The Evidence is In!

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?

I recall you guys kept telling us "we won!"

You Schruted it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?

Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?

Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?

Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:

All three.

Not one...three. 1-2-3.

The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:

1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government

ALL three.


Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:

All three.

Not one...three. 1-2-3.

The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:

1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government

ALL three.


Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.

No president in your lifetime has done ALL three.

The question was, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

I'll elaborate.

If taxes need to be lower, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:

All three.

Not one...three. 1-2-3.

The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:

1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government

ALL three.


Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.

No president in your lifetime has done ALL three.

The question was, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

I'll elaborate.

If taxes need to be lower, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

When Obamacare passed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

I understand that you are fascinated by small shiny objects, and find it difficult to juggle more than one thought in your head at a time...which is exactly what made you eligible to be Liberal...but an understanding of this subject may be beyond you:

All three.

Not one...three. 1-2-3.

The reponse to the problem is based on the constellation of said items:

1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government

ALL three.


Of course, those who have been alert during recent history realize that once this paradigm has been put in place, and the crisis is alleviated, your side will take credit for the victory...
...such is life.

No president in your lifetime has done ALL three.

The question was, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

I'll elaborate.

If taxes need to be lower, when did the Bush tax cuts stop working?

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

 

[Vast LWC]

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Anyone recall what the GOP 2009 stimulus plan was?

Pretty much the same stimulus plan that has always proved effective:
1. lower taxes
2. less regulation
3. smaller government.

When did the Bush tax cuts stop 'working'? And why?

First when the dimwits won congress in 2006, then came obamaturd and spend became his montra.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimate.

When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today.

In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.

Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. When the Republicans Cut Spending | Economy | American Solutions

 

[AmericanFirst]

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.

 

[Vast LWC]

When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today.

In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.

Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. When the Republicans Cut Spending | Economy | American Solutions

Woah, woah, back up.

Why would you not include defense spending?

And why are you using GDP to make the comparison?

GDP grew, true.. so did government.

And, let me ask you this:

If government spending supposedly went down, and revenue supposedly went up...

Then how did Reagan build up 3 Trillion dollars in debt?

 

[shintao]

Allow me to provide the leftist rebuttal.

Nuh-UH!!

Thank you.

Will hit it on the head, 100 million checks sent out, and corporations are not hiring American workers who are on food stamps. The Party of NO is still saying NO.....

 

[shintao]

While I may not have been eligible to vote for him, President Reagan did.

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.

You mean because he was a cowboy movie actor?

 

[AmericanFirst]

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.

You mean because he was a cowboy movie actor?

No, because he was smarter, more experienced, and not a socialist. ALSO HAD A SPINE!

 

[PoliticalChic]

When Reagan came into office in 1981, he forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts. That package was close to 5%, (a $31 billion cut) of the Federal budget at the time, which would be the equivalent of roughly $200 billion today.

In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But the roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.

Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms! By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars. Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total Federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That's a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%. When the Republicans Cut Spending | Economy | American Solutions

Woah, woah, back up.

Why would you not include defense spending?

And why are you using GDP to make the comparison?

GDP grew, true.. so did government.

And, let me ask you this:

If government spending supposedly went down, and revenue supposedly went up...

Then how did Reagan build up 3 Trillion dollars in debt?

1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.

2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagan’s tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:

“No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.

There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched.” IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com


3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed: “Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf


4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.

Go get 'em, Leftie!

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was "smaller" about government in 1988, relative to 1980?

As far as I know, Reagan greatly expanded the government during his two terms. By 90% by some estimates.

I will say it again...Reagan was a lot better than what we have in office now.

You mean because he was a cowboy movie actor?

Since the schools have neglected to do so, I'll have to educate you:

The results of Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

 

[Vast LWC]

1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.

So... Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Russians without any help at all from the work of his predecessors or anyone else in government at the time (like Joe Wilson). That's pretty impressive. So, by that token, obviously Obama deserves all the credit for killing Bin Laden, right?

2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagan’s tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:

“No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.

There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched.” IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com

3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed: “Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

So, just so we're clear, what you're saying is... as I said... Reagan didn't cut spending.

Right?

4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.

Go get 'em, Leftie!

Spending and deficits have always been a major consideration for me.

I feel we need to raise the eligibility age by 3 years right now for all retirement-related benefits, raise income and capital gains tax rates back to Clinton era levels, and cut spending, especially (but certainly not limited to) military spending, drastically.

Though I think as far as capital gains taxes go, I feel there should be exceptions made on investment income that has verifiable proof of having created American jobs.

 

[daveman]

Allow me to provide the leftist rebuttal.

Nuh-UH!!

Thank you.

Will hit it on the head, 100 million checks sent out, and corporations are not hiring American workers who are on food stamps. The Party of NO is still saying NO.....

