Bobby Jindal failed.

[CrespoBlows]

Fucking enough.

No more fake folksy politicians. The party needs to purge itself of the Bush virus. Why are they picking a guy that is a walking clone of Bush? This guy would get humilated in an election. Same with his female counterpart in Sarah Palin. They're going to run together. It's going to be an embarrassment.

[BoSox21]

He looked like such a tool in that republican response thing

[CrespoBlows]

Definitely not Jindal's best format. Even considering that, he was still really bad.

I mean, was anyone impressed with those two stories he told at the beginning? That would have wowed a room full of elementary school students, or residents of rural Louisiana.

[CrespoBlows]

Bill Kristol and the Fox News gang, picks for leaders of the GOP - Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Michael Steele.

Wow. Fail.

[a700hitter]

Bill Kristol and the Fox News gang, picks for leaders of the GOP - Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Michael Steele.

Wow. Fail.It may not matter who runs in 2012. The Obama budget proposal called the "ERA of Responsibility" could crush investment capital and it will risk the collapse of the dollar. If that happens, it won't matter if Porky Pig runs against Obama.

[CrespoBlows]

It may not matter who runs in 2012. The Obama budget proposal called the "ERA of Responsibility" could crush investment capital and it will risk the collapse of the dollar. If that happens, it won't matter if Porky Pig runs against Obama.

I'm not sure that people would embrace anyone that has been tainted by Bush, or the failed campaign of McCain.

The Republican party needs a brand new image. A total overhaul from the Bush era. The wars will probably be over, unless there is an escalation in Afghanistan, which would kill what is left of Obama's credibility. Republicans can forget about campaigning on being tough on terrorism, because the country is tired of war. The main issue in 2012 will be the economy. That being said, the Republicans should give Ron Paul the nomination, because he actually knows what monetary policy is, and has actually has the track record to back up what he says. I'm not convinced the Republicans would ever nominate a Libertarian to be their candidate, so another candidate who could get the nomination would be Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. He is much more socially conservative than Ron Paul, which would satisfy the Christian Right. Then again, the Christian Right will blindly vote for anyone who is pro-life, and Paul is that. They might overlook legalized marijuana, and more tolerant moral values, in exchange for that.

[schillingouttheks]

Won't Paul be 77 in 2012? I like him a lot too, but if people were complaining about McCain's age, I can only imagine what they would be doing to Paul's.

That said, it wouldn't make a difference to me. I'd vote for him anyway.

[CrespoBlows]

Won't Paul be 77 in 2012? I like him a lot too, but if people were complaining about McCain's age, I can only imagine what they would be doing to Paul's.

That said, it wouldn't make a difference to me. I'd vote for him anyway.

The health risks associated with McCain (being senile, cancer survivor) are far greater than those of Ron Paul. (being old)

Plus, the risk of voting for McCain became far greater when his VP decided to opine on foreign policy.

[RedSoxRooter]

The wars will probably be over, unless there is an escalation in Afghanistan, which would kill what is left of Obama's credibility.

I love how Obama's credibility is almost gone after 2 months in office. :lol:

Someone needs to explain this to me. If Obama accomplishes just half of what he wants to do, and does it in 8 years instead of 4, why would anyone vote Republican ever again? Do people really want the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer? Do people really not want universal health care? Do we not want a better education system and electric cars? Seriously.

As an independent voter, I have a hard time believing that any party will come up with a more attractive option to challenge Obama in the 2012 elections. Obama will also get what I referred to in 2004 as the "Let's see how he gets out of this vote". I voted for Bush in 04 because A.) He was the better candidate that year and B.) I wanted to see how he was going to dig himself out of the massive hole he was creating. Plus he was doofy in an amusing way.

Turns out he never even cared to undo the shit storm he created and his doofyness became unwatchable. Point being, I think Obama will get that benefit of the doubt for a lot of reason in 2012. He should easily be a 2 term president, and if he does anything in his second term at all, I don't see a Republican in the white house again till at least 2020.

And newsflash to Republicans: People blame the GOP for this recession. Fair or not, the Republicans are being blamed for the whole thing. And since it will probably pass by in the next 8-10 years, Dems will probably be given credit for the recovery. That's just the way it is.

So worrying about who will be the Republican rep in 2012 is a colossal waste of time IMO. I do respect the fact that you are so loyal to a particular party, I just don't think that's the wisest way to vote though. You should always pick the better candidate first.

[Teddyballgame10]

I'm not sure that people would embrace anyone that has been tainted by Bush, or the failed campaign of McCain.

The Republican party needs a brand new image. A total overhaul from the Bush era. The wars will probably be over, unless there is an escalation in Afghanistan, which would kill what is left of Obama's credibility. Republicans can forget about campaigning on being tough on terrorism, because the country is tired of war. The main issue in 2012 will be the economy. That being said, the Republicans should give Ron Paul the nomination, because he actually knows what monetary policy is, and has actually has the track record to back up what he says. I'm not convinced the Republicans would ever nominate a Libertarian to be their candidate, so another candidate who could get the nomination would be Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. He is much more socially conservative than Ron Paul, which would satisfy the Christian Right. Then again, the Christian Right will blindly vote for anyone who is pro-life, and Paul is that. They might overlook legalized marijuana, and more tolerant moral values, in exchange for that.

I wouldnt be so sure that the war Afghanistan war will be over by 2012. I love Ron Paul and would vote for him but he'll be 77 by 2012 so I dont think he will. I believe Mitt Romney is that man for the GOP. Jindal is an idiot. Republicans can always say they will be tough on terrorism because terrorism is never going away. People of our generation are never going to forget 9-11-01.

[a700hitter]

Do people really want the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer?Are you really such a simpleton? If you started a business and built it into a successful business with your own labor, do you think it is right for the government to confiscate the fruits of your labor to give it to someone who never made the effort to start a business? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to build a successful business? How do you feel about the government paying off the mortgage note of your neighbor who bought a home that he clearly could not afford when you had to work hard to earn the money to pay off the mortgage on your home? Is that fairness? Does that help instill the value of hard work?


Do people really not want universal health care?Do you realize that a single payer system will have to ration care? Do you realize that there is a 12 week wait for many life saving treatments in Canada? Do you want a government bureaucrat deciding that you are too old for a life saving procedure? I don't.


Do we not want a better education system.What is Obama's plan for improving education? More funding? How well has that worked throughout the last 40 years? Why will it work this time?


and electric cars?I don't want to drive a pussy golf cart.


And newsflash to Republicans: People blame the GOP for this recession. Fair or not, the Republicans are being blamed for the whole thing. And since it will probably pass by in the next 8-10 years, Dems will probably be given credit for the recovery. That's just the way it is.The country blamed Vietnam on LBJ, but in a couple of years it became Nixon's war even though the troop levels were being drawn down. The longest recession since the Depression has lasted something like 18 months. If this economy gets worse and unemployment continues to get worse throughout his first term, Obama will get the blame for not turning things around.

[CrespoBlows]

I love how Obama's credibility is almost gone after 2 months in office. :lol:

The comment you quoted is based on assumption. If there is an escalation in Afghanistan, then the anti-war candidate will suffer a mark against his reputation. You also believe that the stimulus package will work. I do not share that belief. If economic law prevails, then the President will have to explain why his plan failed, and why the economy is still struggling. Those will be the blows against his credibility. They haven't happened yet. Iraq is another problem. A lot of people cast their votes for Obama under the assumption that he would end the war in Iraq. Did they think he planned on keeping 50,000 troops there?



Someone needs to explain this to me. If Obama accomplishes just half of what he wants to do, and does it in 8 years instead of 4, why would anyone vote Republican ever again? Do people really not want universal health care?

As far as I know, Obama does not have universal health care on his agenda. Clinton did, but not Obama. And no, I do not support universal health care.


