Thread: Tea Party or GOP?

The ONN has not endorsed any candidates!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

like most other American voters, I'd let the media make up my mind for me

Originally Posted by MichaelP

For the original topic, I'd refuse to vote if those were the only 2 choices.



Actually if you would check instead of accepting the political spin at face value, the revenue increase didn't come from the tax cut in 1981 but from the successive tax increases of 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. The first tax hike on 1982 actually canceled roughly 1/3 of the 1981 tax cuts. For the average "American family with kids", the tax burden in FY1988 was larger than in FY1980.

In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.


The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP.


The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again.



Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years.


And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.


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.




As opposed to the fiscal responsibility displayed under the GOP supra-majority between 2001 and 2006? In 2001, when the debt was getting close to $5.6T, the future estimation was $6.5T on Jan 2009. Instead it was at $10.7T.

As I said on the other subject on political affiliation, fiscal conservatism is about not spending money you don't have... increasing spending while reducing tax income isn't fiscal conservatism.

most of this does not even deserve a reply as the tax increases never got the revenue that it was supposed to raise. yet the income to the the feds was on a steady rise. personal taxes rates were cut from high 40's mostly down to low 30's. again we have the same story as with clinton, the congress had an automatic override if any of the bills had been vetoed due to the amount of votes that were there.
as for the majority reps had in the 90's they also failed to do what was needed to be done.
your national debt numbers reflect again the democrats controlling the purse strings in 2007-2008 thus their spending again soared and took the national debt even higher. i have said before that both parties now are complete idiots when it comes to trying to control spending and getting the debt to come down. obama has spent more in less than a year than many presidents did while in office for years and years.
all economists agree about the 80's being the longest sustained growth in the history of our peacetime periods and this can't be denied. spin it any way you want.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

interest rates at 20% and inflation to match, tax cuts that helped people other than the middle class, a major recession and photo ops everywhere, he spent more than his fair share of money to match that of congress and created all sorts of government agencies, although PATCO may have been an illegal union, destroying it was the beginning of the end for middle class America.
Weeeelll.... I guess he did save those kids in Grenada... from what?

You clearly indicates you are not well informed about those "kids" in Grenada. I take offense to your comments because had it been me there, I would have wanted a man like Reagan to come for me. I know some of those people who survived that ordeal, and you can bet they are grateful. In fact when I read this at work I showed this to one of those who weren't saved for anything greater. He hope to become your doc BTW. Those kids were medical students (meaning adults) and professors(mostly American I might add), most of who have gone on and saved many lives, what have you done? While you may have been joking, only an idiot would joke about a president willing to send a group of soldiers to rescue someone else's loved ones from being killed. Then not only do you criticize him, you mock him for saving lives. I attended St. Georges' University and have seen where the rescue happened on Grand Anse beach. The buildings still have the bullet holes from US troops shooting back at the Cubans and Russians during the rescue. Did you know that one of the helicopters there to rescue the people was shot down? Did you know that the soldiers from the first helicopter through down all their gear and weapons off there helicopter so that the people could all get on the second one?
I hope you have children that go off to school somewhere , except I hope no one goes for your children since you feel they weren't "saved" for anything greater. Your comment there is inflammatory and malicious. You should be punished for that remark, but I know thats not going to happen. At worst you should apologize. The obvious difference between you and Reagan is that he was a much smarter and greater man than probably anyone either of us have ever met. Long after we are dead, he will still be remembered, who is going to remember you.Thats the one thing you and I have in common, compared to Reagan we are nobody. You can bet those teachers, doctors, and students he rescued in Grenada remember him for coming for them when no one else would.
As for unions, they have done more to destroy this country than anything in a while. If you take a job, do the job and don't whine about he pay or benefits. Quit and get another job. A prime example is how the Japanese car makers make cars for much less than the Americans, and in the end the employees make as much money. Your employer owes you what he agrees to pay you. Nothing more. Unions administered mainly by mobsters have for many years distorted employers.
You want to criticize someone, you better pick someone like me, not Reagan. I hope you are treated some day by one of those rescued people, then perhaps you will realized what they were saved for.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

your national debt numbers reflect again the democrats controlling the purse strings in 2007-2008 thus their spending again soared and took the national debt even higher. i have said before that both parties now are complete idiots when it comes to trying to control spending and getting the debt to come down.

Actually deficit spending in 2007 and 2008 progressed at the same speed as in 2006, which was slightly faster than in 2005. It is quite easy to check as the debt information is available for everyone to check. The $6.5T bar was passed 5 years earlier than scheduled, right in the middle of the Republican supra-majority... One could also argue that the only reason why the deficit didn't increase faster between 2002 and 2005 is because of some serious budget gutting outside the defense sector (infrastructure, education, ...) and some serious social security borrowing.

We do agree 100% on your last sentence in that paragraph

Originally Posted by 59caddy

obama has spent more in less than a year than many presidents did while in office for years and years.

vs

Originally Posted by 59caddy

remember a president can only sign into law what has been sent to him by congress

Hmm, does that only apply if the president is a Republican?

