The damage done by the New Partisans

[Marxist]

You have to go deeper than that. It is in the electorate. The system is irrelevant as well when the people no longer tend to it.

You do have a point there. Millions of Americans pay no attention, but this has always been the case.

It could be that since the power elite are invested in dividing those of us willing to pay attention, they could be the true culprit. If we did not allow them to divide us, things would be much improved.

Yeah, it's both, guys.

The system is the problem, and we could change it if we cared enough.

Chicken or the egg.

.

Fair enough.
I just think that no matter how perfect a system might be it will fail if people do not maintain it but if the people care any system will work.

That might be the very problem with democratic societies – it assumes incorrectly that people will watch and control their government. It is people’s nature to be lazy about a system that is working.

Sure. A system has two large potential fatal flaws: The fact that it was created by humans and the fact that humans must implement it.

Personally, I think the American system worked too well. Its various successes ultimately created a society of people who are too bored and soft to give a shit.

That environment then opens the door to those who will say, "well, okay, if you don't give a shit, I'll take care of stuff for you. Just relax, feel good about yourselves, don't worry about me".

.

I agree with that
whole heartedly. We were enormously successful and as a result people have completely forgotten that they have a responsibility to keep the government in check. These days many cannot even name the thr3ee branches of government, their purpose or who their representative actually is. The REALY pathetic part is that damn near everyone can name more of their teams players than the people that govern their lives.

Yeah, great success with 2008

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes. Great success. We are a fraction of the world’s population yet control the largest wealth and power in the world. We live mostly free and have little worry compared to the vast majority of the planet. This was achieved in 200 short years. America has been very successful. Recessions have nothing to do with this comment.

 

[Iceweasel]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

 

[FA_Q2]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

 

[Iceweasel]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

I will say that liberals are more vicious and far less tolerant. I've had liberal friends "unfriend" me after being upset at my posts. One didn't like my post in support of Herman Cain. They are such big babies that they can't tolerate seeing something they disagree with posted on Facebook, so they must delete all those with opposing views

WOW!...So let me get this straight...liberals are less tolerant of your conservative views than conservatives are.

Is your last name Einstein or something?

 

[Bfgrn]

The GOP is a statist party and always has been. The entire leadership are statists. Not unlike the D party.

Both parties deficit spend, expand the power of government, and promote foreign interventions around the world. Both do the bidding of the wealthy, big corps, and Wall Street.

There are differences, but they are slight. Yet millions of Americans hate one or the other party, when in reality there is little difference.

For starters, during his first year in office Reagan cut domestic programs by 39 billion. Get a little knowledge before you post. Don't be afraid, your brain won't explode.

What programs did he cut? A LIST???

 

[Agit8r]

This began with Democrats, of course. I could tick off examples of Democrats demonizing Republicans for the last 10 years and exhaust the server space on this forum. We have never seen the level of lying and vitriol against Democrats by the GOP that we saw in, say, Alan Grayson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" speech on healthcare.
And Dems arent trustworthy in the least. Bush wanted the No Child Left Behind act passed. He left it up to Ted Kennedy to write. Kennedy wrote it and then denounced it on the floor of the Senate as being not generous enough.
You cannot work with people like that. You can only destroy them in every possible way. Democrats are the ISIS of the political scene.

Wow. Delusional much. Democrats lie, but Republicans lie about every single issue. They aren't even honest about what they stand for. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but all they do is religion and war.

 

[Bfgrn]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

 

[bripat9643]

This began with Democrats, of course. I could tick off examples of Democrats demonizing Republicans for the last 10 years and exhaust the server space on this forum. We have never seen the level of lying and vitriol against Democrats by the GOP that we saw in, say, Alan Grayson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" speech on healthcare.
And Dems arent trustworthy in the least. Bush wanted the No Child Left Behind act passed. He left it up to Ted Kennedy to write. Kennedy wrote it and then denounced it on the floor of the Senate as being not generous enough.
You cannot work with people like that. You can only destroy them in every possible way. Democrats are the ISIS of the political scene.

Wow. Delusional much. Democrats lie, but Republicans lie about every single issue. They aren't even honest about what they stand for. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but all they do is religion and war.

 

[bripat9643]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

 

[Agit8r]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

That isn't entirely true:

Here is every previous government shutdown why they happened and how they ended - The Washington Post

 

[bripat9643]

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

That isn't entirely true:

Here is every previous government shutdown why they happened and how they ended - The Washington Post

Yeah, it's not entirely true, but it's mostly true.

 

[Agit8r]

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

That isn't entirely true:

Here is every previous government shutdown why they happened and how they ended - The Washington Post

Yeah, it's not entirely true, but it's mostly true.

