Specter’s Party Switch Underscores Moderates Need To Fight For A Home in Republican P

[Tech_Esq]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

BTW- did any of you watch Spector on the Sunday morning news shows. He stated twice that he voted for legilation that he did not agree with. Maybe it was that so-called stimulus bill that he now regrets.

Spector is 79 years old he has been in there for 29 years, don't you think it would be time to retire? He is more about his personal ego than he is to represent the people of Pa.

IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM.

Reagan saved/bailed out the auto companies. Please don't say there was nothing moderate about the guy when it was him who did that and him who won Michigan's electorals.

PS. Did you like Reagan? I thought all politicians were scum? I thought there was no difference between the parties?

Reagan lent Chrysler $3 billion dollars. (well congress did). What other car company are you saying Congress lent money to?

 

[editec]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

Clinton had help Reagan didn't. Clinton had a group of Repubs in control of Congress that were still for fiscal conservatism and helped him achieve that goal. Reagan was forced to strike a Faustian bargain with Tip O'Neil that he could get his program through, but there would be no cuts in social spending.

In the end, it was something we could "afford" but not something the Soviets could. It caused them to crumble and strengthened us. That was the gambit and that was the mark of success. Any other measure simply doesn't take account of the times.

Certainly comparing POTUSs is fraught with problems arising from the fact that no president ever faces the same challenges and has the same congress to contend with, either.

the NEOcons who lay claim to Reagan as their model don't strike me as being so much as a pimple on Regans ass.

Reagan, despite my many reservations about him, was at least a patriotic American who, for better or worse, sought to strengthen America and keep her great.

I cannot say the same about the neocons. Frankly I think they hate American values, can't stand the idea that democracy plays some role in our fate.

They started out planning on ddestroying our nation fiscally and they've achieved their intended results.

What they did not plan on was this: after the abysmal outcomes of Bush II admin they didn't expect that the American people would vote in a POTUS who would then go all Keynesian on them in order to deal with the financial disaster that I honestly think was their agenda from the getgo.

They wanted,some of you will recall to make US government so small that you could drown it in a bucket.

They thought that once the American government was broke (and it basically is) that America would respond by drastically slashing social services.

Obviously that isn't happening.

 

[Iriemon]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

Clinton had help Reagan didn't. Clinton had a group of Repubs in control of Congress that were still for fiscal conservatism and helped him achieve that goal. Reagan was forced to strike a Faustian bargain with Tip O'Neil that he could get his program through, but there would be no cuts in social spending.

In the end, it was something we could "afford" but not something the Soviets could. It caused them to crumble and strengthened us. That was the gambit and that was the mark of success. Any other measure simply doesn't take account of the times.

When Clinton was elected the Dems had a majority in Congress, and that was how he was able to pass the tax increase which raised taxes from 31% to 40% - fllooding the Treasury with revenues that were the biggest reason for balancing the budget.

The Republicans effort to slash revenues were stymied by Clinton. They got their way in 2001, and the nation got a return to record deficits.

Reagan was helped out by "gypsy moth Dems" who voted for his budgets and tax cuts. I agree about the Dems having more influence -- Reagan could have chosen smaller government to go with his tax cuts, but he opted for the big government/miltary buildup course instead.

 

[Iriemon]

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

Clinton had help Reagan didn't. Clinton had a group of Repubs in control of Congress that were still for fiscal conservatism and helped him achieve that goal. Reagan was forced to strike a Faustian bargain with Tip O'Neil that he could get his program through, but there would be no cuts in social spending.

In the end, it was something we could "afford" but not something the Soviets could. It caused them to crumble and strengthened us. That was the gambit and that was the mark of success. Any other measure simply doesn't take account of the times.

Certainly comparing POTUSs is fraught with problems arising from the fact that no president ever faces the same challenges and has the same congress to contend with, either.

the NEOcons who lay claim to Reagan as their model don't strike me as being so much as a pimple on Regans ass.

Reagan, despite my many reservations about him, was at least a patriotic American who, for better or worse, sought to strengthen America and keep her great.