Do people really want the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer?

Allowing the Federal Reserve to print trillions of new dollars is the fastest way to achieve this goal. Why aren't you opposed to this?


Do we not want a better education system and electric cars? Seriously.

A better education and government running it is an oxymoron. Have you seen the state of our schools? You want more government control in this area?

BTW, is the government going to give me an electric car? How do they do this? Are you advocating the nationalization of the auto industry?



As an independent voter, I have a hard time believing that any party will come up with a more attractive option to challenge Obama in the 2012 elections. Obama will also get what I referred to in 2004 as the "Let's see how he gets out of this vote". I voted for Bush in 04 because A.) He was the better candidate that year and B.) I wanted to see how he was going to dig himself out of the massive hole he was creating. Plus he was doofy in an amusing way. Turns out he never even cared to undo the shit storm he created and his doofyness became unwatchable. Point being, I think Obama will get that benefit of the doubt for a lot of reason in 2012. He should easily be a 2 term president, and if he does anything in his second term at all, I don't see a Republican in the white house again till at least 2020.

This all hinges on the economy recovering, and it recovering in four years. If the stimulus plan fails, candidates with different ideas will look a lot more attractive. And no, not Sarah Palin. Not Bobby Jindal. Not Newt Gingrich. Not Mitt Romney.

I'm talking about someone with a good monetary policy. None of those candidates fit the description.



And newsflash to Republicans: People blame the GOP for this recession. Fair or not, the Republicans are being blamed for the whole thing. And since it will probably pass by in the next 8-10 years, Dems will probably be given credit for the recovery. That's just the way it is.

That's fine. You can blame the GOP for the economic failures. I am quite critical of Bush's handling of the mess. You know, like his stimulus package in 2008? His trillion dollar bailouts? His legacy as the biggest spender in American presidential history? Yeah, all of these are characteristics of a socialist. Not someone who supports free market capitalism.

Any candidate who gleefully maxed out America's credit card, and then started to whine about Obama's spending will never get my vote. That includes, "future of the republican partay, Mitt Romney." Fucking no. What an awful idea. Whoever posted that suggestion, please justify your pick.



So worrying about who will be the Republican rep in 2012 is a colossal waste of time IMO. I do respect the fact that you are so loyal to a particular party, I just don't think that's the wisest way to vote though. You should always pick the better candidate first.

This is why political discussions can be a waste of time. I am opposed to Obama, although I did not vote for a single Republican in November, I am very critical of Bush, and refuse to vote for the current band of idiots that have found their way to the top of the GOP, I am still a Republican. In fact, I am a loyal Republican.

Fucking incredible. Serious logic fail.

[CrespoBlows]

I wouldnt be so sure that the war Afghanistan war will be over by 2012.

If it's not, Obama is toast. It will be his Iraq. Throwing billions at a country that is welcoming back the Taliban? That seeks to impose Sharia law?


Republicans can always say they will be tough on terrorism because terrorism is never going away. People of our generation are never going to forget 9-11-01.

The Republicans still believe in the interventions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they probably wouldn't mind hitting Iran with a few bombs.

Those ideals have to go away.

[msubulldogs21]

A better education and government running it is an oxymoron. Have you seen the state of our schools? You want more government control in this area?

More government = more fail. Agree 100%.

Also, a700, fantastic post my friend. Lots of very good points.

[CrespoBlows]

More government = more fail. Agree 100%.



I don't see how you can be saying that.

You said you "strongly wanted McCain to win," despite his approval of President Bush's stimulus just twelve months, and his approval of the largest redistribution bill in American history just four months ago.

This equation that you decided to show everyone, would not represent your true nature. You do believe in more government. Just as long as that candidate has an (R) next to his name.

[a700hitter]

This equation that you decided to show everyone, would not represent your true nature. You do believe in more government. Just as long as that candidate has an (R) next to his name.I don't think that is a fair conclusion. In this country, we are given two choices. The Republican Party has abandoned conservatism, but they are not idealogically focused on the destruction of our capital markets and the redistribution of income and wealth. The Republicans also spend way too much and the government has too much involvement in in our lives. I disagree with the Republicans on these and many issues, but I voted for McCain, because the Obama alternative meant going down a road that would result in a radical dismantling of capitalism. IMO, it is unfolding before our eyes. My Republican vote is not an indicator that I favor big government, because the Republicans spent like drunken sailors. BTW, Obama's budget plans will make the Republicans look like misers.

IMO, Obama will not let this economy recover. He and his chief of staff realize that a crisis empowers the government to act. This administration will throw obstacle after obstacle at this economy to prevent a recovery. Reaganomics and 25+ years of unprecedented economic growth is being dismantled and reversed.

[msubulldogs21]

Crespo, I did strongly want McCain to win. When you consider he was running against a baffoon like Obama and the fact that he could be running our country made me want McCain to win even more. Obviously that didn't work out. But like a700 had said, it's not like I agree with the Republican party on every issue or anything, but of course I voted for them in the election because the alternative... well, there really wasn't one.

[CrespoBlows]

You two consider yourselves to be ardent conservatives. You have both said that you support a free market, and a limited government. Believing in these principles, you have thrown your support, strongly, to a man who has said, "Government should take care of those in America, who cannot care for themselves." Apparently, this man considers himself a conservative Republican, and he didn't hesitate on sharing that with his audiences. He must think his base is stupid to buy his nonsense.

Really, this is a man who has his name on McCain-Feingold, and McCain-Kennedy. He believes that the welfare state should be expanded. He believes in nationalizing mortgages and banks. He was against tax cuts in 2001. He has assaulted the First Amendment with his hideous campaign finance reform bill. All of these characteristics, and this is a man that conservatives should vote for? This is atrocious. This is a movement in the same direction that Comrade Bush drove us in.

You should be relieved that McCain can't finish the murder of conservatism.

[CrespoBlows]

Let's not forget his pick of the worst Vice-President in American history. The very stupid and very proud of it, Sarah Palin.

This is the best group conservatives summoned to face Barack Obama. And they actually convinced themselves to pull the lever. Fucking incredible.

[a700hitter]

You two consider yourselves to be ardent conservatives. You have both said that you support a free market, and a limited government. Believing in these principles, you have thrown your support, strongly, to a man who has said, "Government should take care of those in America, who cannot care for themselves." Apparently, this man considers himself a conservative Republican, and he didn't hesitate on sharing that with his audiences. He must think his base is stupid to buy his nonsense.

Really, this is a man who has his name on McCain-Feingold, and McCain-Kennedy. He believes that the welfare state should be expanded. He believes in nationalizing mortgages and banks. He was against tax cuts in 2001. He has assaulted the First Amendment with his hideous campaign finance reform bill. All of these characteristics, and this is a man that conservatives should vote for? This is atrocious. This is a movement in the same direction that Comrade Bush drove us in.

You should be relieved that McCain can't finish the murder of conservatism.In the end, the conservative movement may be resuscitated by an Obama backlash. If McCain had won the Presidency and continued to pursue his liberal agenda, conservatism would have been further marginalized and the idiot masses would have continued to blame conservatives for the disastrous results of policies of non conservatives like Bush and McCain. However, 4 or 8 years of Obama-nation could cause incalculable damage. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that his policies will collapse the currency and the economy.

[CrespoBlows]

In the end, the conservative movement may be resuscitated by an Obama backlash. If McCain had won the Presidency and continued to pursue his liberal agenda, conservatism would have been further marginalized and the idiot masses would have continued to blame conservatives for the disastrous results of policies of non conservatives like Bush and McCain. However, 4 or 8 years of Obama-nation could cause incalculable damage. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that his policies will collapse the currency and the economy.

