A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

continued

Actually the lack of oversight caused this problem. Higher taxes are a necessity to pay for the things society needs in order to function.

Ah, your failure is almost complete.
Actually the reason for the budget crunch is because Republicans are holding the state hostage. They've allied themselves with Grover Norquist rather than upholding their oaths to serve the People of their State. California's Constitution requires the state budget to have a two-thirds majority in order to pass--they're the ones causing the problem.

Sure...

Quote of the Day: The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) offered the following observation several years ago and it bears poignant significance today:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."

Originally posted by redhatty

Quote of the Day: The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) offered the following observation several years ago and it bears poignant significance today:

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."

That is soooo f'kn beautiful! Star for you sir...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


Let's do keep this thread on topic.

Because I don't have a party. But I have seen how Reaganomics have changed this country for the worst.

If that's your picture in your Avatar you look a little green behind the ears to really know Reagan. Again Unless you lived during his years everything you know and Everything else is just propaganda

reply to post by HunkaHunka



Thanks god

If people can not add two and two anymore we are screwed...

REAGANomics = debt
BUSHANOMICS = debt
CLINTONOMICS = surplus
BUSHJRNOMICS = cluster$#@$ to the poor house...

EISENHOWER taxed the top 1% at 90%

he was a REPUBLICAN

con greed takes up to many economic resources -
we will see

"EAT THE POOR" - "wait, I'm not a billionaire"

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


Let's do keep this thread on topic.

Because I don't have a party. But I have seen how Reaganomics have changed this country for the worst.

If that's your picture in your Avatar you look a little green behind the ears to really know Reagan. Again Unless you lived during his years everything you know and Everything else is just propaganda

Well REAGAN is sure good at drawing red downward lines on graphs

zfacts.com...

and being cool...

reply to post by mental modulator


oh this is pathetic the man is dead and left office more than 20 years ago and everything is his fault.


Get real and wake up people from both sides of the isle have had a hand in this nobody is clean.

Originally posted by mental modulator
REAGANomics = debt
BUSHANOMICS = debt
CLINTONOMICS = surplus
BUSHJRNOMICS = cluster$#@$ to the poor house...

You do realize that the national debt continued to RISE under Clinton - the only place that there appeared to be a surplus was in the national budget - and that was only after Clinton looted the Social Security funds - right?

Bush Jr didn't do us any favors and 2 wars sure haven't helped, but in just about 40 days, Obama has DOUBLED the national debt left to him by Bush Jr.

Not a good start

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by mental modulator
REAGANomics = debt
BUSHANOMICS = debt
CLINTONOMICS = surplus
BUSHJRNOMICS = cluster$#@$ to the poor house...

You do realize that the national debt continued to RISE under Clinton - the only place that there appeared to be a surplus was in the national budget - and that was only after Clinton looted the Social Security funds - right?

Bush Jr didn't do us any favors and 2 wars sure haven't helped, but in just about 40 days, Obama has DOUBLED the national debt left to him by Bush Jr.

Not a good start

ON GROSS NATIONAL DEBT

Double Whammy: 50-Year Record on Sept. 22. $10 Trillion on Sept. 30, 2008.
The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981. It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush senior. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%. Bush junior crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That's the highest it's been since 1955. (sources)
Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).

zfacts.com...

Source gov budget office


SORRY Obama has yet to spend 20 T - so he has yet to double the GND

REACH

[edit on 3-3-2009 by mental modulator]

What Happened

When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan’s presidency the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in 1982.

Taking away the South
Reagan also delivered a strategic electoral blow to the Democrats: He took away the South and the Democrats have never gotten it back.

In 1980, Reagan carried all the Southern and border states except for West Virginia and Carter’s native Georgia. Since then, only when Southerner Bill Clinton headed the ticket did Democrats win any Southern states; in 2000, Gore, himself from Tennessee, carried no Southern or border states.

“In the South the Reagan realignment of the 1980s was a momentous achievement,” wrote political scientists Merle Black and Earl Black. “By transforming the region’s white electorate, Ronald Reagan’s presidency made possible the Republicans’ congressional breakthrough in the 1990s.”

Their reference to the “white electorate” is deliberate: Reagan alienated many black voters by, among other actions, contending in 1982 that racially discriminatory private schools were entitled to tax-exempt status unless Congress specified otherwise.

