The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[Dad2three]

The truth is that Reagan dealt in good faith with low life democrats...members of the party of slavery...

Lesson for Fiscal Cliff negotiators The Reagan-O Neill tax hike

It was the summer of 1982. Like today, the president’s party controlled the Senate, while the party in opposition controlled only the House. Like today, the overriding public concern was about rising deficits and debt. At the time, Reagan’s signature economic recovery program to cut tax rates across the board (passed in 1981) was still being implemented. But unemployment was reaching well over 10 percent and deficit projections were ballooning. Something had to be done.

Reagan and the Republicans wanted to cut spending. O’Neill and the Democrats were insisting on raising taxes and especially raising tax rates. It had all the makings of the same kind of stalemate that exists in Washington today.

After weeks of wrangling, O’Neill and the Democrats would not budge on their insistence that raising taxes had to be part of the final deal. To make it more palatable for Reagan, O’Neill offered a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. On that basis — that the deal, on paper, was designed to result in a net shrinking of government — Reagan and enough Republicans signed on, over the strong objections of many anti-tax conservatives in the Republican ranks.

Thus was concluded the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), signed into law in September 1982. In hindsight, Reagan came to see the deal as one of the biggest domestic errors of his presidency. The tax increases went into effect immediately but as Reagan wrote in his memoirs, “later the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts,” so there was no shrinking in the size of government, and no taming of the deficit.

A few of the more important lessons learned:

The O’Neill-Reagan Lovefest: The deal helped perpetuate a myth that Speaker O’Neill and President Reagan had transcended the kind of rancorous personal animosity that seems to characterize today’s overly polarized atmosphere in Washington. After this bipartisan ’82 deal and a subsequent ’83 deal on Social Security reform, O’Neill had no hesitation to let forth this blast during the ’84 campaign: “The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care or concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.”

Never, ever trust a democrat...they will lie and then stab you in the back...

Got it, You can't be honest and look to the non partisan factchecker at WaPo that gave your HumanEvents article Four Pinocchios

“In 1982, Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats and they had a deal — a $3 cut in spending for every dollar they raised in taxes. Guess what? They raised the taxes, and they never cut the spending.”

— oft-repeated story told in Washington during “fiscal cliff” negotiations

It had become an article of faith by conservatives that President Reagan reluctantly agreed to raise taxes in his first term in office — and that Congress then failed to follow though on promised spending cuts. The frequent recitation of this story during the current fiscal debate made us wonder: What actually happened three decades ago?

It’s not hard to find the source of this story — Reagan’s own memoir


Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.

The historical myth that Reagan raised 1 of taxes in exchange for 3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post

 

[2aguy]

See, the problem in this argument is that the democrats have to at the same time, hide their history of slavery, hide their current agenda of enslaving all Americans, and then smear Modern Conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party members as everything the democrats actually are...it is called "projection" in Psychological terms...but it is also a political strategy to achieve their goals...

See, conservative, as they use it as a smear, is the democrat south slave holders who were trying to "conserve" their ability to own other human beings....and they are using the word conservative to smear modern Republican/libertarian/Tea Party members with that definition...which they imply...just read these threads...because if you use their definition of conservative...then the obamas and clintons are conservative in that they want to control all Americans...just not only black Americans...thus making them "conservatives." in the way the democrats in this thread want to use the term...

The "modern" Conservatives...found in the Republican/ Libertarian/Tea Parties....mean "conserve" in the sense that they want to "conserve" the founding principals of this country as written down in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...that ALL men/women, are created equal with certain INALIENABLE rights...as were the Republicans who fought the democrats in the Civil war, who fought the democrat ku klux klan and the democrat mobs who fought to keep jim crow laws...

So, the democrats are again trying a new magic trick...to change the meaning of Modern Conservative...to the old meaning...the preservation of the institutions of slavery...

And as you can see...the two definitions couldn't be farther apart...and the democrats embrace the slavery definition of "Conservative."

 

[2aguy]

Oh yes...let's all just trust the Washington post for the truth...

 

[Rikurzhen]

as long as said business' doesn't use any of the tax payer-financed infrastructure such as roads, utilities, interstates, airports etc...then have at it but that won't work, because it would tie the courts in knots, but you know that right @boedicca ?