Other than the initial Reagan shutdown, the disagreements were mostly about spending priorities, rather than deficit size. For example, a couple times he wanted more missiles, while congress wanted more aid for Israel than he did.

 

[bripat9643]

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."
Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

That isn't entirely true:

Here is every previous government shutdown why they happened and how they ended - The Washington Post

Yeah, it's not entirely true, but it's mostly true.

Other than the initial Reagan shutdown, the disagreements were mostly about spending priorities, rather than deficit size. For example, a couple times he wanted more missiles, while congress wanted more aid for Israel than he did.

The spending mentioned was only a small portion of the spending in dispute.

 

[The Rabbi]

This began with Democrats, of course. I could tick off examples of Democrats demonizing Republicans for the last 10 years and exhaust the server space on this forum. We have never seen the level of lying and vitriol against Democrats by the GOP that we saw in, say, Alan Grayson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" speech on healthcare.
And Dems arent trustworthy in the least. Bush wanted the No Child Left Behind act passed. He left it up to Ted Kennedy to write. Kennedy wrote it and then denounced it on the floor of the Senate as being not generous enough.
You cannot work with people like that. You can only destroy them in every possible way. Democrats are the ISIS of the political scene.

Wow. Delusional much. Democrats lie, but Republicans lie about every single issue. They aren't even honest about what they stand for. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but all they do is religion and war.

Sure thing, Sparky.

 

[The Rabbi]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Yes, the Reagan recovery was caused by Volker
The overthrow of the Soviet Union came from the Pope.
Reagan was just a senile actor.
LOL! The Left is so desperate they say the stupidest things.

 

[The Rabbi]

He raised spending year over year over year. Not a single year was marked with an actual decrease. Why is it suddenly okay to shift government largess from domestic interests to foreign ones?
I give him credit for his part in taking down the USSR but he certainly did not decrease government largess.

He gets the blame for all the spending?

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG REAGANOMICS
In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

• 20 million new jobs were created
• Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
• Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
• Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
• Real gross national product rose 26%
• The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”

You post addresses a lot of things – none of which was the simple fact that spending and government largess increased under Regan.

Did you speed read?

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."

I never stated Ragan was a ‘bad’ president or that his tax cuts were not beneficial – points you seem to want to make. Just the fact that he increased government.

And yes, he is responsible for anything he signed just as Obama is responsible for anything he signs. I understand that the congress is ALSO responsible for the state of the government but that in no way diminishes the presidents accountability. In fact, the president is also responsible for being an arbiter with the congressional divide to get real legislation passed – something that Ragan was good at and Obama falls flat on his ass over.

Reagan did not get the reduction in spending from the Dems but had to play their game to keep kicking the Ruskie's nuts.

The Reagan recovery can be explained in one word...VOLKER

Reagan did NOT reduce spending...and...

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.

So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

You chart is bullshit. Every budget Reagan submitted was declared "dead on arrival" by Tip O'Neil because it didn't have enough social spending. Then Congress proceeded to lard it up with additional social spending. The result was far more spending than Reagan had asked for. Reagan even shut the government down several times to force Congress to cut some of the spending.

Facts dont matter to liberals.

 

[gipper]

This began with Democrats, of course. I could tick off examples of Democrats demonizing Republicans for the last 10 years and exhaust the server space on this forum. We have never seen the level of lying and vitriol against Democrats by the GOP that we saw in, say, Alan Grayson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" speech on healthcare.
And Dems arent trustworthy in the least. Bush wanted the No Child Left Behind act passed. He left it up to Ted Kennedy to write. Kennedy wrote it and then denounced it on the floor of the Senate as being not generous enough.
You cannot work with people like that. You can only destroy them in every possible way. Democrats are the ISIS of the political scene.

Wow. Delusional much. Democrats lie, but Republicans lie about every single issue. They aren't even honest about what they stand for. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but all they do is religion and war.

And yet you probably think the two parties are vastly different.

 

[Agit8r]

This began with Democrats, of course. I could tick off examples of Democrats demonizing Republicans for the last 10 years and exhaust the server space on this forum. We have never seen the level of lying and vitriol against Democrats by the GOP that we saw in, say, Alan Grayson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" speech on healthcare.
And Dems arent trustworthy in the least. Bush wanted the No Child Left Behind act passed. He left it up to Ted Kennedy to write. Kennedy wrote it and then denounced it on the floor of the Senate as being not generous enough.
You cannot work with people like that. You can only destroy them in every possible way. Democrats are the ISIS of the political scene.

Wow. Delusional much. Democrats lie, but Republicans lie about every single issue. They aren't even honest about what they stand for. They say they are for fiscal responsibility, but all they do is religion and war.

And yet you probably think the two parties are vastly different.

They are not different enough, I'll give you that.