He was, and in addition to his powerful personality, a point often overlooked by Reagan whorsipers today is that he was ideologue but no zealot. He was pragmatic and flexible enough to change course when it was necessary or opportuntistic.

When his tax cuts slashed revenues he signed off on a number of tax increases. He called the SU the "evil empire" but was willing to meet with its leader, shake his hand, and talk to them about a better future.

Today's zealots wouldn't agree with either move.

I cannot say the same about the neocons. Frankly I think they hate American values, can't stand the idea that democracy plays some role in our fate.

They started out planning on ddestroying our nation fiscally and they've achieved their intended results.

What they did not plan on was this: after the abysmal outcomes of Bush II admin they didn't expect that the American people would vote in a POTUS who would then go all Keynesian on them in order to deal with the financial disaster that I honestly think was their agenda from the getgo.

They wanted,some of you will recall to make US government so small that you could drown it in a bucket.

They thought that once the American government was broke (and it basically is) that America would respond by drastically slashing social services.

Obviously that isn't happening.

That is a very interesting perspective -- the "starve the beast" theory. You see that quite a bit from conservatives nowdays, few of whom are unwilling to compromise one iota on something like taxes.

I think what they didn't count on was that the baby boomers would never vote for wholesale reduction of the benefits they are expecting to get in a very few years.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

Clinton had help Reagan didn't. Clinton had a group of Repubs in control of Congress that were still for fiscal conservatism and helped him achieve that goal. Reagan was forced to strike a Faustian bargain with Tip O'Neil that he could get his program through, but there would be no cuts in social spending.

In the end, it was something we could "afford" but not something the Soviets could. It caused them to crumble and strengthened us. That was the gambit and that was the mark of success. Any other measure simply doesn't take account of the times.

Certainly comparing POTUSs is fraught with problems arising from the fact that no president ever faces the same challenges and has the same congress to contend with, either.

the NEOcons who lay claim to Reagan as their model don't strike me as being so much as a pimple on Regans ass.

Reagan, despite my many reservations about him, was at least a patriotic American who, for better or worse, sought to strengthen America and keep her great.

I cannot say the same about the neocons. Frankly I think they hate American values, can't stand the idea that democracy plays some role in our fate.

They started out planning on ddestroying our nation fiscally and they've achieved their intended results.

What they did not plan on was this: after the abysmal outcomes of Bush II admin they didn't expect that the American people would vote in a POTUS who would then go all Keynesian on them in order to deal with the financial disaster that I honestly think was their agenda from the getgo.

They wanted,some of you will recall to make US government so small that you could drown it in a bucket.

They thought that once the American government was broke (and it basically is) that America would respond by drastically slashing social services.

Obviously that isn't happening.

I agree with the "comparing POTUSs" thought. I also agree that Neo-cons are bad in general. I'm not sure that what I understand about them and what you understand about them are the same. I'm not sure that what you state as their goals, were in fact their goals, but what I understand about them what unfavorable enough that I disagree with their agenda.

I don't think that most conservatives want to "drown government in a bathtub." I think most just to bring government back within Constitutional limits. Pre-Wicker, pre-Darby. Somehow this always gets characterized as anarchy. But, I fail to see that as a legitimate criticism of a legitimate desire for reasonably sized government.

 

[Red Dawn]

Back to the money answer for solving this suppression and purging problem of moderates in the Republican Party. Moderates need to set up a national organization within the Republican Party, call it the Moderate Republican Club

I think you're pipe dreaming.

I've heard this for the last 15 years, ever since the religious rightwing took over the GOP.

And the problem is the republican party has kept going further and further to the right. There used to be liberal republicans and moderate republicans before the 1980s. They are almost extinct. There's not enough you you left to form a coalition of moderates. Who's left in congress? Snowe and Collins? Maybe a tiny handful of Representatives? Gringrich, Tom Delay, Bush and Boss Limbaugh purged all the moderates.

And all you have to do is hang out on message boards to hear what the republican base is saying. That the party needs to get more rightwing, needs to torture more, needs to eliminate social services, and needs to have more wars.

