Ronald Reagan: "Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us"

A better one:
I compromised with Democrats -
The nation tanked as a result.

I'm sure that is the message the regressives took from his remarks, but then again, it was what they believed before he made them, so not much has changed.

Another one: "I am a tool of the corporations and scared of the rich."

PrintSmith wrote: I guess that question is best answered by asking a few more pou.

How much did ending the tax shelters on real estate, a closing of a so called loop hole intended to raise tax revenues, and the subsequent lowering of values associated with that loss, which many S&L's held as assets, benefit the nation given the S&L crisis that followed? That gem was a compromise between Reagan and the Democrats in Congress who wanted "the rich to pay their fair share". Worked out well, didn't it?

Or the amendment to the 1986 TRA introduced by Senator Moynihan that sought to derive new revenue by removing the exemption from payroll taxes (the privilege to be employed/have employee taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare) for independent contractors which actually resulted not in a revenue increase as promised, but a revenue decrease as behavior was simply altered to avoid paying the taxes.

Reagan's tax policy was to broaden the base and lower the rates, not raise the rates on a select few and end exemptions on a select few as Obama seeks to do. His approach to capital gains taxes, changed by the compromise between GHW Bush and the Democrats in Congress, essentially created a flat tax of 28% for the highest income earners. Didn't matter whether the money came from income or the result of capital gains, the way the code was structured, which the Democrats felt necessary to alter, ensured that 28% of it found its way into the treasury. Know what that did? It gave the investors a known set of circumstances upon which to base their investment decisions - whether the risk was worth the potential reward. Given that the Democrats have no actual plan at this stage of the game, that known set of circumstances is necessarily absent, which is why the excess capital remains on the sidelines in 2011 instead of being invested as it was after the passage of the 1986 TRA.

Did you hear Reid today? The Senate has rejected CCB and so now he views it as the responsibility of the House to come up with a new piece of legislation rather than keeping the Senate in session to alter the existing legislation that has passed the House and then send their version back to the House? Why is he doing this? Because the Democrats, including the one occupying the Oval Office, have no plan that they can articulate in such a manner. All they have is demagoguery and criticism of what someone else has done. The House members have done what their constituents sent them to Washington DC to do. They have passed legislation which gives the executive the debt limit increase it has sought while at the same time placing barriers on the amount of national production that the government in DC will be allowed to spend in the future. That is a reasonable way forward given that the government in DC has proven itself incapable of curbing its appetite for deficit spending over the last 30 years. As long as the government in DC thinks itself capable of spending whatever it desires to spend every year to satiate its unlimited appetite and continue its efforts to consolidate all power of governance unto itself the spending problem that we have today, and that Senator Obama articulated so well in 2006, will continue to exist unchanged; just as it has for the last 30 years that has brought us to the point of having the nation's credit rating downgraded as either the result of not cutting the deficit spending sufficiently to keep the rating or the potential default that could occur as a result of decisions made by the executive if the current debt limit isn't raised.

Raising the debt limit $2.5 Trillion and cutting $2 -$3 Trillion from the proposed deficit spending over the next 10 - 12 years isn't going to salvage our credit rating according to Moody. The planned deficit spending must be decreased in excess of $4 Trillion to even have a chance at preserving the nation's current credit rating on its notes of debt. The closer the final agreement is to that $4 Trillion minimum the more likely it is that the credit rating will be lost. Capping the spending of the government in DC to 18% of the national production will save far more than $4 Trillion over the next decade even if it doesn't entirely eliminate all of the deficit spending. Given the Obama 10 year budget projection for a federal budget of over $5 Trillion in 2021 (on a projected economy of something approaching $24 Trillion annually by that time) the necessary $4 Trillion in savings at 18% of the economy instead of the Obama required 24% will be an easy target to achieve.

Serious question pou - do you think GDP of this nation will be 40% - 60% larger than it is today in ten short years with the government in DC sucking 22% - 24% of the production out to satiate its appetite for spending? Do you think the economy will expand at all if the government in DC attempts to raise the portion of production it takes for its own uses to support that level of spending?