Part of the Reagan legacy is that nearly 60 percent of the House members from the South are now Republicans, a major reason why Republicans control the House.

This year’s Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, seemed to acknowledge last year that the South might be out of reach.

“Al Gore proved that you can get elected president of the United States without winning one Southern state — if he had simply won New Hampshire … or a number of other states," Kerry said.

Moral clarity
Finally what Reagan did to the Democrats was to prove that moral clarity and simplicity can be an electoral asset.

He had a knack for provoking the Democrats with his unvarnished anti-communism: the Vietnam War, he said in August of 1980, had been "a noble cause" — a remark the New York Times predicted would cost him votes. The contra rebels working to overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government in Nicaragua were, he said, "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers."

The foreign policy contrast persists today: the Democrats, the party of nuance; the Republicans, the party of bold, simple (Democrats would say “simplistic”) statements.

When asked in his debate with Reagan about using military force to counter Soviet expansion in Afghanistan, Carter said as president he'd learned “there are no simple answers to complicated questions.”

Reagan did have a simple answer: He called the Soviet Union “the focus of evil in the modern world.”

In Carter’s most memorable foreign policy statement, at Notre Dame University in June of 1977, he did not talk about the evil of Soviet totalitarianism.

Instead he said he had a "hope" that he could “persuade the Soviet Union that one country cannot impose its system of society upon another.”

He reframed Lincoln’s half-slave/half-free formula as an issue of some people having too much wealth and others not enough. “We know a peaceful world cannot long exist one-third rich and two-thirds hungry,” Carter said.

He urged cooperation with “the developed Communist countries … in providing more effective aid” to the poor.

'Inordinate fear of communism'
Carter assured his Notre Dame audience in 1977 that “we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism,” which had led the United States to ally with anti-communist dictators.

Reagan took the contrary view: Soviet communism was to be feared, more importantly, it had to be overcome.

Facing a new enemy, Reagan’s Republican successor practices Reaganesque phrase-making: “America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy.”

How Kerry and the Democrats counter that rhetoric may well determine the outcome of the election this November.

Originally posted by mental modulator

The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981.

I love how Reagan bashers always like to leave out the mess Carter left Reagan as he took office in 1981 GET IT?

How Reagan inherited that mess. They always seem to forget about the Reagan Democrats whose votes were required to get those budgets passed.
So again I say it took both sides of the isle nobody is clean!

Originally posted by SLAYER69


What Happened

When Reagan left the White House, the deficit amounted to 2.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product, after having hit 6 percent of GDP in 1983. The economy grew out of the 1982 recession and by the end of Reagan’s presidency the unemployment rate was 5 percent, less than half what it was in 1982.

Taking away the South
Reagan also delivered a strategic electoral blow to the Democrats: He took away the South and the Democrats have never gotten it back.

In 1980, Reagan carried all the Southern and border states except for West Virginia and Carter’s native Georgia. Since then, only when Southerner Bill Clinton headed the ticket did Democrats win any Southern states; in 2000, Gore, himself from Tennessee, carried no Southern or border states.

“In the South the Reagan realignment of the 1980s was a momentous achievement,” wrote political scientists Merle Black and Earl Black. “By transforming the region’s white electorate, Ronald Reagan’s presidency made possible the Republicans’ congressional breakthrough in the 1990s.”

Their reference to the “white electorate” is deliberate: Reagan alienated many black voters by, among other actions, contending in 1982 that racially discriminatory private schools were entitled to tax-exempt status unless Congress specified otherwise.

Part of the Reagan legacy is that nearly 60 percent of the House members from the South are now Republicans, a major reason why Republicans control the House.

This year’s Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, seemed to acknowledge last year that the South might be out of reach.

“Al Gore proved that you can get elected president of the United States without winning one Southern state — if he had simply won New Hampshire … or a number of other states," Kerry said.

Moral clarity
Finally what Reagan did to the Democrats was to prove that moral clarity and simplicity can be an electoral asset.

He had a knack for provoking the Democrats with his unvarnished anti-communism: the Vietnam War, he said in August of 1980, had been "a noble cause" — a remark the New York Times predicted would cost him votes. The contra rebels working to overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government in Nicaragua were, he said, "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers."