This is why the "wasting your vote" cliche is wrong. If the people on this board support the idea of limited government, then not only are they wasting their vote by voting for candidates like McCain, but they giving support to a man who shares almost none of your ideas. It's almost like committing 'movement suicide,' yet the loyal members will abandoned their principles, because they have been taught to fear Emmanuel Gold... Barack Obama.

[a700hitter]

This is why the "wasting your vote" cliche is wrong. If the people on this board support the idea of limited government, then not only are they wasting their vote by voting for candidates like McCain, but they giving support to a man who shares almost none of your ideas. It's almost like committing 'movement suicide,' yet the loyal members will abandoned their principles, because they have been taught to fear Emmanuel Gold... Barack Obama.I agree with you. I really didn't want to vote for McCain for those reasons. In the end the deciding factor for me was that I live in a state that was a slam dunk for Obama, so I voted for McCain in hopes that the margin of Obama's victory would not reflect too large of a mandate.

[CrespoBlows]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Start listening to people who have predicted this.

[TheKilo]

http://bencohen.quack.ca/jindal.jpg

[CrespoBlows]

http://bencohen.quack.ca/jindal.jpg

:lol:

[CrespoBlows]

CPAC Fail.

Limbaugh unquestioned leader of Republican Party. The conservative movement is dead.

[a700hitter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Start listening to people who have predicted this.Startling video. I will be paying attention to what Schiff says.

[a700hitter]

The conservative movement is dead.I don't think it is any more dead now than in the 50's and early 60's when it was put back on the map by Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan emerged as the leader of the movement.

[example1]

Startling video. I will be paying attention to what Schiff says.

Ben Stein looks pretty bad in those clips. Merril Lynch is an "astonishingly well run company". Listen to the FOX News jokers scoff every time he says how toxic the financial markets are, and how fake the housing prices were. Listen to the audible disappointment, the "augh" everytime he opens his mouth on FOX.

I'm shocked they kept bringing him on, to be honest. God forbid anyone speak about how the American economy was a house of cards. Blasphemy!

[CrespoBlows]

I don't think it is any more dead now than in the 50's and early 60's when it was put back on the map by Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan emerged as the leader of the movement.

If conservatism, according to Bill Buckley, is to resist change, then the conservative movement will die. If the GOP does make a comeback, you won't recognize it. It will look much different.

[CrespoBlows]

Startling video. I will be paying attention to what Schiff says.

Meanwhile, Bernanke will continue to take notes from this noted economist:

http://geoconger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/robert-mugabe-2.jpg

[example1]

Schiff hasn't been right about everything. He wrote a book about how to get rich with the coming economic crisis, but I've seen reports that many of the investors whom he has advised have lost lots of money.

I'm still getting the feeling that you feel that Ron Paul and his team would somehow have avoided this tremendous economic downturn. Schiff himself states in numerous interviews that this problem is a systemic problem bred by a combination of American greed, a lack of savings, and a live in the moment mentality--some of it bred by American's psychology, and some of it helped by government encouragement. Would having Ron Paul as President suddenly change the commercialism and shortsightedness of the American people? I tend to doubt it.

Still, a very good video to post. Thanks for doing it.


EDIT: I also sense that he tries to blame the existence of the government for bad government policies. He says the government actually encouraged 'X' and 'Y' and tries to say that the government should just stay out of it. I think it would be equally valid to say that the government simply shouldn't have encouraged 'X' and 'Y'.

[CrespoBlows]

Schiff hasn't been right about everything. He wrote a book about how to get rich with the coming economic crisis, but I've seen reports that many of the investors whom he has advised have lost lots of money.

I don't think Schiff is 100% correct on his assessments. Although, if those investors bought heavily into the two investments Schiff recommended most, gold and commodities, they should be OK. The one thing he was wrong about was his prediction that the dollar would fall as housing fell. That hasn't happened yet, but it's not far off.


I'm still getting the feeling that you feel that Ron Paul and his team would somehow have avoided this tremendous economic downturn.

If he won the election in 2008, there's nothing that could have been done. The economy was already imploding.


Schiff himself states in numerous interviews that this problem is a systemic problem bred by a combination of American greed, a lack of savings, and a live in the moment mentality--some of it bred by American's psychology, and some of it helped by government encouragement. Would having Ron Paul as President suddenly change the commercialism and shortsightedness of the American people? I tend to doubt it.

No, but I don't believe that American consumption habits, alone, would have put is into this mess. It takes an intervention to disrupt the market equilibrum this badly. Artifically low interest rates increased consumption and credit, and the influx of dollars, along with increased demand increased price. It was a fun ride, but reality is striking. And it's going to hurt.


EDIT: I also sense that he tries to blame the existence of the government for bad government policies. He says the government actually encouraged 'X' and 'Y' and tries to say that the government should just stay out of it. I think it would be equally valid to say that the government simply shouldn't have encouraged 'X' and 'Y'.

I think he would agree with your last statement. Then again, you are talking about two, maybe three, different schools of economic thought.







EDIT* A short digression on Alan Greenspan, but I've always wondered if it occured to him that his job was contradictory to his beliefs.

[CrespoBlows]

I don't think it is any more dead now than in the 50's and early 60's when it was put back on the map by Goldwater and Buckley and Reagan emerged as the leader of the movement.

How does Reagan get away with his massive rape of conservatism?

[a700hitter]

How does Reagan get away with his massive rape of conservatism?Reagan was always pushing conservative principles. His many writings and speeches revived the movement. If you are referring to the increased spending during his Presidency, I don't think that was the result of Reagan perverting conservative principles. I am old enough to remember the context of his Presidency. He had a Congress that was much more leftist than what is in DC today. It's hard to believe, but this was the Great Society group that was entrenched in DC when Reagan swept in. The only reason that Reagan was able to push through two-thirds of his platform (i.e. tax cuts and rebuilding the military) was because he was more effective than any President in my lifetime at going around Congress to the American people. The American people put tremendous pressure on Congress to pass the tax cuts. Congress fought the President tooth and nail over the tax cuts, but in the end they caved to the tremendous grass roots pressure. Spending was Reagan's third priority, because it was the most difficult to achieve. Cutting the permanent bureaucracy IMO is something that would take a near revolution to achieve. Reagan chose to pursue those aspects of his platform that he could achieve. Those were the practicalities. Every Reagan budget contained cuts, and every one of his budgets was declared DOA when it arrived at Capitol Hill. Those budget proposals were never debated. He picked his fights. He went to the American People and won Tax Cuts and Star Wars. The fact that he didn't succeed on the budget side doesn't mean that he abandoned his conservative principles. Smaller government was at the core of his conservatism. It was just impossible for him to achieve in the context of the times and with the liberal Congress that he had. If Reagan had had Clinton's Congress in his second term, IMO the government bureaucracy would have been shredded.

Similarly, Clinton never fulfilled one of his primary campaign promises-- universal health care. There was a grass roots effort that helped kill it and the Clinton Administration efforts to implement Universal Health Care were largely responsible for the Republicans taking control of both houses. The failure of the Clinton Administration to make good on it's #1 campaign promise doesn't mean that he abandoned his liberal beliefs or principles, but he wasn't willing to sacrifice a second term by continuing to fight a fight that he couldn't win.

[YAZMAN]

Well done, 700.

