Fact again: Federal spending passed by the DEM controlled Congress under Reagan's Presidency did not exceed the spending proposed by Reagan in his offical federal budget request submittals to Congress.
Posted by Power_System_Oper 2010-03-01 09:25:18

Every single budget submitted by Reagan during his administration was met with the same reception from House Speaker Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill. He called the "DOA - Dead on Arrival", all before he ever saw them.

Reagan cut taxes and increased treasury revenues. And for every dollar that Reagan brought into the coffers, the Democrat-Controlled Congress spend 3!.

Follow Wolf's advise. Educate yourself!

bthewolf,

What a bunch of hooey. The budget plan you speak of was the kool aid Reagan fed to naive conservatives when he was running for President. There is a whole world of difference between budget plan and budget submittal. Reagan was elected in 1980. Took office in January of 1981. You trying to convince me that Reagan made his first offical White House budget submittal to Congress in February of 1981 is a laugh.

Fact again: Federal spending passed by the DEM controlled Congress under Reagan's Presidency did not exceed the spending proposed by Reagan in his offical federal budget request submittals to Congress.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-040608.html

Reagan's original February 1981 plan proposed enough cuts to bring outlays down to 19.3 percent of GDP by 1984 and balance the budget. With a Congress unwilling to make serious cuts, the deficit remained high and spending was stuck at over 22 percent until the late 1980s.


PSO, go get an education, or at least learn the FACTS about history. As wwnana be 'conservative' you SUCK.

Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-02-28 18:00:25


Pretty good stuff from the poster who endorsed McCain and endorsed Obama, all within 96 hours.

For the first time ever I can't tell if P.S.O. is serious or not.

In other news: lower taxes increase tax revenue by favoring increased economic activity, responsible restrained spending helps reduce deficits (and in the "real world" turn profits), the sun rises in the east, the earth's axis is tiled at 22.5 degrees, etc etc.

Honestly, Brian, you could waste a fair amount of your life "debating" with the trolls (and many on this site do that on lunch break) or you could spend your time doing something worthwhile. Your choice.

If we really knew each poster's "credentials," I don't think you'd waste your time.

When I refer to voodoo supply side economics, I refer to the kool aid laced with the poison of "deficits don't matter" version which was the version that was practiced by Reagan

You can repeat this lie as often as you want, it won't magically become true.

smelvertsing,

Then you agree with me that tax cuts alone will not balance the federal budget. When I refer to voodoo supply side economics, I refer to the kool aid laced with the poison of "deficits don't matter" version which was the version that was practiced by Reagan, Geroge W Bush, and the GOP controlled Congress under George W Bush.

it will aslo take huge cuts in social security and medicare

And that is how we can tell you're a leftist hoping to pass for a right-winger (disgruntled, natch).

What it will also take, besides tax cuts, are massive SPENDING cuts. Not just social security and medicare, but substantial reductions in the power the State has over its citizens.

And tax cuts. No voodoo there. And no no-pain BS either, tax cuts exist to favor entrepeneurship, and that is as far from no-pain as possible.

Brain,

I've never discounted supply side economics as put forth by Laffer. My complaint is with the politicians like Reagan and George W Bush who push the voodoo version of no pain supply side economics laced with the poison of "deficits don't matter." Those politicians tend to be gutless wonders who have no stomach for telling the electorate the hard truth that tax cuts alone will not balance the federal budget, but that it will aslo take huge cuts in social security and medicare to bring the federal budget into balance without tax incraseses.

While I've seen valid criticisms directed toward the supply side movement, such as for myopically focusing on economic growth instead of also constraining government, there is nothing "voodoo" about supply side tax cuts as an economic theory. It's been more than empirically proven that taxes deter growth, and reducing taxes will therefore spur growth.

tblrk2006, "the rest of us cry for less spending"

And how has that worked for you guys by those whom you helped elect to office (Reagan, George W Bush, and the GOP controlled Congress under George W Bush)? Once in office, they stuck their thumbs in the eyes the spending cut advocates didn't they? That is why I advise conservative voters to stop falling for politicains who advocate voodo supply side tax cutting economic kool aid laced with "deficits don't matter" poison. Start demanding that politicians who want your vote to specify the line item spending cuts that they would propose which would bring the federal budget into balance without tax increases.

bthewolf,

Check the facts. The DEM controlled Congress never passed a budget which called for more spending than did Reagan's budget proposals that he submitted to Congress. The total spending was about the same. Their differences lie in the areas of spending, not total spending.

