Originally posted by normbenignYes, every supposed "good" thing that happened during his Presidency is all because of Reagan and his immense power.
When assessing what an administration did, one can't overlook that Congress has control of legislation, while the President has the bully pulpit, and final approval.
Where spending bills originate Reagan constantly faced an opposition Congress, and most of the time an opposition Senate. Still his record of accomplishment is to be admired.
I can onl ...[text shortened]... campaign is Ron Paul's last hurrah, but perhaps his son will continue to fight the fight well.
Any supposed "bad" thing that happened under Reagan is somebody else's fault as he had no power to do anything.
😴😴
EDIT: From the article I previously cited:
And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
Originally posted by normbenignI'm not sure conservatism is a practical political movement. After all, politics is money and power to achieve certain goals as it enhances the powers of both corporation and political alliances alike. They get up and tell the masses all the wonderful things they are going to do for them....which means increasing their power over us and decreasing our own liberty in the process.
When assessing what an administration did, one can't overlook that Congress has control of legislation, while the President has the bully pulpit, and final approval.
Where spending bills originate Reagan constantly faced an opposition Congress, and most of the time an opposition Senate. Still his record of accomplishment is to be admired.
I can onl ...[text shortened]... campaign is Ron Paul's last hurrah, but perhaps his son will continue to fight the fight well.
I view conservatisim akin to the Bible. It is merely a warning in which the majority ignore and glibly pursue their own lusts instead.
Originally posted by no1marauderHilarious.
Paul Ryan's proposal doesn't even get to a balanced budget in 20 years even with ridiculous growth projections.
As I said, there are no conservatives out there in a position of power.
I would say that wihout a doubt, the Republic is doomed.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would be really nice if you didn't have to exaggerate and distort what I say to build a straw man. I have no illusions of Ronald Reagan being a perfect President. Much of his spending was on the military side, but in the end may have been overdone.
Yes, every supposed "good" thing that happened during his Presidency is all because of Reagan and his immense power.
Any supposed "bad" thing that happened under Reagan is somebody else's fault as he had no power to do anything.
😴😴
EDIT: From the article I previously cited:
And in nominal terms, there has bee ...[text shortened]... equested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.[/b]
Do you disagree that Presidents don't spend money by themselves, and that Congress plays a role in what gets done during an administration?
I think Newt Gingrich deserves a lot more credit for any balanced budget than Bill Clinton, short lived and phoney as it was.
Originally posted by normbenignNewt Gingrich deserves credit for Clinton's program but Reagan alone gets any credit for any "good" things that occurred in the 1980's.
It would be really nice if you didn't have to exaggerate and distort what I say to build a straw man. I have no illusions of Ronald Reagan being a perfect President. Much of his spending was on the military side, but in the end may have been overdone.
Do you disagree that Presidents don't spend money by themselves, and that Congress plays a role in w ...[text shortened]... a lot more credit for any balanced budget than Bill Clinton, short lived and phoney as it was.
Speaking of phonies .....................................
Originally posted by normbenignI made one, but I'm sure you wouldn't like it. It called for big cuts in military spending and an end to preferential treatment for types of income that flows disproportionately to rich folks among other things.
Is there any other serious proposal from anyone else, on either side of the isle?
INCONVENIENT TRUTH ALERT (Gingrich balanced the budget claim):
Gingrich’s argument comes down to this: In August 1997, Congress passed a bill called the “Balanced Budget Act,” which promised to balance the federal budget five years later, in fiscal 2002. Soon after the bill was signed, the budget was balanced. Therefore, the balanced budget act balanced the budget. But that’s demonstrably false.
In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with the balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes. Here’s what really happened.
In 1993, Bill Clinton undid some of the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy, in a bill that every Republican in Congress opposed…Clinton’s 1993 increase in tax rates on high earners applied to a new wave of taxable income from corporate executives cashing in their lucrative stock options (which are taxed as wages). In fiscal 2000, the surplus peaked at $237 billion, and it remained a robust $128 billion in fiscal 2001 (Clinton’s last budget year).
All of these surpluses would have occurred if the Balanced Budget Act had never been enacted.
Gingrich told anyone who would listen that Clinton’s 1993 tax increase would destroy the economy, but just the opposite happened.
Center for American Progress Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has actually found that legislation passed by Gingrich’s House Republicans made the budget picture worse in the 90s, not better. “Gingrich and his Republican Congress had nothing at all to do with balancing the budget in 1998. In fact, the net effect of their efforts was to make the fiscal situation slightly worse,” Linden noted. But that hasn’t stopped Gingrich from trotting out the fact that budgets were balanced while he was Speaker in an attempt to bolster his fiscal bona fides.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/16/390988/gingrich-four-balanced-budgets-false/
Originally posted by no1marauderThe increases in revenue would have been spit in the wind, if President Clinton had got even half of his proposals past the Gingrich Congress. That's an inconvenient truth.
INCONVENIENT TRUTH ALERT (Gingrich balanced the budget claim):
Gingrich’s argument comes down to this: In August 1997, Congress passed a bill called the “Balanced Budget Act,” which promised to balance the federal budget five years later, in fiscal 2002. Soon after the bill was signed, the budget was balanced. Therefore, the balanced budg ...[text shortened]... des.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/16/390988/gingrich-four-balanced-budgets-false/
I think Newt can articulate his argument a bit better than you.
Originally posted by normbenignHe can't even articulate it well enough to convince Republicans he's better than Mitt Romney.
The increases in revenue would have been spit in the wind, if President Clinton had got even half of his proposals past the Gingrich Congress. That's an inconvenient truth.
I think Newt can articulate his argument a bit better than you.
I hope he does though; Obama-Gingrich 2012 would be Johnson-Goldwater Redux.