[CrespoBlows]

Reagan was always pushing conservative principles. His many writings and speeches revived the movement. If you are referring to the increased spending during his Presidency, I don't think that was the result of Reagan perverting conservative principles. I am old enough to remember the context of his Presidency. He had a Congress that was much more leftist than what is in DC today. It's hard to believe, but this was the Great Society group that was entrenched in DC when Reagan swept in. The only reason that Reagan was able to push through two-thirds of his platform (i.e. tax cuts and rebuilding the military) was because he was more effective than any President in my lifetime at going around Congress to the American people. The American people put tremendous pressure on Congress to pass the tax cuts. Congress fought the President tooth and nail over the tax cuts, but in the end they caved to the tremendous grass roots pressure. Spending was Reagan's third priority, because it was the most difficult to achieve. Cutting the permanent bureaucracy IMO is something that would take a near revolution to achieve. Reagan chose to pursue those aspects of his platform that he could achieve. Those were the practicalities. Every Reagan budget contained cuts, and every one of his budgets was declared DOA when it arrived at Capitol Hill. Those budget proposals were never debated. He picked his fights. He went to the American People and won Tax Cuts and Star Wars. The fact that he didn't succeed on the budget side doesn't mean that he abandoned his conservative principles. Smaller government was at the core of his conservatism. It was just impossible for him to achieve in the context of the times and with the liberal Congress that he had. If Reagan had had Clinton's Congress in his second term, IMO the government bureaucracy would have been shredded.

Similarly, Clinton never fulfilled one of his primary campaign promises-- universal health care. There was a grass roots effort that helped kill it and the Clinton Administration efforts to implement Universal Health Care were largely responsible for the Republicans taking control of both houses. The failure of the Clinton Administration to make good on it's #1 campaign promise doesn't mean that he abandoned his liberal beliefs or principles, but he wasn't willing to sacrifice a second term by continuing to fight a fight that he couldn't win.

By the time Ronald Reagan had arrived, Jimmy Carter had hiked the deficit to $74 billion (1980 dollars). By 1984, the deficit had swelled to $200 billion. The charming phrase "deficits don't matter" was first uttered during the Reagan adminstration, and it's myth has been pursued full speed by the Bush adminstration. Deficits don't matter? What economic theory has that as its lynchpin? By 1989, it would have taken a 40% cut in government spending to go back to Carter's 1980 levels. Adjusted for percentage of GNP, government spending was much higher under Reagan, than under Carter.

Reagan's heralded tax cuts of 1981 cut taxes for people with high incomes, but the rest of the country paid much more. The vaunted "bracket creep" in which people's incomes were pushed into higher tax brackets, wound up paying more. The only legal Ponzi scheme in the United States could have been destroyed, but Reagan hiked taxes, oops, I mean "insurance premiums" on social security. Taxes, as a whole, went up under Reagan. Other doublespeak by the Gipper, raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes," "tightning IRS enforcement," and "revenue enhancement." As a result of Reagan's massive tax cuts, and "getting the government off our back," tax revenues in the United States were up to $769 billion in 1986, up from Carter's $517 billion. His spending and inflationary monetary policy was a big fucking joke. Not as big as President Bush's, but pretty awful. Although, both men had a glorious bailout. Ronnie's was a $150 billion gift, might be close to Bush after inflation. He's lucky that Bush Sr. stepped in to get hit with the rounds of inflation that came in the 1990's.

One of his other campaign promises was to get rid of the Department of Education. He kept it (not his promise), and then added one of the bigger government agencies in the Department of Veteran Affairs. Another promise was to go back to the gold standard, I guess that would have been a major obstacle for Ronnie's exploding deficits. The supposedly free trade Reagan, increased tarrifs, import quotas, and had the Japanese limit the amounts of exported cars to the United States. His massive Orwellian doublethink campaign crusaded on, as he boosted supports and production quotas to farmers. This is free trade?

I guess his big accomplishment was his murderous, largely illegal foreign policy? Or was it his witch hunt of drug users? Maybe it was the SDI? Thanks Ronnie for getting the government off our backs.

[a700hitter]

By the time Ronald Reagan had arrived, Jimmy Carter had hiked the deficit to $74 billion (1980 dollars). By 1984, the deficit had swelled to $200 billion. The charming phrase "deficits don't matter" was first uttered during the Reagan administration, and it's myth has been pursued full speed by the Bush administration. Deficits don't matter? What economic theory has that as its lynchpin? By 1989, it would have taken a 40% cut in government spending to go back to Carter's 1980 levels. Adjusted for percentage of GNP, government spending was much higher under Reagan, than under Carter.It was a battle to get his tax cuts through. The leftist Congress led by Tip O'Neill did not roll over for Reagan like this Congress has rolled over for Obama in less than two months. The tax cuts were a major change of direction for the country. Statistics and written accounts by mainly anti-Reagan historians just do not capture the profound change led by the Gipper.


Reagan's heralded tax cuts of 1981 cut taxes for people with high incomes, but the rest of the country paid much more. The vaunted "bracket creep" in which people's incomes were pushed into higher tax brackets, wound up paying more. The only legal Ponzi scheme in the United States could have been destroyed, but Reagan hiked taxes, oops, I mean "insurance premiums" on social security. Taxes, as a whole, went up under Reagan.This is just not true. I started my career during the Reagan administration as an attorney for the IRS. My starting salary was $25,000. When the Reagan cuts took effect, my take home pay went up, and not insignificantly. At $25,000 (my wife was making $12k), we were far from a high income household.


His spending and inflationary monetary policy was a big fucking joke. Not as big as President Bush's, but pretty awful. Although, both men had a glorious bailout. Ronnie's was a $150 billion gift, might be close to Bush after inflation. He's lucky that Bush Sr. stepped in to get hit with the rounds of inflation that came in the 1990's. You are a highly intelligent and well-read individual, but you are misinformed in this regard. Whatever sources you are relying upon are either biased and slanted or they are just not conveying the story in a balanced way in the context of the economics of the era. As someone who carefully followed the Reagan administration while it was in power, I can tell you that his spending and inflationary monetary policy has been misrepresented by contemporary accounts. Inflation was dramatically reduced during Reagan's administration. The record and the statistics regarding spending are in the books, but these were not the result of Reagan's policies. It was the result of the fact that a left wing Congress could not be overcome on spending policy. If you want an accurate picture of Reagan's policies, you need to research the daily statements and actions of the Reagan administration. The revisionism of Reagan's record has been going on for decades. I believe that you are an intellectually honest individual, but you are relying upon second hand accounts of Reagan's administration and interpretations that are spinning statistics to their own ends. Although you may respect these sources, unless you immerse yourself in a daily account of primary sources of information, you are not getting a full and accurate picture of the Reagan administration. My recollection might be incorrect, but I don't think so, and second hand accounts of the history of that time are not going to change my mind. I lived through it.


I guess his big accomplishment was his murderous, largely illegal foreign policy? Or was it his witch hunt of drug users? Maybe it was the SDI? Thanks Ronnie for getting the government off our backs.His foreign policy put the final nail in the coffin of communism and the Soviet Union. He turned this country around in a positive way. You were not alive to see the transformation, so you cannot appreciate what was accomplished. Revisionist history is a distortion of reality.

[CrespoBlows]

It was a battle to get his tax cuts through. The leftist Congress led by Tip O'Neill did not roll over for Reagan like this Congress has rolled over for Obama in less than two months. The tax cuts were a major change of direction for the country. Statistics and written accounts by mainly anti-Reagan historians just do not capture the profound change led by the Gipper.

Reagan spoke of getting the government off of our backs during his campaign. It shared broad public support. The country was finally ready to put the State back where it belonged. I won't put all of the blame on Reagan, because he was getting duped by supposed conservatives, but he was the executive of the country, and he deserves his share of the criticism.

The mindset of the country was shaken up massively during the Reagan Era. I won't disagree with you here, but I believe it was a very negative reaction. By the time Reagan left office, the State had reemerged as vibrant as ever. I'll get into his economic policies further down, but even the most stalwart Reagan supporter has to admit that he turned the much ignored War on Drugs, into the Puritanic monster it is today. The country turned its back on the non-interventionist mood that hit the country after Vietnam. After Reagan, we were back invading countries that had nothing to do with our national security of interest.