Let's pass a law that in order to use roads and airports that you have to attend a Catholic Church for Sunday mass.

You can still have complete freedom of religion but if you exercise your right then you can't use publicly funded infrastructure. A condition of using publicly funded infrastructure is that you be baptized as Catholic, attend confession and mass and government agents will be at all Catholic Churches on Sunday morning to insure you follow the law.

Sound good?

 

[2aguy]

And the Washington post...

The Washington Post - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In the mid-1970s, conservatives called the newspaper "Pravda on the Potomac" because of its perceived left-wing bias in both reporting and editorials.

Deborah Howell wrote: "The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama."[55] According to a 2009 publication, in the blogging community, liberal bloggers link to the Washington Post and New York Times more often than other major newspapers; however, conservative bloggers also link predominantly to liberal newspapers.[56]

I like this part....

however, conservative bloggers also link predominantly to liberal newspapers.[56]

Because almost all newspapers are liberal...hard not to link to them...

 

[OnePercenter]

Just ran across this you need proof.

SNIP:

Politico Runs Story On GOP And Race, Uses Pic Of Democrat George Wallace…
Well done, Politico.

Story here…
HT: Instapundit
151 92 54 2
ZIP | September 30, 2014 6:28 pm

from:
Politico Runs Story On GOP And Race Uses Pic Of Democrat George Wallace 8230 Weasel Zippers

Nice try. The story is titled: Race and the Modern GOP. George Wallace IS the modern GOP.

 

[2aguy]

George Wallace IS the modern GOP.

wallace is the old democrat and obama, and the clintons are the new democrat party...not just enslaving black Americans, but trying to enslave all Americans...wallace would be proud...

 

[Dad2three]

Oh yes...let's all just trust the Washington post for the truth...

No, DON'T use critical thinking and honesty, just go by what conservatives say, without TRUTH on their side. Done Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

And the Washington post...

The Washington Post - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In the mid-1970s, conservatives called the newspaper "Pravda on the Potomac" because of its perceived left-wing bias in both reporting and editorials.

Deborah Howell wrote: "The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama."[55] According to a 2009 publication, in the blogging community, liberal bloggers link to the Washington Post and New York Times more often than other major newspapers; however, conservative bloggers also link predominantly to liberal newspapers.[56]

I like this part....

however, conservative bloggers also link predominantly to liberal newspapers.[56]

Because almost all newspapers are liberal...hard not to link to them...

TRY to critically think and be honest just once Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

See, the problem in this argument is that the democrats have to at the same time, hide their history of slavery, hide their current agenda of enslaving all Americans, and then smear Modern Conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party members as everything the democrats actually are...it is called "projection" in Psychological terms...but it is also a political strategy to achieve their goals...

See, conservative, as they use it as a smear, is the democrat south slave holders who were trying to "conserve" their ability to own other human beings....and they are using the word conservative to smear modern Republican/libertarian/Tea Party members with that definition...which they imply...just read these threads...because if you use their definition of conservative...then the obamas and clintons are conservative in that they want to control all Americans...just not only black Americans...thus making them "conservatives." in the way the democrats in this thread want to use the term...

The "modern" Conservatives...found in the Republican/ Libertarian/Tea Parties....mean "conserve" in the sense that they want to "conserve" the founding principals of this country as written down in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...that ALL men/women, are created equal with certain INALIENABLE rights...as were the Republicans who fought the democrats in the Civil war, who fought the democrat ku klux klan and the democrat mobs who fought to keep jim crow laws...

So, the democrats are again trying a new magic trick...to change the meaning of Modern Conservative...to the old meaning...the preservation of the institutions of slavery...

And as you can see...the two definitions couldn't be farther apart...and the democrats embrace the slavery definition of "Conservative."

Weird you don't know the Dems and Repugs switched places several times the past 150+ years. Why conflate Dems with CONSERVATIVES who fought FOR slavery and AGAINST civil rights? You know who the liberals/progressives stood with right? lol

 

[OnePercenter]

The intended consumers of that article, left wingers, are more impressed by pictures than by words.

Is that why the right is Photoshopping the picture over-and-over?

The title of the article is: Race and the Modern GOP. George Wallace IS the modern GOP.

 

[2aguy]

liberals/progressives stood with right? lol

well, lenin first, then stalin and hitler...till they fell out, then just stalin, then mao when he became fashionable...then castro and che and pol pot...a great bunch of enslavers there...with a combined murder rate of about 100 million innocent people...the progressives still haven't learned...as evidenced here in these threads...

 

[2aguy]

Bubba!

Hmmm...that would imply you think I am a southern, racist democrat...sorry, I am a midwestern conservative who believes in the Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights...for all men and women regardless of race, creed or color, or choice of television show, or dietary habits...clothing style...

 

[Dad2three]

liberals/progressives stood with right? lol

well, lenin first, then stalin and hitler...till they fell out, then just stalin, then mao when he became fashionable...then castro and che and pol pot...a great bunch of enslavers there...with a combined murder rate of about 100 million innocent people...the progressives still haven't learned...as evidenced here in these threads...

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[2aguy]

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it

You have just described every liberal/progressive/democrat/socialist mass murderer...again...trying to "project" how they act on innocent people...there are people who can help with that malady...

 

[Dad2three]

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it

You have just described every liberal/progressive/democrat/socialist mass murderer...again...trying to "project" how they act on innocent people...there are people who can help with that malady...

Yeah, liberals/progressives are right wingers *shaking head*

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...here is the whole story...by John J. Ray...read it, learn it...live it...

FrontPage Magazine - The Psychology Underlying Liberalism

So what are Rightists?

The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).

A Conservative Revolution

And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed — liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals — ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries!

So right back in the 17th century we had the apparent paradox of "conservatives" (the parliamentary leaders — later to be referred to as "Whigs") being prepared to undertake most radical change (deposing monarchy) in order to restore treasured traditional rights and liberties and to rein in overweening governmental power. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not at all breakaways from the conservatism of the past. They had very early and even more determined predecessors. Nobody who knew history should have been surprised by the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution". And it was in deliberate tribute to the parliamentarians of Cromwell's day and their immediate successors that two of the most influential conservative theorists prior to Reagan and Thatcher both described themselves as "Old Whigs" — Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944). Hayek described Whig ideals as "the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power" (Hayek, 1960).

Treasured rights and liberties...the enemies of the left...


This is a great paper on the left/right myth making that goes on...by the left...

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah...here is the whole story...by John J. Ray...read it, learn it...live it...

FrontPage Magazine - The Psychology Underlying Liberalism

Altemeyer's research on authoritarianism has been challenged by psychologist John J. Ray, who questions the sampling methods used and the ability of the RWA Scale to predict authoritarian behavior and provides evidence that the RWA scale measures conservatism rather than "directiveness", a construct that John J. Ray invented and that he relates to authoritarianism. Ray's approach is, however, a minority position among researchers and other psychologists have found that both the RWA Scale and the original F-Scale are good predictors of both attitudes and behavior

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[OnePercenter]

George Wallace IS the modern GOP.

wallace is the old democrat and obama, and the clintons are the new democrat party...not just enslaving black Americans, but trying to enslave all Americans...wallace would be proud...

Oh please. Republicans and their supporters, Corporate America and Wall Street have done more to hurt minorities as well as working class Americas in the last 45 years than the 'old Democrats' in the previous 200.

We'll take it from the top.

Japan product dumping - Nixon
The fake gasoline shortage - Corporate America
The S&L Crises and deregulating derivatives - Phil Gramm (R)
Deregulating the HMO act - Reagan
Eleven tax increases directly on the middle class - Reagan
Two Wall Street crashes - Wall Street

Grow-up or wake-up, the Koch Brothers where you get your information from are not your friends.

 

[OnePercenter]

Bubba!

Hmmm...that would imply you think I am a southern, racist democrat...sorry, I am a midwestern conservative who believes in the Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights...for all men and women regardless of race, creed or color, or choice of television show, or dietary habits...clothing style...

Urban Dictionary bubba

So you're a middle class conservative. You do know that means miserly cheap.