 

[amrchaos]

An national organization for moderates in the Republican party?

There are several. But the biggest one is called "Main street Republicans".

They are centric to right of center type social conservatives.

 

[amrchaos]

Just remember Moderates are called liberals by conservatives and conservative by Liberals.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Just remember Moderates are called liberals by conservatives and conservative by Liberals.

And Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD this is precious... I LOVE this classic left-think disinformation ruse...

First, there is an ENDLESS list of Social Entitlements which must be "Adjusted" (read: Increased) every year by LAW... Clinton had an actual CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY that changed many of those laws; where Reagan was saddled with hard core spendthrift leftists... in both houses of congress; thus had no means to make any such changes.

Second, Reagan inherited a US military which was at readiness levels which had not been seen since pre-WW2... and given that the primary obligation of the Commander in Cheif is to secure a military with a high state of readiness... Reagan had little choice but to rebuild the US military from nearly the ground up... Everything from new rifles and sidearms, packs and personal field gear, resupply ordinance and fuel stores which were severely depleted; new parts for older equipment, which was still within it's service life, such as armor, trucks, jeeps, aircraft; new equipment in every category to replace equipment which was no longer within its service life; Ships, boats, Submarines, Fighter jets, helicopters... radio and computers... and of course, expanding the size of the US military to meet the known and anticipated threats of that day...

Third, Reagan spent his entire 8 years in office trying to get the left to cut spending... even going so far as to agree to raise taxes in his second term, on the condition that the Leftist congress cut spending: DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, against taxes raised... Of course the Leftists in congress raised taxes, but failed to cut one cent of spending.

And of course, they went to work pushing off ALL of the spending onto President Reagan; and as you can see by this member's point, they still are...

It's a JOKE...

With regard to the distinction in the rate of spending for Reagan and William the Bubba...

Reagan was saddled with a Leftist controlled legislature, Clinton an actual CONSERVATIVE Congress; a congress which actually CUT TENS OF BILLIONS in SOCIAL SPENDING... and of course Clinton slashed and burned the US Military....
.
.
.
.
which of course, forced GW Bush to spend money REBUILDING THAT TRAINWRECK; which the left wants to use as the same form of absurd example of 'spend thrift' expenditures...

It's the same old problem folks... Leftists believe that they're ENTITLED to your money... where Americans understand that they NOT entitled to your money, but that there ARE critical needs which stem from Constitutional MANDATES, such as the Defense of the US...

The left will never cut spending... it doesn't even matter to them that there is NOTHING TO SPEND... THEY SIMPLY PRINT MORE MONEY.

But they're idiots and sadly, that means that there is no means to convince them of the foolish calamity which they subject all of to, through their invalid reasoning and the policy which results from it... so until they start the looming SHOOTING War... we've little choice to belittle and berate them for their idiocy, store up the ammo and practice, practice, practice... in the mean time.

 

[amrchaos]

Just remember Moderates are called liberals by conservatives and conservative by Liberals.

And Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue

TYell me again, what are you defending liberty from??

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wow... well maybe you'll run down the list of GOP policy which you 'used to support'.


Let the record reflect the certainty that this member will not return to provide such a list, because she's never supported the GOP... she simply feels she needs to say she did, so as to promote the deception that the GOP is losing support from 'moderates.'

Here's the thing... IF 'moderates' are finding a majority status in the US... then the GOP is not served in any way by following this trend...

Fuck, you're an obnoxious idiot.

Wow... so you feel that questions regarding your sophistic assertions are a sign of idiocy...

So much for that whole rant regarding 'empiricists and the superiority of Social Science crapola... but this at least serves as evidence of the fact that "moderates' aren't moderate at all, only leftists, who lack the courage to commit.

I'm in a foul mood after having to deal with eots this evening, now I have to deal with the likes of you. Both of you are at about the same level.

Congrats EOTS, you've been declared an incontestable advocate of reason...

The Republican party used to support fiscal responsibility. Now it is the party of tax cuts at all costs.