Drug hysteria promoted by nasty propaganda peddled out by the prudish leadership in Washington is a massive black mark on Reagan's legacy. Countless billions were flushed away to fight a futile battle. It's astonishing that there's an inverse trend in drug use, drug violence, and deaths related to drugs compared to the scale of how intense the war is being waged. The country had embraced "JUST SAY NO," which effectively ended the debate on the legitimacy of the War on Drugs. Reaganites floated the idea of compulsory drug testing, which would have taken the government off of our backs, and joined us in the bathroom. As the Moral Majority gleefully incarcerated and ruined people's lives, the Reagan adminstration capped its hypocrisy, and looked the other way while the CIA was boosting cocaine. The morality of the country had clearly changed; so far as to adopt the under-21 drinking ban, several anti-smoking laws, and my favorite, anti-pornographic legislation. This is the exact opposite of getting government off our backs.




This is just not true. I started my career during the Reagan administration as an attorney for the IRS. My starting salary was $25,000. When the Reagan cuts took effect, my take home pay went up, and not insignificantly. At $25,000 (my wife was making $12k), we were far from a high income household. You are a highly intelligent and well-read individual, but you are misinformed in this regard. Whatever sources you are relying upon are either biased and slanted or they are just not conveying the story in a balanced way in the context of the economics of the era. The record and the statistics regarding spending are in the books, but these were not the result of Reagan's policies. It was the result of the fact that a left wing Congress could not be overcome on spending policy. If you want an accurate picture of Reagan's policies, you need to research the daily statements and actions of the Reagan administration. The revisionism of Reagan's record has been going on for decades. I believe that you are an intellectually honest individual, but you are relying upon second hand accounts of Reagan's administration and interpretations that are spinning statistics to their own ends. Although you may respect these sources, unless you immerse yourself in a daily account of primary sources of information, you are not getting a full and accurate picture of the Reagan administration. My recollection might be incorrect, but I don't think so, and second hand accounts of the history of that time are not going to change my mind. I lived through it.

Reagan cut taxes once. This is true. They could have lasted, had he not have been reckless with spending. This is where many liberals find common ground with Reagan. They laud him for being pragmatic by increasing taxes to offset the surging deficits. Paul Krugmann heaps endless praise on Reagan for this.

The Reagan tax cuts were undone by two tax increases shortly after. The tax cuts of 1981, were rolled back slightly by tax increases in 1982. Corporate taxes were raised, and individuals paid a slight increase in income taxes. That was the first punch. The combination was completed with the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, where ultra whore Alan Greenspan suggested an increase in payroll taxes that go to Social Security and Medicare. The greatest Ponzi scheme was bailed out during the Reagan adminstration. This is a disgrace to his legacy. When you look at Reagan's tax policies overall, the tax burden went up, not down.


In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Reagan was not the only President to endore semantics, but he took it to an Orwellian level. Like I said before, social security taxes were called "insurance premiums." To step up revenue the IRS was allowed to "plug loopholes," and "tighten enforcement."


President Reagan has repeatedly warned Congress of his opposition to any new taxes, but some White House aides have been trying to figure out a way of endorsing a tax bill that could be called something else.


Most frequently mentioned are ''user fees,'' which Administration officials insist are not taxes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D6123EF930A25753C1A9619482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all


As someone who carefully followed the Reagan administration while it was in power, I can tell you that his spending and inflationary monetary policy has been misrepresented by contemporary accounts. Inflation was dramatically reduced during Reagan's administration.

Why does this shock you? The inflation rates of the late 70's/80's were cured, because the country went into a severe recession, due to the 20.5% interest rates.

The expansionary monetary policy of the mid 80's, in which inflation was warded off, because of a strong dollar, and an OPEC collapse didn't last long. The factors had worked their way back into the price system, and inflation rose from 1% in '86 to 5% in '87. The collapse of the Savings and Loans banks, and the stock market crash all stem from poor monetary policy. Did Reagan follow the free market approach? No, he bailed out the Savings and Loans banks to the tune of $150 billion.




His foreign policy put the final nail in the coffin of communism and the Soviet Union. He turned this country around in a positive way. You were not alive to see the transformation, so you cannot appreciate what was accomplished. Revisionist history is a distortion of reality.

The Soviet Union put the first nail in their coffin, when Vladmir Lenin picked up the Communist Manifesto, and decided that a nation could follow these policies. The Soviet Union was already in a state of rapid decline, because of their hideously stupid domestic and foreign policies.

Why was there such a massive fear over the Soviet Union? Every anti-Soviet film I've viewed (propaganda films are very entertaining), portrays the Soviets as some super-efficient, Satanic monolith, and always ready to strike. They were failures. Ridden with inefficient collectivist policies for decades, this country was doomed from the beginning. They didn't need to be feared, they needed to be laughed at. It should have gave every President, since Roosevelt, a blueprint of what to avoid. Furthermore, these guys weren't the Slavic barbarians with no ability to reason. They weren't mentally challenged. They knew a confrontation with the United States would have been suicidal. They were more interested in bankrupting themselves with needless conflicts in Afghanistan, and the rest of the Soviet Bloc. They rejected Mendelian inheritance, and invested heavily into Lysenkoism. Fucking seriously. This is how shoddily run the Soviet Union was.

You might want to give Reagan some credit. He may have tapped one nail, in a coffin of millions, but this man was not the death blow to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the shining example of why socialism is the biggest fail theory that has ever been concocted.

As for the rest of Reagan's foreign policy, what exactly is there to cheer about? Grenada? A horrid use of executive power, and a totally unnecessary conflict. Siphoning taxpayer dollars into the hands of the Nicaraguan Contras? Selling weapons to the Iranians? Lebanon? El Salvador?

[a700hitter]

Drug hysteria promoted by nasty propaganda peddled out by the prudish leadership in Washington is a massive black mark on Reagan's legacy. Countless billions were flushed away to fight a futile battle. It's astonishing that there's an inverse trend in drug use, drug violence, and deaths related to drugs compared to the scale of how intense the war is being waged. The country had embraced "JUST SAY NO," which effectively ended the debate on the legitimacy of the War on Drugs. Reaganites floated the idea of compulsory drug testing, which would have taken the government off of our backs, and joined us in the bathroom. As the Moral Majority gleefully incarcerated and ruined people's lives, the Reagan adminstration capped its hypocrisy, and looked the other way while the CIA was boosting cocaine. The morality of the country had clearly changed; so far as to adopt the under-21 drinking ban, several anti-smoking laws, and my favorite, anti-pornographic legislation. This is the exact opposite of getting government off our backs. This was pandering to his base. I realize that this is a pet peeve of yours, but it really didn't bother the great majority of Americans.


In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

I don't know what kind of Math they are doing. FICA tax rates were 6.13% in 1980 and 7.51 in 1988. The SS Wage base had increased from 25k to 45k, but wages were increasing. The additional revenue was picked up on people whose wages were growing beyond the 25k level. This was not a tax increase for them, because they had been paying FICA at that level when they had been making less than 25k. In 1980, only a very small percentage of people were making more than 25k and in 1988 while 45k did not make you rich, it was good $. Put those figures in context of the fact that starting salary for litigating attorneys at the IRS in 1984 was $25k and by 1988 it was no more than 35k. Starting salaries at top Wall St. firms in 1983-4 was $55k.

Reagan cut taxes once. This is true. They could have lasted, had he not have been reckless with spending. This is where many liberals find common ground with Reagan. They laud him for being pragmatic by increasing taxes to offset the surging deficits. Paul Krugmann heaps endless praise on Reagan for this.

The Reagan tax cuts were undone by two tax increases shortly after. The tax cuts of 1981, were rolled back slightly by tax increases in 1982. Corporate taxes were raised, and individuals paid a slight increase in income taxes. That was the first punch. The combination was completed with the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, where ultra whore Alan Greenspan suggested an increase in payroll taxes that go to Social Security and Medicare. The greatest Ponzi scheme was bailed out during the Reagan adminstration. This is a disgrace to his legacy. When you look at Reagan's tax policies overall, the tax burden went up, not down.
Here is a link with the counter argument: http://www.presidentreagan.info/income_and_ss_taxes.cfm


The inflation rates of the late 70's/80's were cured, because the country went into a severe recession, due to the 20.5% interest rates.