A fact that cannot be denied is that the Federal Budget came closer to being in balance after Clinton was President and the GOP controlled Congress. At that time, a compromise was reached in which taxes were increased and spending was reduced. When George W Bush became President and the GOP controlled Congress, taxes were reduced, spending was increased, and budget deficits began to increase again.

I can only chalk that up to the fact that they appear to be supply side tax cutter devotees who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the spendidng side of the federal budget deficit problem.

Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-02-28 14:14:48


And PSO keeps his head in the sand when the rest of us cry for less spending.

Posted by Power_System_Oper
2010-02-28 14:14:48

Reagan tried to make cuts in spending, moron, but the DEMS in Congress kept jacking up spending even over Reagan's vetos and threats of shutting down the Federal Govt.

Power System Operator is on his eighth user name here at right wing news. His speciality is speaking the same comments over and over hoping for credibility. He is still hoping.

Brian,

Jack is likely a liberal. Not me, but some RWN conservative commentators apparently think so. I can only chalk that up to the fact that they appear to be supply side tax cutter devotees who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the spendidng side of the federal budget deficit problem.

They get upset whenever I point out that Reagan, George W Bush, and the GOP controlled Congress under George W Bush did little to correct the structural federal budget deficit when they implemented their voodoo supply side economic kool aid laced with "deficits don't matter" poison. All they know is tax cuts, Laffer curve, and increased reveunes. They believe that maximizing tax revenues by cutting taxes to an optimal level will magically correct the nation's systemic budget deficit problem. They do not seem to want to face up to the hard fact that the federal budget cannot be brought into balance without tax increases UNLESS huge cuts are also made in the social security and medicare entitlement programs. When I suggest that conservatives should hold political candidates seeking the conservative vote to the fire regarding specific proposals to cut spendidng in social security and medicare, the resident supply siders go on the attack against the messenger.

Welcome aboard Brian, looks like you'll fit right in. When two of three the biggest mental midgets on the board, PSO and Jack Auff, are claiming they will bring the intellectual hammer down, you're doing well.

if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, you should at least run it through a spell checker first.

Are you kidding? That's a good part of the laughter we get at the idiot Leftists (but I repeat myself) who comment here.

Thanks for giving voice to that obvious truth, Bill. hoggo and JS both have nothing to offer save the disruption they intend to bring with them. Two troll boys hiding behind internet anonymity - what a breath of fresh air that is. Why it absolutely restores my faith in humanity's ability to actually make progress when I watch a couple of second-rate intellects such as them commandeer and hijack their way to dragging down the level of discussion to that of schoolyard insults. /sarc

Brian, there you go, starting off on the wrong foot. So you got your degree from what, Oral Roberts U.?

Another intellectually lacking republican, to be redundent.

This coming from a tool posting under a pseudonym to avoid anyone reviewing their credentials.

Well, at least I know who doesn't have a sense of humor around here.

Since I'm feeling generous I'll give you some friendly advice: if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, you should at least run it through a spell checker first.

Brian, the two gentlemen who posted on this thread are resident libs. They are not altogether capable of realizing the ridiculousness of things they are saying.
Posted by Yevgeny
2010-02-28 00:48:59

Actually that's kind of misleading. Calling these two "resident libs" implies that they are legitimate and seomwhat house broken left leaning members like D-Vega and Rmiller. These two are trolls and trouble makers. One only has to look at things like the tone of jackie boy's 01:05:26 post to see that they are NOT here to discuss things in a ratinal manner, but to disrupt and cause trouble.

Both deserve to have their fingers broken with a claw hammer.

Brian, there you go, starting off on the wrong foot. So you got your degree from what, Oral Roberts U.?

Another intellectually lacking republican, to be redundent.

Brian, the two gentlemen who posted on this thread are resident libs. They are not altogether capable of realizing the ridiculousness of things they are saying.

I can only assume that, somewhere deep in your subconscious, you realized how ridiculous it is to say "Frank Rich" and "great column" in the same sentence.

*great* column, that is

We don't eat people alive. What a load of malarky.

What us the right wing? Is it tea partiers? Is it republicans? Frank Rich has a grat column asking thus question in the Times today. He rightly asks "who's palling around with terrorists now?" after looking at the CPAC event.

RWN is the best spot for a green horn right wing blogger like yourself to learn your trade. RWN is one of the few right wing blogs to allow left wing counter comments. That is good for you, because you will learn quicker when the left wingers eat you alive over every misstep you make (and you will make some doozies in the process).

Welcome! Where'd you earn your graduate degree, I'm wondering. You were so careful not to mention what learning institution you attended. ;)