Ahh... well there ya have it kids... Fiscal responsibility doesn't include 'moderating' the liability which the government sets upon the market... and the Moderates, of course, want to believe that there's a chance in hell that the left will EVER reduce spending to cure the deficit-SPENDING problem, thus they feel that the solution is to increase taxes to pay the bills. Let's try not to forget that the Deficit-Spending realized under the GOP simple majorities, were a function of MODERATE REPUBLICANS... So the notion that Moderate Republicans are what's needed to cure deficit-SPENDING rings as hollow as the notion that outright LEFTISM was the way to solve the problem.

The fact is that the would-be moderates BELIEVE IN THE 'MIXED Economy...' thus they want to continue the unjust practice of inducing invalid rights upon people to confiscate the product of one man's labor to subsidize the NEEDS of another... which is conclusive, incontestabe evidence that THEY ARE LEFTISTS... thus they NEED THOSE TAX INCREASES to PAY for what they believe are "FAIR" exchanges for 'government services'... they're just 'fees' which 'we' pay to get those services... which of course 'we' do not get and do not WANT, because 'we' do not acccept the concept that 'we' have a RIGHT to the PRODUCT OF ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR...

Any questions?

The Republican party used to be about limited government. Now it is the party of wire-tapping and torture.

Slick non sequitur... National security and sound policy to defend against secret associations of determined individuals that plot and execute attacks upon innocent people; that are otherwise unable to defend themselves from such attacks, has NOTHING to do with the SIZE of government. It has everything to do with the moral imperative of ferreting out those secret associations and crippling their means to murder massive numbers of innocent people...
And of course, no one in the GOP has sanctioned "Torture" as a means to such an end; you simply want to redefine sound techniques which induce stress upon those known to be associates in such groups who are being interrogated to cull critical, time sensitive information from them, which is necessary to spare innocent human life. It's the classic illustration of deception through specious sophistry.

The Republican party used to be about religious tolerance. Now it is the party of strident theologians, suffocating self-righteous moralists, people who think the world is 6000 years old and The Rapture crowd.

Wow... anyone getting some sign of 'religious tolerance' out of that?

It's hard to imagine how one who advances such clear intolerance of religion and religious principles, could be trying to lament the absence of religious tolerance through a position which advances pure intolerance of religion... Maybe you'll share that with us...

Here, let me start you off, with the classic position of Moderates on this particular issue:'Religious people have a right to their religious beliefs, as long as they confine the discussion and application of those ideas to their church and synogogues and KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES... The US Constitution specifically precludes religion and religious principles in government, in the 'Separation of Church and State clause...' Now take it from there and let those religious freaks REALLY know how ya feel about their spook show...

The Republican party used to be about national defense. Now it is the party of pre-emptive invasions.

Oh... Ok... So you're FOR National Defense, as long as we allow governments known for their longstanding use of terrorist proxies to continue to do so, even in the wake of ruinous attacks upon the US which cost the US economy a trillion dollars and killed 3000 innocent human beings...

This is the problem with PC terms and usage... When the US "Department of War" had it's name changed to the "Defense Department" the debate which preceded that change discussed the consequences of doing so; where those oppossed felt that such would lead people to believe that the US military would be relegated to ducking attacks and holding ground...

Iraq's former government was, in the wake of 9-11 an intolerable menace... it's gone and no longer stands as a threat to the US, her interests and allies.

This member, a self proclaimed "moderate" doesn't like that... but she's ALL ABOUT THE "National Defense" A real HAWK!
The Republican party used to be Barry Goldwater. Now its the party of Rush Limbaugh.

The Republican party used to be relevant. Now it is not.

Reagan's party was a big tent. Now it is a party of Small Tent Republicans.

No it wasn't... Reagan's philosophy simply drew Americans to it... which required a BIG TENT TO COVER ALL OF THEM...

Sadly the GOP has not had advanced Reagan's philosophy SINCE Reagan left office in 1989...