The expansionary monetary policy of the mid 80's, in which inflation was warded off, because of a strong dollar, and an OPEC collapse didn't last long. The factors had worked their way back into the price system, and inflation rose from 1% in '86 to 5% in '87. The collapse of the Savings and Loans banks, and the stock market crash all stem from poor monetary policy. Did Reagan follow the free market approach? No, he bailed out the Savings and Loans banks to the tune of $150 billion. Double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates existed at the same time when Reagan took office. They had to come up with a new term for those circumstances, because none of the existing terms fit. They came up with the misery index to describe the situation. The increase to 5% inflation in 1987 that you mention was considered low after Carter, and it was tolerated because real wages were growing to keep pace with inflation throughout Reagan's two terms.


Why was there such a massive fear over the Soviet Union? Every anti-Soviet film I've viewed (propaganda films are very entertaining), portrays the Soviets as some super-efficient, Satanic monolith, and always ready to strike. They were failures. Ridden with inefficient collectivist policies for decades, this country was doomed from the beginning. They didn't need to be feared, they needed to be laughed at. It should have gave every President, since Roosevelt, a blueprint of what to avoid. Furthermore, these guys weren't the Slavic barbarians with no ability to reason. They weren't mentally challenged. They knew a confrontation with the United States would have been suicidal. They were more interested in bankrupting themselves with needless conflicts in Afghanistan, and the rest of the Soviet Bloc. They rejected Mendelian inheritance, and invested heavily into Lysenkoism. Fucking seriously. This is how shoddily run the Soviet Union was.

You might want to give Reagan some credit. He may have tapped one nail, in a coffin of millions, but this man was not the death blow to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the shining example of why socialism is the biggest fail theory that has ever been concocted.In the context of the times, Americans were being fed information which was the exact opposite. The government and universities were indoctrinating us to believe that the Soviet Union and communism would continue to expand, and that it was only a matter of time before it dominated our hemisphere. That was conventional thought. When Reagan walked out of the summit meeting with American media darling, Gorbachev, the press reamed him as reckless and accused him of destabilizing a dangerous situation. They wanted us to believe that he was bringing us to the precipice of nuclear war. What Reagan did was politically very courageous. It exploded the myth of Soviet power and changed conventional thinking. Until that moment, U.S. policy toward the USSR had been one of appeasement. Yes communism is ultimately an unsustainable model, but it was sustaining itself with continued expansion. Reagan stopped the expansion and the Soviet Union died. Carter didn't go to the Olympics. Big difference.


As for the rest of Reagan's foreign policy, what exactly is there to cheer about? Grenada? A horrid use of executive power, and a totally unnecessary conflict. Siphoning taxpayer dollars into the hands of the Nicaraguan Contras? Selling weapons to the Iranians? Lebanon? El Salvador?Playing a major role (with Pope John Paul II) to stop Soviet expansion was a major accomplishment. It turned conventional political thought in this country on its head.

[Teddyballgame10]

As far as I know, Obama does not have universal health care on his agenda. Clinton did, but not Obama. And no, I do not support universal health care.



Allowing the Federal Reserve to print trillions of new dollars is the fastest way to achieve this goal. Why aren't you opposed to this?



A) I think Obama does have it on his agenda but even he knows we have bigger issues to deal with and can't afford it. I'm sure he would love to do it but we are in no condition to fund something like that. Plus the fact that it doesn't work, but thats beside the point.

B) I'm not sure if you agree with printing trillions of dollars but if you are haven't you ever heard of inflation?

[a700hitter]

A) I think Obama does have it on his agenda but even he knows we have bigger issues to deal with and can't afford it. I'm sure he would love to do it but we are in no condition to fund something like that. Plus the fact that it doesn't work, but thats beside the point.

B) I'm not sure if you agree with printing trillions of dollars but if you are haven't you ever heard of inflation?This past week Obama made it clear that he wants to take on health care now despite the economic woes that have not yet been adequately addressed.

[CrespoBlows]

A) I think Obama does have it on his agenda but even he knows we have bigger issues to deal with and can't afford it. I'm sure he would love to do it but we are in no condition to fund something like that. Plus the fact that it doesn't work, but thats beside the point.

The single-payer system is the national health care plan I am talking about. Obama has not proposed anything like this.



B) I'm not sure if you agree with printing trillions of dollars but if you are haven't you ever heard of inflation?

Read the quote I was responding to.

[CrespoBlows]

This was pandering to his base. I realize that this is a pet peeve of yours, but it really didn't bother the great majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans praised Wilson's crusade against free speech and alcohol. The fact that you have a majority that have been duped by a misleading drug campaign is irrelevant. Reagan's goal was to reduce the size of government, and "get it off our backs." In this regard, he failed miserably. The administration repeatedly violated the Constitution to help ram Judeo-Christian ethics down the throats of the American people. Oh, but like many Christian-entrepreneurs, they have trouble applying the same ethical standard to themselves. The Reagan administration was complicit in allowing the Contras, the same group that gleefully committed various war crimes, to boost cocaine with the aid of the CIA. No one should be proud of Reagan's behavior modification folly.


I don't know what kind of Math they are doing. FICA tax rates were 6.13% in 1980 and 7.51 in 1988. The SS Wage base had increased from 25k to 45k, but wages were increasing. The additional revenue was picked up on people whose wages were growing beyond the 25k level. This was not a tax increase for them, because they had been paying FICA at that level when they had been making less than 25k. In 1980, only a very small percentage of people were making more than 25k and in 1988 while 45k did not make you rich, it was good $. Put those figures in context of the fact that starting salary for litigating attorneys at the IRS in 1984 was $25k and by 1988 it was no more than 35k. Starting salaries at top Wall St. firms in 1983-4 was $55k.

Reagan's tax increase bills

TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) - Also called the "largest peacetime tax increase in American History."


The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - Hiked gasoline taxes from 4 cents to 9 cents.

Social Security Amendments of 1983 - Reagan's largest failure, and a total betrayal to the limited government movement. Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme in existence, and the Gipper decided to bail it out to the tune of $165 billion. The second largest peacetime tax in American history.

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 - Raised $18 billion per year.

The total amount of federal tax recepits amounted to $769 billion in 1986, compared to $517 billion in 1980 for Jimmy Carter. Whatever that looks like, it isn't a tax cut.

These are just the big ones, not to mention many of the numerous differently phrased tax increases that was phased in during his second term.



Here is a link with the counter argument: http://www.presidentreagan.info/income_and_ss_taxes.cfm

Aside from the fact that the President's name is in your source, I find it embarrassing that a conservative would attack people who insist on using the total tax burden for the cost of employment, rather than just the employee contribution. He also attacks people who include corporate tax rates into the equation. He doesn't mention "user-fees" "loophole closing," and "revenue enhancement," or whatever the Gipper was telling himself to stay true to his pledge. This is an bad display of saving face.

Also, no mention of the worst tax of them all, the inflation tax. The high inflation of the late Carter/early Reagan were causing people's incomes to rise. Not an actual increase in income, but the effects of inflation pushing their salaries into higher tax brackets. The Southern Democrats were the first to propose indexing income taxes for inflation, but that wasn't slated to take effect until 1984. I am not surprised that the Federal government, notorious for understating revenue, claimed that project tax revenues were $50 billion higher in 1982, than compared to 1981. The Reagan Republicans can't give credit to Arthur Laffer, because they threw his ass overboard when the deficit was surging.


Double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates existed at the same time when Reagan took office. They had to come up with a new term for those circumstances, because none of the existing terms fit. They came up with the misery index to describe the situation. The increase to 5% inflation in 1987 that you mention was considered low after Carter, and it was tolerated because real wages were growing to keep pace with inflation throughout Reagan's two terms.

The Federal Reserve's policies in 1987 indicate anything but tolerance toward inflation. An aggressive interest rate spike, followed with a frozen money supply shows that they did not want to return to inflation. Of course, it did nothing to stave off the stock market crash, because the bust cycle is always inevitable after the start of a credit expansion boom phase.



In the context of the times, Americans were being fed information which was the exact opposite. The government and universities were indoctrinating us to believe that the Soviet Union and communism would continue to expand, and that it was only a matter of time before it dominated our hemisphere. That was conventional thought. When Reagan walked out of the summit meeting with American media darling, Gorbachev, the press reamed him as reckless and accused him of destabilizing a dangerous situation. They wanted us to believe that he was bringing us to the precipice of nuclear war. What Reagan did was politically very courageous. It exploded the myth of Soviet power and changed conventional thinking. Until that moment, U.S. policy toward the USSR had been one of appeasement.

The United States foreign policy was appeasing the Soviet Union?


Yes communism is ultimately an unsustainable model, but it was sustaining itself with continued expansion. Reagan stopped the expansion and the Soviet Union died. Carter didn't go to the Olympics. Big difference.

Mercantilist fallacy. The Soviet Union expansion was boosting the people in the Kremlin, but it was sucking the ordinary citizen dry. Toward the end, rampant inflation, negative economic growth, and negative population growth are all indicators of a rotting economy suffering from massive stagnation. Reagan might have been President while they caved, but that's about all he can take credit for.


Playing a major role (with Pope John Paul II) to stop Soviet expansion was a major accomplishment. It turned conventional political thought in this country on its head.

Again, A did not cause B. Soviet expansion wasn't stopped by Reagan, as they escalated their intervention of Afghanistan during his regime. Which makes more sense?

A) The fact that a Communist country picked Gorbachev, allowed him to essentially decentralize the Soviet Union, and pass laws that allowed private property for the first time since Lenin's New Economic Policy, thus completing a decisive repudiation of Communism.

OR

B) Ronald Reagan walked out of a room, and then solicited the Pope's help to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union.

Reagan did not have to do anything. He did not need to waste billions on interventions of third world nations, thus taking the deficits to levels not reached until another failed conservative bumbled into the Oval Office. The Soviet Union was a dying Leviathan, and it just happened to be in its final throes while he was President.

[a700hitter]

The majority of Americans praised Wilson's crusade against free speech and alcohol. The fact that you have a majority that have been duped by a misleading drug campaign is irrelevant. Reagan's goal was to reduce the size of government, and "get it off our backs." In this regard, he failed miserably. The administration repeatedly violated the Constitution to help ram Judeo-Christian ethics down the throats of the American people.Could you give me some examples? These were the formative years of my career, and I don't recall any oppressive efforts by the government to indoctrinate any form of religion. I think you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

[a700hitter]

The Reagan administration was complicit in allowing the Contras, the same group that gleefully committed various war crimes, to boost cocaine with the aid of the CIA. No one should be proud of Reagan's behavior modification folly. My recollection is that this only upset the Sandinistas and left wing liberals. No one else really cared.

[a700hitter]

Reagan's tax increase bills

TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) - Also called the "largest peacetime tax increase in American History."



http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - Hiked gasoline taxes from 4 cents to 9 cents.

Social Security Amendments of 1983 - Reagan's largest failure, and a total betrayal to the limited government movement. Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme in existence, and the Gipper decided to bail it out to the tune of $165 billion. The second largest peacetime tax in American history.

Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 - Raised $18 billion per year.

The total amount of federal tax recepits amounted to $769 billion in 1986, compared to $517 billion in 1980 for Jimmy Carter. Whatever that looks like, it isn't a tax cut.

These are just the big ones, not to mention many of the numerous differently phrased tax increases that was phased in during his second term.These articles that you rely upon for citing tax increases as the "largest peacetime" and "second largest" tax increases distort the facts and the truth. The truth is that the individual and corporate income tax rates were down significantly after the second term carve backs. The reason why these carve backs raised so much tax revenue was because growth and production had exploded after the original tax cuts. Incomes were way up. Earnings and profits were up. Capital investment was up. The tax base had expanded enormously. Neglecting to mention this as the primary reason for increased tax revenues is misleading.


Aside from the fact that the President's name is in your source, I find it embarrassing that a conservative would attack people who insist on using the total tax burden for the cost of employment, rather than just the employee contribution. There are separate income tax rates for Corporations and individuals. The rates for both were down significantly under Reagan despite the changes to Social Security. The increases to the employer's portion of FICA should not be counted as a tax increase for employees. It is an additional cost of doing business for the employer, and it is properly analyzed as tax on the employer. An increase in the employer's FICA did not increase the individual's tax burden. The only effect it would have had on the employees is that it would have suppressed wages, which were up during the Reagan years.

Also, no mention of the worst tax of them all, the inflation tax. The high inflation of the late Carter/early Reagan were causing people's incomes to rise. Not an actual increase in income, but the effects of inflation pushing their salaries into higher tax brackets. Reagan was the first national candidate to hammer home this exact point during his campaigns for President. It is one of the main reasons why he cut the marginal rates and the number of rate brackets-- to cut down on "bracket creep".

The Federal Reserve's policies in 1987 indicate anything but tolerance toward inflation. An aggressive interest rate spike, followed with a frozen money supply shows that they did not want to return to inflation. Of course, it did nothing to stave off the stock market crash, because the bust cycle is always inevitable after the start of a credit expansion boom phase. The record of his presidency is that wages kept pace with inflation throughout his 8 years in office. That didn't happen under Carter, when inflation outstripped wage growth by about 5% per year. I don't think wages kept pace with inflation under the two Bushes or Clinton.

[a700hitter]

Again, A did not cause B. Soviet expansion wasn't stopped by Reagan, as they escalated their intervention of Afghanistan during his regime. Which makes more sense? Reagan's administration provided funding and training to the Soviet opposition in Afghanistan-- something that Carter never would have done. With that support, the Soviets were slowly bled to death to the point where they were in financial distress, demoralized and defeated. Soviet expansionism had come to an end on Reagan's clock.


A) The fact that a Communist country picked Gorbachev, allowed him to essentially decentralize the Soviet Union, and pass laws that allowed private property for the first time since Lenin's New Economic Policy, thus completing a decisive repudiation of Communism. You are not the only one to sing Gorbachev's praises. Time Magazine named him Man of the Year and the mainstream press swooned over him. He was in reality a hardline Communist whose policy changes proved to be too little too late. His legacy is that he presided over the demise of the other great super power of the the second half of the 20th century.


B) Ronald Reagan walked out of a room, and then solicited the Pope's help to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union.

Reagan did not have to do anything. He did not need to waste billions on interventions of third world nations, thus taking the deficits to levels not reached until another failed conservative bumbled into the Oval Office. The Soviet Union was a dying Leviathan, and it just happened to be in its final throes while he was President.If it meant nothing, why did Gorbachev offer to remove all of the Soviet Ballistic missiles aimed at Europe in return for the promise that Star Wars R & D be stopped? Ask yourself that. Why make this ultimatum if it meant nothing to a crumbling empire? The reason for the ultimatum was that it was the Soviet's only chance to curtail the military spending that was strangling their economy. Reagan knew it, and walked out of the summit, effectively keeping the foot on the throat of the suffocating USSR. BTW, the Star Wars technology, which the mainstream press scoffed at as impossible, doesn't seem so ridiculous today as our military has a very effective capability to destroy offensive missiles aimed at us or our allies.

[CrespoBlows]

My recollection is that this only upset the Sandinistas and left wing liberals. No one else really cared.

It is a big example of government corruption. People should care. I'm surprised that you are defending it, or even offering a justification for it.

[CrespoBlows]

Could you give me some examples? These were the formative years of my career, and I don't recall any oppressive efforts by the government to indoctrinate any form of religion. I think you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

Judeo-Christian ethics, not Christianity.

[CrespoBlows]

These articles that you rely upon for citing tax increases as the "largest peacetime" and "second largest" tax increases distort the facts and the truth. The truth is that the individual and corporate income tax rates were down significantly after the second term carve backs. The reason why these carve backs raised so much tax revenue was because growth and production had exploded after the original tax cuts. Incomes were way up. Earnings and profits were up. Capital investment was up. The tax base had expanded enormously. Neglecting to mention this as the primary reason for increased tax revenues is misleading.

The very person you are defending threw the advocate of this theory off the boat when the deficit exploded. Lafferite economics were denounced harshly by the Reagan adminstration. After its failure, they stuck to their mantra of "deficits don't matter." <---- the obvious giveaway. Tax revenues go up, because taxes are going up. The amount of economic growth, wouldn't have come close to raising the revenue that Reagan came up with.

They didn't actually cut spending, which is what you do if you want to reduce the size of the government. Reagan is a major failure in this regard.



The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp



There are separate income tax rates for Corporations and individuals. The rates for both were down significantly under Reagan despite the changes to Social Security. The increases to the employer's portion of FICA should not be counted as a tax increase for employees. It is an additional cost of doing business for the employer, and it is properly analyzed as tax on the employer. An increase in the employer's FICA did not increase the individual's tax burden.

Despite the massive amounts of recorded tax increases on the record, and the fact that tax revenues got LARGER under Reagan, you can still be convinced that taxes went down?


The only effect it would have had on the employees is that it would have suppressed wages, which were up during the Reagan years.

Nope. Stagnant.

http://www.mindcontagion.org/images/usaaverageweeklywages_ltgry.png

Since the PPP isn't going up, but nominal wages are increasing the average taxpayer is getting cleaned out by bracket-creep.


Reagan was the first national candidate to hammer home this exact point during his campaigns for President. It is one of the main reasons why he cut the marginal rates and the number of rate brackets-- to cut down on "bracket creep".

The difference between what Reagan said, and what Reagan did can only be measured in cosmic distances.

This was pushed by the Southern Democrats. The proposal to index income tax for inflation wasn't even scheduled to go into effect until 1984. I am not sure if it ever did.



The record of his presidency is that wages kept pace with inflation throughout his 8 years in office. That didn't happen under Carter, when inflation outstripped wage growth by about 5&#37; per year. I don't think wages kept pace with inflation under the two Bushes or Clinton.

Wages should grow past inflation. I am not celebrating stagnant wage growth.

Reagan had some great ideas when he was running in 1980. Maybe he should have used some of them. I love some of Reagan's speeches, and the movement that he spurred, but the Reagan Revolution was supposed to be about limited government. Reagan murdered that movement.

There is another limited government movement that will probably get a lot stronger as the depression deepens, and the amount of government spending is exposed. There's no possible way for Obama to win in 2012, if the stimulus plan fails. The American people will probably be open to electing the polar opposite of Obama. Hopefully, voters don't get fucking duped into believing that Bobby Jindal is the next "Reagan", because they will be disappointed when they find out that he really is.

[CrespoBlows]

Reagan's administration provided funding and training to the Soviet opposition in Afghanistan-- something that Carter never would have done.

Operation Cyclone started in 1979.



With that support, the Soviets were slowly bled to death to the point where they were in financial distress, demoralized and defeated. Soviet expansionism had come to an end on Reagan's clock.

The Soviets probably would have failed in Afghanistan regardless of the United States support. It would have taken far too long to defeat the fanatical movement that had sprung up against the invasion.



You are not the only one to sing Gorbachev's praises. Time Magazine named him Man of the Year and the mainstream press swooned over him. He was in reality a hardline Communist whose policy changes proved to be too little too late. His legacy is that he presided over the demise of the other great super power of the the second half of the 20th century.

I do no such thing. I merely stated that the fact that the Soviet Union allowed Gorbachev near the Kremlin, after passing legislation that is antithetical to communism is proof to how bad things had got in the USSR. I have heard it said of the Soviet policies that it was "reform communism." In other words, "Not Communism."



If it meant nothing, why did Gorbachev offer to remove all of the Soviet Ballistic missiles aimed at Europe in return for the promise that Star Wars R & D be stopped? Ask yourself that. Why make this ultimatum if it meant nothing to a crumbling empire? The reason for the ultimatum was that it was the Soviet's only chance to curtail the military spending that was strangling their economy.

The offer makes perfect sense. The United States is building a nuclear shield that will protect themselves from nukes, but not their European allies. Offering to remove a major source of tension, in exchange for keeping the strategy of MAD seems like a reasonable proposal. A very crucial strategic position was at stake.

Why does the strategic decisions of Gorbachev mean anything to me? If the Soviet Union wanted to cut military spending, they could have cut spending. What other way to justify the continued rape of the Soviet citizenry, other than to hysterically bawl at the threat of the United States. (Ronald Reagan happily played the role of the anti-hero). They could have disbanded the Red Army, peacefully stopped pointing nukes at Europe, and embraced the free market. What were they worried about? Was Ronnie going to attack them unprovoked? As much thirst Reagan had for war, he wouldn't have dreamed of ever attacking the Soviet Union. They could have learned a lesson from the Vietnam War. They'd rather mutilate themselves, I guess.




Reagan knew it, and walked out of the summit, effectively keeping the foot on the throat of the suffocating USSR.

Reagan went to put his foot on the throat of the Soviet Union, but he found that the Soviet Union beat him to the punch. They self-imploded gloriously.

[ORS]

It takes quite a leap of faith to suggest they can be successful in driving the Soviet war machine out without US support. The ability to combat the Hind assault helicopter with the stinger may have been the most significant tactical shift of the campaign. On top of that, it was more than the high-tech weapons that helped in the cause. We provided training and mountains of cash for a heavy volume of low-tech munitions that allowed them to bleed the Soviets to death.

Now, if you are suggesting that some other source would have provided the training and money for standard munitions, then yeah, I think they would have been defeated over time (more time, I might add). However, that is an assumption that all might not agree with, myself included.

[CrespoBlows]

It takes quite a leap of faith to suggest they can be successful in driving the Soviet war machine out without US support. The ability to combat the Hind assault helicopter with the stinger may have been the most significant tactical shift of the campaign. On top of that, it was more than the high-tech weapons that helped in the cause. We provided training and mountains of cash for a heavy volume of low-tech munitions that allowed them to bleed the Soviets to death.

The entire Middle East was pouring into Afghanistan to help combat the Soviet Union. The aerial campaign was effective at slaughtering civilians, but that was creating more insurgents. It would have taken long policy of genocide to defeat the guerilla fighters. The Soviet Union was close to death, and could not afford a long term war.

They lose this war, with or without the Americans.



Now, if you are suggesting that some other source would have provided the training and money for standard munitions, then yeah, I think they would have been defeated over time (more time, I might add). However, that is an assumption that all might not agree with, myself included.

This would seem more likely. There were many more countries that had significantly more interest in a Soviet Union defeat than we did.

[CrespoBlows]

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican party has moved far to the right"

I don't get it. The Republican Party has taken what Reagan did, and put it on steroids. Where is this massive shift to the right that allegedly took place in the 28 years since Specter was elected? Oh, that's right. The GOP only cares about criminalizing sin, Christian America, and policing the world. Lip service to capitalism. Sounds like the party Specter belongs in.

Specter gives the Democrats 60. The Democrats are so fucked.