt. You graph would have to be twice as tall to do that.

Nice try.

Why do you want rightwing nuts like Herman Cain to dodge criticism by hiding behind their skin color?

That's the perfect example of the race card.

Why do you left wing nuts hide Obama's complete inadequacy behind the race card?

Here is how it works. If you are going to blame Obama for the rising debt, you need to provide the legislation, programs and spending that is his. Because when the economy goes down the drain, revenues plummet, spending skyrockets and the debt increases. Obama did not crash the economy, Bush, Republicans and Wall Street did.

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

That argument applies to all Presidents. If Obama is not responsible for debt accumulated under his watch, then neither is Bush or Reagan. The fact is, any one of them could have vetoed some spending bills.

Obama's goal is to spend us into bankruptcy...and he's doing a great job of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

There isn't one. When you ask, they have nothing. This is just a finger in the eye thread wrapped in false concerns. And when you tear away the pretty wrapping it's just a nasty ball of racist bullshit inside

Whether or not the discussion has addressed it, or referred to it, or pointed to it, the point of the OP should be crystal clear to anybody with an 8th grade education. Of course the point is extremely uncomfortable to those accommodating and perpetuating the concept the OP puts out there for us, so they quickly change the subject.

But it is unfortunate that the topic would be of disinterest to any U.S citizen whether or not they agree with the conclusion offered in the OP.

And yet once again, you are incapable of articulating that point in plain English, which it is fair to say indicates that there is, so far, no point to this topic from those who keep bringing it up.

Why?

The point is clear to me. But apparently nobody on the left is smart enough to see it. Or if they do see it, it is too uncomfortable for them to discuss honestly.

So they change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.

I understood the point quite well and did not see any reason that it needed to be repeated. I think PC articulated it quite well. Why is it so difficult for you and some others to see that?

Was it too complicated for you?

Would you like for me to put it into simpler terms?