As I pointed out in another thread, check who signed FY2009... Obama's spending is "only" 7% added on top of the existing FY2009 budget. Fiscal Year budgets are usually voted in the previous civil year and the money starts flowing in the September/October time frame, which puts the responsibility square into the previous president lap. By the way, those 7% additional spending included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan operations after the initial 6 months of the year...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

all economists agree about the 80's being the longest sustained growth in the history of our peacetime periods and this can't be denied. spin it any way you want.

Well I can think of more than a handful of economists (granted, a lot of them outside the US) that would disagree with your statement there, but let's accept for the sake of the discussion that it did exactly that.

It also launched the longest peacetime deficit spending period in the history of the nation. A deficit spending period that went on under all Republican administrations since... to avoid budget deficits in relation to tax cuts, you first cut the spending then cut the taxes to match the reduction in spending. Cutting taxes first is and has always been a recipe for disaster.

Disclaimer, I have lived in America shortly towards the end of Reagan's second term then left, came back towards the end of George H.W. Bush term, then left and came back for a year during Clinton's term. I haven't set foot in America after that for various reasons, one of them being a serious lack of time in the last decade.

Originally Posted by MichaelP

Hmm, does that only apply if the president is a Republican?

As I pointed out in another thread, check who signed FY2009... Obama's spending is "only" 7% added on top of the existing FY2009 budget. Fiscal Year budgets are usually voted in the previous civil year and the money starts flowing in the September/October time frame, which puts the responsibility square into the previous president lap. By the way, those 7% additional spending included funding for Iraq and Afghanistan operations after the initial 6 months of the year...



Well I can think of more than a handful of economists (granted, a lot of them outside the US) that would disagree with your statement there, but let's accept for the sake of the discussion that it did exactly that.

It also launched the longest peacetime deficit spending period in the history of the nation. A deficit spending period that went on under all Republican administrations since... to avoid budget deficits in relation to tax cuts, you first cut the spending then cut the taxes to match the reduction in spending. Cutting taxes first is and has always been a recipe for disaster.

Disclaimer, I have lived in America shortly towards the end of Reagan's second term then left, came back towards the end of George H.W. Bush term, then left and came back for a year during Clinton's term. I haven't set foot in America after that for various reasons, one of them being a serious lack of time in the last decade.

let me get this straight, obama's 787 billion only added 7% to the budget? i think not.
the deficit spending under reagan was what destroyed what is now formally the soviet union, due to us out spending and bankrupting them in the process, fair trade off i think...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

let me get this straight, obama's 787 billion only added 7% to the budget? i think not.

Actually, you are right and I was wrong. Obama's spending added the following:
omnibus appropriation
CHIP bill
cash-for-clunkers
For a total of about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget... about 4% and not 7%, thank you for pointing out my mistake.
You could probably add more than $25B for increased military spending, but the budget deficit would still be squarely on Bush's shoulders.
All the bailout funds had been approved by the Bush administration. The TARP funds repaid in January are not used in the calculation as that would be unfair to Bush.
The stimulus bill (the $787B) used funds that were already appropriated by FY2009 budget, but let's add it for fun and we're still under 1/3 of the total budget.

Up to now, the only shocking thing about the Obama administration is that they are continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration. FY2010 is more of the same, with extra crap piled on top, but still totally in line with the previous administration budgets.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

the deficit spending under reagan was what destroyed what is now formally the soviet union, due to us out spending and bankrupting them in the process, fair trade off i think...

Or maybe it was them being stuck in the budget pit named Afghanistan (granted with the US funding the then good guys, now turned bad guys)... you know the budget pit where the good guys currently can't beat the bad guys even tho they outnumber them 12 to 1, while having far better equipment and training. I wonder how much that pit is going to cost after a decade, the US defense spending is actually exploding in front of your eyes with FY2010 increasing funding by over $200B.

Originally Posted by MichaelP

Actually, you are right and I was wrong. Obama's spending added the following:
omnibus appropriation
CHIP bill
cash-for-clunkers
For a total of about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget... about 4% and not 7%, thank you for pointing out my mistake.
You could probably add more than $25B for increased military spending, but the budget deficit would still be squarely on Bush's shoulders.
All the bailout funds had been approved by the Bush administration. The TARP funds repaid in January are not used in the calculation as that would be unfair to Bush.
The stimulus bill (the $787B) used funds that were already appropriated by FY2009 budget, but let's add it for fun and we're still under 1/3 of the total budget.

Up to now, the only shocking thing about the Obama administration is that they are continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration. FY2010 is more of the same, with extra crap piled on top, but still totally in line with the previous administration budgets.



Or maybe it was them being stuck in the budget pit named Afghanistan (granted with the US funding the then good guys, now turned bad guys)... you know the budget pit where the good guys currently can't beat the bad guys even tho they outnumber them 12 to 1, while having far better equipment and training. I wonder how much that pit is going to cost after a decade, the US defense spending is actually exploding in front of your eyes with FY2010 increasing funding by over $200B.

the bailout bush got thru was not the stimulus (787 billion) that obama got. also obama added 500 billion to the budget and thus the deficit for healthcare reform that has not even taken shape yet...then today on the news he asks for another 150 billion to spend. while almost 500billion of the 787billion has not been touched....something is bad wrong with the mans calculator....