The GOP has steadily tried to out-democrat the Democrats... advancing one 'moderate' Republican after the next... which has had the effect which Reagan always said would be the case... where the GOP '...did not stand its ground and steadfastly and unapologetically defend the principles of Americanism... by following the Democrat Party to the left; the body politic of the nation as a whole would necessarily travel farther left; enticing the Republicans to follow right along with it; until that point where they failed to take a stand, is so far at their distant right that those few who remained there, keeping the light on, that the point which represents a vigilent defense of Americanisn, will be said to be that of the extremists...'

The fact is that the GOP is presently at the point where the Democrat Party was when Reagan noted that 'I didn't leave the Democrat party, the party left me...'

But President Reagan was a man steeped in common sense, so it serves reason that he understood these simple but immutable principles; which serves to explain why you do not.

Let the record reflect that this member was challenged to cite examples of REPUBLICAN POLICY which she stated that she formerly supported... and instead, lacking any such examples which could, even potentially, serve her deceitful interests, she returned to cite as vague a set of projections, in terms of broad philosophy as is possible, which she couldn't even muster the veracity to discuss within their proper context.

So sure, it's true that She's a Moderate; and its just as true that Moderates are the antithesis of Republicans and thus not well suited for membership in the Republican Party.

We, the Republicans; the advocates of AMERICANISM! want Moderates who are growing beyond the childishness of leftism to embrace the immutable principles of Americanism and join to follow us as we advance an unapologetic advocacy for those prinicples... but we will no longer follow the Moderates to the left or allow their membership to be used to coerce us to surrender those principles and move to the left in order to sustain your membership.

Anytime, there sis...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Just remember Moderates are called liberals by conservatives and conservative by Liberals.

And Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue

TYell me again, what are you defending liberty from??

The antithesis of Liberty... Left-think.

It's not all that complex...

 

[Iriemon]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD this is precious... I LOVE this classic left-think disinformation ruse...

First, there is an ENDLESS list of Social Entitlements which must be "Adjusted" (read: Increased) every year by LAW...

Second, Reagan inherited a US military which was at readiness levels which had not been seen since pre-WW2... and given that the primary obligation of the Commander in Cheif is to secure a military with a high state of readiness... Reagan had little choice but to rebuild the US military from nearly the ground up... Everything from new rifles and sidearms, packs and personal field gear, resupply ordinance and fuel stores which were severely depleted; new parts for older equipment, which was still within it's service life, such as armor, trucks, jeeps, aircraft; new equipment in every category to replace equipment which was no longer within its service life; Ships, boats, Submarines, Fighter jets, helicopters... radio and computers... and of course, expanding the size of the US military to meet the known and anticipated threats of that day...

Third, Reagan spent his entire 8 years in office trying to get the left to cut spending... even going so far as to agree to raise taxes in his second term, on the condition that the Leftist congress cut spending: DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, against taxes raised... Of course the Leftists in congress raised taxes, but failed to cut one cent of spending.

And of course, they went to work pushing off ALL of the spending onto President Reagan; and as you can see by this member's point, they still are...

It's a JOKE...

With regard to the distinction in the rate of spending for Reagan and William the Bubba...

Reagan was saddled with a Leftist controlled legislature, Clinton an actual CONSERVATIVE Congress; a congress which actually CUT TENS OF BILLIONS in SOCIAL SPENDING... and of course Clinton slashed and burned the US Military....
.
.
.
.
which of course, forced GW Bush to spend money REBUILDING THAT TRAINWRECK; which the left wants to use as the same form of absurd example of 'spend thrift' expenditures...

It's the same old problem folks... Leftists believe that they're ENTITLED to your money... where Americans understand that they NOT entitled to your money, but that there ARE critical needs which stem from Constitutional MANDATES, such as the Defense of the US...

The left will never cut spending... it doesn't even matter to them that there is NOTHING TO SPEND... THEY SIMPLY PRINT MORE MONEY.

But they're idiots and sadly, that means that there is no means to convince them of the foolish calamity which they subject all of to, through their invalid reasoning and the policy which results from it... so until they start the looming SHOOTING War... we've little choice to belittle and berate them for their idiocy, store up the ammo and practice, practice, practice... in the mean time.