The foreign policy contrast persists today: the Democrats, the party of nuance; the Republicans, the party of bold, simple (Democrats would say “simplistic”) statements.

When asked in his debate with Reagan about using military force to counter Soviet expansion in Afghanistan, Carter said as president he'd learned “there are no simple answers to complicated questions.”

Reagan did have a simple answer: He called the Soviet Union “the focus of evil in the modern world.”

In Carter’s most memorable foreign policy statement, at Notre Dame University in June of 1977, he did not talk about the evil of Soviet totalitarianism.

Instead he said he had a "hope" that he could “persuade the Soviet Union that one country cannot impose its system of society upon another.”

He reframed Lincoln’s half-slave/half-free formula as an issue of some people having too much wealth and others not enough. “We know a peaceful world cannot long exist one-third rich and two-thirds hungry,” Carter said.

He urged cooperation with “the developed Communist countries … in providing more effective aid” to the poor.

'Inordinate fear of communism'
Carter assured his Notre Dame audience in 1977 that “we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism,” which had led the United States to ally with anti-communist dictators.

Reagan took the contrary view: Soviet communism was to be feared, more importantly, it had to be overcome.

Facing a new enemy, Reagan’s Republican successor practices Reaganesque phrase-making: “America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy.”

How Kerry and the Democrats counter that rhetoric may well determine the outcome of the election this November.

Once again gov open source...

Modern post WWII US gross national debt was created by RR and BUSH1

zfacts.com...

Double Whammy: 50-Year Record on Sept. 22. $10 Trillion on Sept. 30, 2008.
The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981. It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush senior. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%. Bush junior crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That's the highest it's been since 1955. (sources)
Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:

1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).

reply to post by mental modulator


I noticed you avoided the Clinton facts, so just to prove the point US National Debt by Presidential Term

Obama just signed off on the new Budget. Here's the write-ups on it
Kansas City Star
CBS News
Bloomberg

And those projections are going on HOPE that the economic conditions in the US and World will CHANGE for the better.

What if that doesn't happen?

reply to post by mental modulator


Why do you keep posting that same lame link?
That doesn't prove a thing.
And you keep leaving out real details like who voted for these budgets and when. Also Obama has just signed off on some of the biggest to date also you failed to mention the Clinton years?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by mental modulator

The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981.

I love how Reagan bashers always like to leave out the mess Carter left Reagan as he took office in 1981 GET IT?

How Reagan inherited that mess. They always seem to forget about the Reagan Democrats whose votes were required to get those budgets passed.
So again I say it took both sides of the isle nobody is clean!

I'm not saying Democrats are not blame,
ultimately WE are to blame for electing who we elect.

But I am saying - This myth that Reagan had positive growth economic policy needs to be put to rest. MODERN conservatives sight RR policy as a model for economic growth,
its no wonder many still defend BUSH II.

I actually knew RR as a teen, as I hung out with his grandson everyday after school. I am not a REAGAN basher for fun...

I am also saying Eisenhower R tax the top 1% at 90% and we did not have this problem, in fact we payed off a good portion of WWII debt... NOT a virtue examined or acted upon in modern conservative ideology.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Why do you keep posting that same lame link?

That doesn't prove a thing.

ITS open source GOV data...
I guess it only proves that you did not visit the link.

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Why do you keep posting that same lame link?

That doesn't prove a thing.

ITS open source GOV data...
I guess it only proves that you did not visit the link.

OH I missed the lame comment

MY source is as good as it gets, uncut...

reply to post by mental modulator


Yeah I did and I still ask why do you keep posting the lame link

Also I didn't mind spending the extra money during those years I lived through those years and if you didn't then you have no idea what it was like.
I slept good knowing the Soviet Union was on it's way out.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Yeah I did and I still ask why do you keep posting the lame link

Also I didn't mind spending the extra money during those years I lived through those years and if you didn't then you have no idea what it was like.
I slept good knowing the Soviet Union was on it's way out.

I commend RR for that

But bashing my link is diminishing your ability to sustain a relevant argument.

IT is OPEN SOURCE GOV

I will link you to the US gov site, unless you are anti US. which I doubt.

reply to post by SLAYER69


RR contributed 30% of GROSS NATIONAL DEBT that is still held today.

BUSH sr 11%

BUSH JR 15%

OF GND