Printable View
:hmmm:"Tea Party more popular than GOP in national poll"<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL>This interesting headline appeared in one of the online news-magazines to which I subscribe. While the Tea Party is not an official party, it very well may become one before long. I wonder how the SRP membership would vote if there were a "head-to-head" election between just the two?</SMALL>
The republican/democratic parties have been a wasteland for too many years now, if the grass root "tea party" could organize I might be up for it. But like all good start ups, it would be a mere matter of seconds before the egos took over and the sell outs would be bought out.
Because center repubs are so embarrassed by the tea partiers that they identify themselves as independants.
What embarrasses them? People who are fed up with the usual BS? BTW, I think its the tea party people who are pushing for the independents.
i agree with a lot of the republicans being to liberal and we need another great one and i mean another "RONALD REAGAN" . he was a true conservative and did not take any crap from any punk third world leaders.
the tea party would be great if they stick with their guns and stay that way and do not get swayed into the trap that liberals are really nice and we need to get along with them (bullcrap, they will eat you alive, just ask george h. bush)
HAHAHAHA, sorry. Mr Economics is just funny to me :)) His ground work helped us get where we're at today. I am all for the free market, not the market running freely.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
Heres a heads up for those of you who dont know it, Reagan was an actor.
And for the rest of you, he was a die hard Democrat until the breakup of MCA in 1962Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
think what you like, but the facts are that we enjoyed the longest term of growth during peacetime in history...interest rates at or above 20% when he took office and unemployment as great as today...by cutting tax rates we saw the largest jump of revenue come into the feds by far while he was in office..deficit spending went up with both houses controlled by democrats that refused to balance the budget even while controlling the purse strings of the nation(remember a president can only sign into law what has been sent to him by congress) just like under george h. bush, there was supposed to be 2 dollars cut from spending for every dollar of tax increase(we all saw what the democrats being a bunch of liars did to the deficit then and probably going to do again) i'll take the 80's anytime as compared to now. as merle haggard said "back when the country was strong"Quote:
Originally Posted by wpfontenot
and now look what we have a "community organizer" with no legislative experience at all (yeah, that's what we need)Quote:
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?
Yep, best growth ever in the US. Too bad it laid the ground work for financial ruin. Those policies needed to be tempered with well thought out regulation for sustained growth. As far as your comment on "when the country was strong" it sounds like (as neo-cons like to say about the current president) you're ashamed to be an American.
My point is simple, Ronald Reagan was a shady politician with documented organized crime ties and no financial sense for the long run. Not the second coming of Christ with the ability to walk on water. Too bad he couldn't be like Clinton in the financial sense and leave a big ole surplus of cash in the coffers for the next President to waste.
This is getting off-topic so I'll stand down.
if clinton left such a big pile of cash, why did the national debt keep rising. it was all smoke and mirrors. the last time the budget was truly balanced was during the nixon admin, with a 58 billion surplus(aprox)Quote:
Originally Posted by wpfontenot
if the cash was there what happened to it. (do not forget that the other party forced him to sign welfare reform and all those other things he takes claim for. he could not veto the bills as it had too many votes and would have been over ridden by congress and would have embarrassed him)
also apologize for straying from the original thread...:OT
So we agree, a Politician IS a Politician and nothing more :)
You don't really believe that do you? Over 30 yrs of deficit spending starting with LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and then Reagan, and good ol' Bill paid the whole thing off, how and with what? The usual book cooking. Bill also helped Nixon and Kissinger achieve their dream of killing the middle class. Remember Nafta and Gatt, MFN status for China, Al Gore and a bhuddist briefcase full of money and the jobs we used to have?Quote:
Originally Posted by wpfontenot
again i ask, if he paid it off, why did the national debt keep rising. he did not pay it off, the debt never even slowed down for a minute, thus proving he did nothing of the sortQuote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
lesson: national debt is total spending. where is the surplus? someone, somewhere was spending and i bet it was "bubba" bill at the helm saying full speed ahead!!!!!
The GOP is so jaded that a new and real conservative and principled party would be possibly just what we need to start straightening this mess out unlike the current group who is intentionally looking for a good 'crisis' to not let go to waste in order to create more crisis in order to get more entrenched power and wealth redistribution (primarily to themselves). And of course under good ol' Willie Boy the subprime lending program went to insane irresponsibility which laid the groundwork for and eventually caused the inevitable financial trouble that we are now stuck working through, which is not heading in the right direction.
Are you saying the Dems are the only ones who do crisis management for the sake of power? Or that the Repubs do their share of crisis and power grubbing as well. I read your statement above and it could say two different things, depending on how you read it.
Sure both are guilty, just one worse than the other. We have been stuck trying unfortunately to vote for the lesser of two evils.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
not picking on you in general, just fed up with the whole damn bunch of self-centered, power grubbing, money hungry, special interest group, liars, politics as usual, we know what's best for you, bunch of stupid idiots...:rant:Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
A little clearer please Scott. Hard to get a point across by beating around the bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
:D
I dont know. Waving around pictures of mass graves from the holocaust with the tagline "ObamaCare" would sure embarrass me if they were supposed to be supporting MY agenda.
Which ones?! Reps or Dems?Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
So. What is your agenda Ian?
And, do you ever go by just John?
BOTH, my friend, BOTH guilty as charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
now i probably have you confused as what or who i am. well first and foremost i am a "conservative, flag waving, do not tread on me AMERICAN" oh and also "you will take my gun, from my cold dead hand"
Yes yes, that's a little clearer.
Nope, name's Ian. Not Scottish, named after Ian Hunter.
When the pollsters come a-calling, I'm the guy sharpening my skinning knife with one eye squinting evilly and muttering to myself about the last "unwanted guests" I had.
I try to stay out of politics. Too many people seem just downright decent until you find out their politics. Too many crazies you cross the street to avoid who just happen to be saying something that when you think about it, you find yourself agreeing with.
I dislike comparing the single most horrific mass genocide in history to a little health plan you happen to disagree with. I try not to focus beyond that.
I myself lean just very slightly to the left. I'm a Republican, but that because that's what my parents are. I rarely vote Republican(though I just did in the NJ Governor race). I also don't vote Democrat too often. I mostly vote for independents. I don't subscribe to any party's platform. I just call things as I see them. I'm sick and tired of the bickering and fighting between both parties. The parties only seem to care about themselves, getting more power and money and getting themselves re-elected and I'm sick of it. They need to work together. They don't need to like each other, but they need to work together and instead they are hell bent on attacking each other whenever they can. Its like beating the other party is more important than solving the nation's problems. I hoping Obama might be able to get something done, but that seems to be less and less likely. The right isn't giving him a fair chance and he is also lean too far to the left and making costly mistakes that the right glorifies in magnifying. I convinced the only way to solve the problem is to get both parties out office. We need to show them that they need to do more than just beat the other party, they need to solve America's problems.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
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.
like most other American voters, I'd let the media make up my mind for meQuote:
Originally Posted by sffone
The ONN has not endorsed any candidates!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
We do agree 100% on your last sentence in that paragraph ;)
vsQuote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
Hmm, does that only apply if the president is a Republican?Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
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...
Actually, you are right and I was wrong. Obama's spending added the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 59caddy
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP