Do Republican voters understand deficit demagoguery?

Londoner

Gold Member
Jul 17, 2010
3,144
980
285
Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue), and refused to make corresponding cuts to entitlements (because, for example, seniors would punish them for cutting medicare and SS).

Moreover, when the GOP controlled all 3 branches for 6 years, they spent more than any party in modern memory.

[FYI: we know the Democrats are going to spend big -- they don't deny this fact, they are Keyneseans -- but the GOP's entire platform is deficit control (yet they never follow through). Don't take my word for it, Big Government conservatism's spending record is easily researched. Bush didn't veto any GOP pork because he needed support for an unpopular war. Worse: "Medicare Part D" was the greatest entitlement expansion in 50 years, and it didn't benefit tax payers because it locked in above-market costs for big pharma -- it was simply a big business give away.]

Given this abysmal 30 year deficit record, how is possible that we are once again listening to the GOP about their newfound respect for deficit reduction?

Everyone knows you can't address the deficit without either raising taxes or cutting the untouchables: SS, Medicare, and Defense. Clinton lowered the deficit by raising the highest tax bracket from 35% to 38% (and the economy boomed), but the GOP will not do this. And they won't cut Social Security or Medicare because they refuse to face the electoral consequences. As for Defense, the Republican party's money supply comes partly from awarding defense contracts. Therefore, the GOP is not going to cut the deficit. Like Reagan and the Bushes, they are going to explode it.

Here is my question. Sine the GOP never cuts spending (unless they are trying to obstruct a Democrat in the White House), why do so many voters believe in them?

Why doesn't the average talk radio listener understand that the GOP is merely demagoguing deficits in order to re-take Washington? And then, once they get Washington back, they will use "National Security" (e.g., Terrorism) to boost spending (and thus move money to their "machine") . . . = deficit explosion.

Why doesn't the Republican voter see this?

[My friend who teaches at a university in England says that over 50% of the American Right doesn't even know about the Reagan deficits, e.g., increasing defense spending, lowering taxes (revenue), combined with an unwillingness to cut entitlements. They still think Carter spent more than Reagan, despite the public record which has been around for 30 years. He says that this kind of information control means that the GOP can spend as much as they want because their spending record never reaches voters]

Why doesn't the Republican voter see the current deficit demagoguery for what it is? Republicans have been working this shell game for the past quarter century. They complain about deficits in order to gain power; then they explode the deficit beneath a carefully constructed "National Security" emergency (fighting evil Soviets or Islamo-Fadcists). It never fails. Does anyone even know the record of GOP pork under Reagan and the Bushes? It is unbelievable. Why don't Republican voters know about this stuff? Why do Republican Voters keep sending these big spenders to Washington? Don't they understand: America can no longer afford Big Government Conservatism. If we're going to spend, we have to re-capitalize the middle class, so they can start consuming again. Yet -- somehow -- we keep pumping taxpayer money into the same small cadre of special interests.

Why don't Republican voters see this?

Answers, please.
 
Last edited:
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.
 
They don't see it because they still believe in the magic of trickle down.......Spend as much as you want.....cut taxes...then expect an economic miracle to bail you out
 
Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue), and refused to make corresponding cuts to entitlements (because, for example, seniors would punish them for cutting medicare and SS).

Moreover, when the GOP controlled all 3 branches for 6 years, they spent more than any party in modern memory.

[FYI: we know the Democrats are going to spend big -- they don't deny this fact, they are Keyneseans -- but the GOP's entire platform is deficit control (yet they never follow through). Don't take my word for it, Big Government conservatism's spending record is easily researched. Bush didn't veto any GOP pork because he needed support for an unpopular war. Worse: "Medicare Part D" was the greatest entitlement expansion in 50 years, and it didn't benefit tax payers because it locked in above-market costs for big pharma -- it was simply a big business give away.]

Given this abysmal 30 year deficit record, how is possible that we are once again listening to the GOP about their newfound respect for deficit reduction?

Everyone knows you can't address the deficit without either raising taxes or cutting the untouchables: SS, Medicare, and Defense. Clinton lowered the deficit by raising the highest tax bracket from 35% to 38% (and the economy boomed), but the GOP will not do this. And they won't cut Social Security or Medicare because they refuse to face the electoral consequences. As for Defense, the Republican party's money supply comes partly from awarding defense contracts. Therefore, the GOP is not going to cut the deficit. Like Reagan and the Bushes, they are going to explode it.

Here is my question. Sine the GOP never cuts spending (unless they are trying to obstruct a Democrat in the White House), why do so many voters believe in them?

Why doesn't the average talk radio listener understand that the GOP is merely demagoguing deficits in order to re-take Washington? And then, once they get Washington back, they will use "National Security" (e.g., Terrorism) to boost spending (and thus move money to their "machine") . . . = deficit explosion.

Why doesn't the Republican voter see this?

[My friend who teaches at a university in England says that over 50% of the American Right doesn't even know about the Reagan deficits, e.g., increasing defense spending, lowering taxes (revenue), combined with an unwillingness to cut entitlements. They still think Carter spent more than Reagan, despite the public record which has been around for 30 years. He says that this kind of information control means that the GOP can spend as much as they want because their spending record never reaches voters]

Why doesn't the Republican voter see the current deficit demagoguery for what it is? Republicans have been working this shell game for the past quarter century. They complain about deficits in order to gain power; then they explode the deficit beneath a carefully constructed "National Security" emergency (fighting evil Soviets or Islamo-Fadcists). It never fails. Does anyone even know the record of GOP pork under Reagan and the Bushes? It is unbelievable. Why don't Republican voters know about this stuff? Why do Republican Voters keep sending these big spenders to Washington? Don't they understand: America can no longer afford Big Government Conservatism. If we're going to spend, we have to re-capitalize the middle class, so they can start consuming again. Yet -- somehow -- we keep pumping taxpayer money into the same small cadre of special interests.