LOL, "left-think disinformation ruse" supported by data from US Govt sources versus a page and a half of CONSERVATIVE blather supported by nothing but hot air.

Reagan only wanted less spending on people, he wanted more spending on military and star wars. Military spending under Reagan increased from $134B to $290B, the biggest increase in government spending during that time.

Conservatives say they want less spending until you talk about programs they like, then they change their colors and they are all for big time spending.

And we sure saw that "CONSERVATIVE Congress" in action when they got one of their own in the WH IN 2001 and the surplus Clinton left was turned into record deficits in a couple years. Spending exploded at levels that even made Reagan look moderate.

Used to be "CONSERVATIVE" on fiscal matters meant you ran a balanced budget. Now, as we can see from posts like PI's, its been bastardized to mean cut taxes, spend a shitload on the military, and charge it.

Sad how "conservatives" have changed.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Just remember Moderates are called liberals by conservatives and conservative by Liberals.

And Moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue

TYell me again, what are you defending liberty from??

Read my avatar. "Sic Semper Tyrannis" Thus always to tyrants!

It matters not from whence the tyranny comes. I could be wrong but it appears to me that uncontrolled statism is the clearest and most present threat to liberty at the moment. But regardless, it doesn't matter where the tyranny comes from.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD this is precious... I LOVE this classic left-think disinformation ruse...

First, there is an ENDLESS list of Social Entitlements which must be "Adjusted" (read: Increased) every year by LAW...

Second, Reagan inherited a US military which was at readiness levels which had not been seen since pre-WW2... and given that the primary obligation of the Commander in Cheif is to secure a military with a high state of readiness... Reagan had little choice but to rebuild the US military from nearly the ground up... Everything from new rifles and sidearms, packs and personal field gear, resupply ordinance and fuel stores which were severely depleted; new parts for older equipment, which was still within it's service life, such as armor, trucks, jeeps, aircraft; new equipment in every category to replace equipment which was no longer within its service life; Ships, boats, Submarines, Fighter jets, helicopters... radio and computers... and of course, expanding the size of the US military to meet the known and anticipated threats of that day...

Third, Reagan spent his entire 8 years in office trying to get the left to cut spending... even going so far as to agree to raise taxes in his second term, on the condition that the Leftist congress cut spending: DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, against taxes raised... Of course the Leftists in congress raised taxes, but failed to cut one cent of spending.

And of course, they went to work pushing off ALL of the spending onto President Reagan; and as you can see by this member's point, they still are...

It's a JOKE...

With regard to the distinction in the rate of spending for Reagan and William the Bubba...

Reagan was saddled with a Leftist controlled legislature, Clinton an actual CONSERVATIVE Congress; a congress which actually CUT TENS OF BILLIONS in SOCIAL SPENDING... and of course Clinton slashed and burned the US Military....
.
.
.
.
which of course, forced GW Bush to spend money REBUILDING THAT TRAINWRECK; which the left wants to use as the same form of absurd example of 'spend thrift' expenditures...

It's the same old problem folks... Leftists believe that they're ENTITLED to your money... where Americans understand that they NOT entitled to your money, but that there ARE critical needs which stem from Constitutional MANDATES, such as the Defense of the US...

The left will never cut spending... it doesn't even matter to them that there is NOTHING TO SPEND... THEY SIMPLY PRINT MORE MONEY.

But they're idiots and sadly, that means that there is no means to convince them of the foolish calamity which they subject all of to, through their invalid reasoning and the policy which results from it... so until they start the looming SHOOTING War... we've little choice to belittle and berate them for their idiocy, store up the ammo and practice, practice, practice... in the mean time.

LOL, "left-think disinformation ruse" supported by data from US Govt sources versus a page and a half of CONSERVATIVE blather supported by nothing but hot air.

We sure saw that "CONSERVATIVE Congress" in action when they got one of their own in the WH IN 2001 and the surplus Clinton left was turned into record deficits in a couple years.

Used to be "CONSERVATIVE" on fiscal matters meant you ran a balanced budget.

Now, as we can see from posts like PI's, its been bastardized to mean cut taxes, spend a shitload on the military, and charge it.