I called it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What you and the other Lefties fail to give proper respect and honor to is that President Reagan saved the United States, and the world, from communism. No price can be put on this feat.
And he did it without going to war.

So... Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Russians without any help at all from the work of his predecessors or anyone else in government at the time (like Joe Wilson). That's pretty impressive. So, by that token, obviously Obama deserves all the credit for killing Bin Laden, right?

2. Here, the answer to your question, from the NYTimes:
Reagan’s tax cutting vs. the realities of politics:

“No democratic mandate could have been clearer than President Reagan's to cut Government spending. Yet the very same people who wanted this also wanted their own goodies preserved. On any particular issue it is the pro-goody faction that is motivated and organized. No one in America wants a subsidy program for peanut farmers, for example, except for a few peanut farmers. But non-peanut farmers don't care that much about this one little program. By skillfully trading their votes for things non-peanut farmers do care about, the Congressmen for the peanut farmers were able to save their program.

There are dozens of stories like this one. The result is that Mr. Stockman was unable to cut the goodies of anyone except those least able to organize and protect themselves: the very poor. After five years of unrelenting ideological assault, non-defense spending is just nine percent lower than it would have been if all the pre-1981 programs had remained untouched.” IN THE LAND OF THE MAGIC ASTERISK - NYTimes.com

3. The Democratic Congress offered this deal: For every dollar you raise taxes, we’ll cut three dollars in spending. On that basis he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. How did that work out? From Ronald Reagan’s WSJ op-ed: “Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you
are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come
as, well, death and taxes.In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal
spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed
to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny.” (Reagan 1993) http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

So, just so we're clear, what you're saying is... as I said... Reagan didn't cut spending.

Right?

4. I am glad to see, Leftie, that spending and deficits are a consideration for you!
Bravo! You are on the right track...and on course to have your standing in the 'Left-wing' suspended!
The Left lives by one word: "MORE!"
You might be surprised to know that President Reagan never ran a deficit higher than 6%...which is about half of the deficit run by the current administration.

Go get 'em, Leftie!

Spending and deficits have always been a major consideration for me.

I feel we need to raise the eligibility age by 3 years right now for all retirement-related benefits, raise income and capital gains tax rates back to Clinton era levels, and cut spending, especially (but certainly not limited to) military spending, drastically.

Though I think as far as capital gains taxes go, I feel there should be exceptions made on investment income that has verifiable proof of having created American jobs.

"...Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Russians..."

1. At the same time the Soviets started deploying the deadly SS-20 missiles, Moscow began a political program to disarm American and NATO forces opposing them in Europe. Moscow's political program included direct and indirect support for the "Nuclear Freeze" movement inside Europe and America.

The Soviets found many willing patsy friends inside America.

The "Freeze" movement pushed for the total dismantling of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons, staging massive demonstrations and pressuring the newly elected government of Ronald Reagan.

The liberal press called upon Reagan to remove the tactical nuclear arsenal from Europe. Europeans fell easy prey to the false theory that a nuclear war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in Europe would remain inside the continent. Freeze supporters here in the U.S. clamored that the strategic arsenal based inside America was more than enough to stop any attack in Germany.

The Hollywood establishment labeled Reagan a reckless "cowboy" who would press the nuclear button at the drop of a hat. The wide liberal criticism openly insulted Reagan as a senile fool who could carry the world into global nuclear war.
Walk Softly ...

Reagan did not give in. Instead of caving to the political pressure, Reagan went against the polls, against the liberal media and against Hollywood's advice to disarm in the face of the Soviet threat. Reagan opted instead to match Moscow's firepower and up the ante.

The Reagan administration decided to deploy a new series of U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe. Despite the protests and howling liberal media, Reagan began to deploy advanced Pershing II tactical missiles and land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles to meet the Soviet SS-20 threat.
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan – Peace

So, yes....pretty much "single-handedly."
But I'll include Lady Thatcher, if you like.

2. Are you aware of the fact that the 'Liberal Lion,' Senator Ted Kennedy offered the Soviets a pact against the sitting Presidnent of the United States?

The following from the Central Committee archives, in Moscow: May 14, 1983, Committee on State Security of the USSR, On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. "… very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. … dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons… the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics…. "

" …a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations … so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA… also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield.
… to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA… the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters…"
Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR | Sweetness & Light

3. I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to the duplicity of the Left, the Democrats, and the following texts would go a long way in that direction:

Dr. Paul Kangor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

and

"The Mitrokhin Archives", a fascinating cache of documents was taken out of Russia by a defector...
The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB [Paperback]
Christopher Andrew (Author)
(Author), Vasili Mitrokhin (Author)