Why don't Republican voters see this?

Answers, please.

Do Republican voters understand deficit demagoguery?

Oh please. The vast majority don't understand evolution, plate tectonics or what a black hole is. In fact, they think the way a light-bulb works is by "flipping a switch".

Look how nuts they went when I pointed out China's new super computer was made with game chips. They still don't believe that one.
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.
The left can't understand why the opposite doesn't work.
They cut defense spending and raise taxes but still run a deeper deficit.
Problem is they don't stop with defense cuts.
They'll turn around and triple what they used to spend on defense on the latest pet project.
 
They don't see it because they still believe in the magic of trickle down.......Spend as much as you want.....cut taxes...then expect an economic miracle to bail you out

They don't believe it because partisan politics is a religious cult and partisans are brainwashed pawns, same on the left as on the right.
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

The most partisan and simplistic reading possible. Reagan himself pointed out that Congress passes budgets, not the president. ANyone remember him slamming a copy of the massive federal budget on the table during a speech?
Londoner is an idiot of vente class.
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

The most partisan and simplistic reading possible. Reagan himself pointed out that Congress passes budgets, not the president. ANyone remember him slamming a copy of the massive federal budget on the table during a speech?
Londoner is an idiot of vente class.

The president is required by law to submit a budget.

Congress is then limited to negotiating it or an up and down vote.

The president has veto power.

You sir are a fool, and NOBODY wants any part of your junk! In fact if YOU touch your junk, WE will have you arrested!
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

You're the kind of dunce the OP was aimed at.

Sure, Carby, the OP was gonna take me to school by throwing out ideas wrong out in the trillion column.

Sure.
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

this is your answer, Londoner. obstinacy.

why be informed and pragmatic when you could just be ignorant and ideological?
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

this is your answer, Londoner. obstinacy.

why be informed and pragmatic when you could just be ignorant and ideological?

You and Londoner certainly know about ignorant and ideological.
But I'll let Reagan himself school you two clowns on this:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrjxcccJuCc[/ame]
 
that's the point of the thread, dumbass: that what republican leadership says is taken over what they do. reagan ushered in the era of deficit spending which we are bound up in, and oversaw a massive expansion in the consumption of entitlement partly due to his policy. clinton cleared that up with the opposite... partly due to his policy.

simple.

if you are out to paint the republican fiscal conservative record out to be better than that across the aisle, you are an obstinate ignoramus jerking off to reagan on youtube. you are not historically accurate, however.
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

You're the kind of dunce the OP was aimed at.

Sure, Carby, the OP was gonna take me to school by throwing out ideas wrong out in the trillion column.

Sure.

You want to debate whether or not the expansion of the federal debt was greater under Reagan and Bush than it was under Carter Clinton?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush increased defense spending?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush cut taxes?

Let's hear it, because otherwise the OP is right and you are wrong.
 
You're the kind of dunce the OP was aimed at.

Sure, Carby, the OP was gonna take me to school by throwing out ideas wrong out in the trillion column.

Sure.

You want to debate whether or not the expansion of the federal debt was greater under Reagan and Bush than it was under Carter Clinton?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush increased defense spending?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush cut taxes?

Let's hear it, because otherwise the OP is right and you are wrong.

I thought Congress passed budgets. That one fact would seem to render moot your entire post. Perhaps even your entire life.
 
"Reagan and the Bushes expanded the federal debt significantly more than Carter and Clinton. This is mostly because they increased defense spending, lowered taxes (revenue)..."

I stopped reading after that.

The most partisan and simplistic reading possible. Reagan himself pointed out that Congress passes budgets, not the president. ANyone remember him slamming a copy of the massive federal budget on the table during a speech?
Londoner is an idiot of vente class.

Ok, if you want to use that argument,

Why did Reagan push for massive tax cuts if he had no power to also get the massive spending cuts he wanted?
 
You're the kind of dunce the OP was aimed at.

Sure, Carby, the OP was gonna take me to school by throwing out ideas wrong out in the trillion column.

Sure.

You want to debate whether or not the expansion of the federal debt was greater under Reagan and Bush than it was under Carter Clinton?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush increased defense spending?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush cut taxes?

Let's hear it, because otherwise the OP is right and you are wrong.

Quite a bit of information missing from the op.

Why is there no mention about the democrats lying to Reagen about reducing spending three dollars for every dollar of the tax increase. Inconvenient?
 
Sure, Carby, the OP was gonna take me to school by throwing out ideas wrong out in the trillion column.

Sure.

You want to debate whether or not the expansion of the federal debt was greater under Reagan and Bush than it was under Carter Clinton?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush increased defense spending?

You want to debate whether or not Reagan and Bush cut taxes?

Let's hear it, because otherwise the OP is right and you are wrong.

I thought Congress passed budgets. That one fact would seem to render moot your entire post. Perhaps even your entire life.

Ok, then tell me you believe that Barack Obama is BLAMELESS for the 2009/2010 deficits.

And, please, if you will, put it in a nicely constructed sentence that will look good in my sig line.
 

Forum List

Back
Top