Sad how "conservatives" have changed.

Your lot has now officially forfeited the ability to complain about "charging it" You have set new records for spending money. Obama has done the impossible, he has made Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

$3.5 Trillion in one budget and counting. The Iraq war was only $700 billion.

 

[Iriemon]

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD this is precious... I LOVE this classic left-think disinformation ruse...

First, there is an ENDLESS list of Social Entitlements which must be "Adjusted" (read: Increased) every year by LAW...

Second, Reagan inherited a US military which was at readiness levels which had not been seen since pre-WW2... and given that the primary obligation of the Commander in Cheif is to secure a military with a high state of readiness... Reagan had little choice but to rebuild the US military from nearly the ground up... Everything from new rifles and sidearms, packs and personal field gear, resupply ordinance and fuel stores which were severely depleted; new parts for older equipment, which was still within it's service life, such as armor, trucks, jeeps, aircraft; new equipment in every category to replace equipment which was no longer within its service life; Ships, boats, Submarines, Fighter jets, helicopters... radio and computers... and of course, expanding the size of the US military to meet the known and anticipated threats of that day...

Third, Reagan spent his entire 8 years in office trying to get the left to cut spending... even going so far as to agree to raise taxes in his second term, on the condition that the Leftist congress cut spending: DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, against taxes raised... Of course the Leftists in congress raised taxes, but failed to cut one cent of spending.

And of course, they went to work pushing off ALL of the spending onto President Reagan; and as you can see by this member's point, they still are...

It's a JOKE...

With regard to the distinction in the rate of spending for Reagan and William the Bubba...

Reagan was saddled with a Leftist controlled legislature, Clinton an actual CONSERVATIVE Congress; a congress which actually CUT TENS OF BILLIONS in SOCIAL SPENDING... and of course Clinton slashed and burned the US Military....
.
.
.
.
which of course, forced GW Bush to spend money REBUILDING THAT TRAINWRECK; which the left wants to use as the same form of absurd example of 'spend thrift' expenditures...

It's the same old problem folks... Leftists believe that they're ENTITLED to your money... where Americans understand that they NOT entitled to your money, but that there ARE critical needs which stem from Constitutional MANDATES, such as the Defense of the US...

The left will never cut spending... it doesn't even matter to them that there is NOTHING TO SPEND... THEY SIMPLY PRINT MORE MONEY.

But they're idiots and sadly, that means that there is no means to convince them of the foolish calamity which they subject all of to, through their invalid reasoning and the policy which results from it... so until they start the looming SHOOTING War... we've little choice to belittle and berate them for their idiocy, store up the ammo and practice, practice, practice... in the mean time.

LOL, "left-think disinformation ruse" supported by data from US Govt sources versus a page and a half of CONSERVATIVE blather supported by nothing but hot air.

We sure saw that "CONSERVATIVE Congress" in action when they got one of their own in the WH IN 2001 and the surplus Clinton left was turned into record deficits in a couple years.

Used to be "CONSERVATIVE" on fiscal matters meant you ran a balanced budget.

Now, as we can see from posts like PI's, its been bastardized to mean cut taxes, spend a shitload on the military, and charge it.

Sad how "conservatives" have changed.

Your lot has now officially forfeited the ability to complain about "charging it" You have set new records for spending money. Obama has done the impossible, he has made Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

$3.5 Trillion in one budget and counting. The Iraq war was only $700 billion.

Most of the spending increase this year is to avoid a depression from happening in the financial disaster Obama inhereted.

But regardless of what he does, it doesn't excuse the "conservatives" taking a surplus and turning it into $5 trillion more debt in 8 years.

 

[Tech_Esq]

LOL, "left-think disinformation ruse" supported by data from US Govt sources versus a page and a half of CONSERVATIVE blather supported by nothing but hot air.

We sure saw that "CONSERVATIVE Congress" in action when they got one of their own in the WH IN 2001 and the surplus Clinton left was turned into record deficits in a couple years.

Used to be "CONSERVATIVE" on fiscal matters meant you ran a balanced budget.

Now, as we can see from posts like PI's, its been bastardized to mean cut taxes, spend a shitload on the military, and charge it.

Sad how "conservatives" have changed.

Your lot has now officially forfeited the ability to complain about "charging it" You have set new records for spending money. Obama has done the impossible, he has made Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

$3.5 Trillion in one budget and counting. The Iraq war was only $700 billion.

Most of the spending increase this year is to avoid a depression from happening in the financial disaster Obama inhereted.

But regardless of what he does, it doesn't excuse the "conservatives" taking a surplus and turning it into $5 trillion more debt in 8 years.

BS, there is no amount of money that he can spend that will avoid deepening this recession. In fact, if he continues to try, he will devastate the economy. This is the lesson of the depression. Attempt after attempt to throw money at problems that never resulted in unemployment less than 14%.

Obama is CHOOSING to spent 3.5 Trillion dollars in order to "avoid" the depression. That is a policy alternative he is choosing. It is not an objective fact that choosing this alternative will result in no depression or extended recession.

Nobody I've heard is making excuses for Bush's profligate spending. But, Obama is dead set on making whatever Bush spent look trivial by comparison.

 

[Iriemon]

Your lot has now officially forfeited the ability to complain about "charging it" You have set new records for spending money. Obama has done the impossible, he has made Bush look like a fiscal conservative.

$3.5 Trillion in one budget and counting. The Iraq war was only $700 billion.

Most of the spending increase this year is to avoid a depression from happening in the financial disaster Obama inhereted.

But regardless of what he does, it doesn't excuse the "conservatives" taking a surplus and turning it into $5 trillion more debt in 8 years.

BS, there is no amount of money that he can spend that will avoid deepening this recession.

That's BS. It's already prevented a complete collapse of the financial industry.

In fact, if he continues to try, he will devastate the economy. This is the lesson of the depression. Attempt after attempt to throw money at problems that never resulted in unemployment less than 14%.

You got the wrong lesson. The great depression only turned around after massive Govt intervention under FDR's new deal.

Obama is CHOOSING to spent 3.5 Trillion dollars in order to "avoid" the depression. That is a policy alternative he is choosing. It is not an objective fact that choosing this alternative will result in no depression or extended recession.

GDP fell 6% real annualized. Many banks and financial institutions have failed and many more would have but for the bail-out and the entire US automotive manufacturering industry is on the bring of extinction. It's enough objective fact for me.

Nobody I've heard is making excuses for Bush's profligate spending. But, Obama is dead set on making whatever Bush spent look trivial by comparison.

Funny, I heard people making excuses for Bush's deficits for 8 years.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Most of the spending increase this year is to avoid a depression from happening in the financial disaster Obama inhereted.

But regardless of what he does, it doesn't excuse the "conservatives" taking a surplus and turning it into $5 trillion more debt in 8 years.

BS, there is no amount of money that he can spend that will avoid deepening this recession.

That's BS. It's already prevented a complete collapse of the financial industry.



You got the wrong lesson. The great depression only turned around after massive Govt intervention under FDR's new deal.

Obama is CHOOSING to spent 3.5 Trillion dollars in order to "avoid" the depression. That is a policy alternative he is choosing. It is not an objective fact that choosing this alternative will result in no depression or extended recession.

GDP fell 6% real annualized. Many banks and financial institutions have failed and many more would have but for the bail-out and the entire US automotive manufacturering industry is on the bring of extinction. It's enough objective fact for me.

Nobody I've heard is making excuses for Bush's profligate spending. But, Obama is dead set on making whatever Bush spent look trivial by comparison.

Funny, I heard people making excuses for Bush's deficits for 8 years.

Keep believing the government can spend enough to turn around a recession. You'll see. You'll still be telling me how its working 4 years from now. There is only one way that government can turn this around, and that is to use the multiplier effect of private industry. Obama is not about to do that, so you'll get a nice front row seat to economic disaster.

You didn't hear me defending Bush for profligate spending, of course I was never a fan of Bush. I agreed with him where I thought the policies were right, but I was never a fan of his.