What is wrong today is which level of government gets most of the tax dollars. In the early part of the last century, the local governments took in around 10% of the national GDP in taxes, the state governments took in about 1% and the federal governments took in about 3%. Today the folks in DC account for around 16%, the state between 8% and 10% and the local between 6% and 8%. This is consistent with the attempts by the government in DC to consolidate the power of governance into itself during this period of time. Tell me something pou, do you think that Park County could do a better job of tending to the people in its county who were struggling in this economy if they, and not the government in DC, were collecting the lion's share of the taxes paid by the people who lived in Park County? Do you think the DC government is more or less knowledgeable about the needs of the people in Park County than our local government is? Take it up one level further to the state government of Colorado. Do you think Governor Hickenlooper is more or less in touch with the needs of the citizens in his state than Obama is?

IMNTBHO we would be much better off, and more able to render aid to those in need, if the state and local governments were collecting the lion's share of the taxes that the citizens of Colorado paid instead of the DC government. Our education system would be better; our health care delivery system would be better; our roads would be better - all of it would be better than it is today. The major problems we face today, socially and financially, are the result of the DC government attempting to do far more than it was established to do and seizing power from our other forms of government in order to support those attempts.

Wowza, PS but are you ever verbose. But Of Course! our free-wheeling and free-spending Congress needs to be seriously reined in. Do you self-described conservatives really think that most liberals really believe that unlimited spending is our goal. WETF do you get these ideas (sic)? PS you live in a fantasy land of 18/19th Century agrarian thinking. We are no longer these little enclaves of like-minded souls (secularly speaking) looking to eke out whatever meager existence we can, depending on each other for most everything --unless of course you live in Park County and other backwoods places, like the south and such as. There are some things that a centralized government does much better and cheaper than any private enterprise. I know that you will never accept that but I don't care. I am right. Got that? Just ask my husband. As I always say, I may not always be right but I am never wrong. Haha. I hate to break it to you but we have teleported to the 21st Century. We are one big freaking country and we are governed, generally speaking, by a bunch of sociopaths, buffoons, and whores. And a good portion of them are all three of those descriptors. Scary stuff and I typically don't scare easily. But this is the unfortunate position we find ourselves because many of "us" are too FREAKING STUPID to know that we are being manipulated. The propaganda is everywhere, across the spectrum. I am so sick of it all but there is never any excuse to be willfully stupid.

Tell me again why Ronnie almost tripled the debt? And why he thought it was A-OK to raise the debt ceiling? I got lost somewhere between "How" and "attempts". Pretend (magical thinking) you are tweeting or something.

ps PS I cannot listen to that milquetoast Harry Reid. Evah.
Now I must get back to my bubbles.

PrintSmith wrote: A better one:
I compromised with Democrats -
The nation tanked as a result.

So you are in agreement that Reagan was incapable of true leadership, as opposed to Clinton who was able to push his agenda over the opposition of the majority of Republicans to the great, great benefit of the nation.

PrintSmith wrote: A better one:
I compromised with Democrats -
The nation tanked as a result.

But, but, but Ronnie had the ultimate power with the veto. He was the über-warrior. He could have easily smote the dumbass dems with his trusty veto pen, why compromise at all? Why choose to send the country down the crapper if you know that will be the result of compromise/capitulation? If he really was the guy you all say he was. Gawd but the stupidity can be numb minding. Whatever.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A better one:
I compromised with Democrats -
The nation tanked as a result.

So you are in agreement that Reagan was incapable of true leadership, as opposed to Clinton who was able to push his agenda over the opposition of the majority of Republicans to the great, great benefit of the nation.

What are you smoking when you learn history? The Republicans were in total control of Congress almost the entire time Clinton was in office. Almost everything passed was written by them and Clinton had no choice but to agree with the Republicans, which was a great, great benefit to our nation! Go read up on your history. And stop reading the ones that start with, Once Upon a Time.

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A better one:
I compromised with Democrats -
The nation tanked as a result.

So you are in agreement that Reagan was incapable of true leadership, as opposed to Clinton who was able to push his agenda over the opposition of the majority of Republicans to the great, great benefit of the nation.

What are you smoking when you learn history? The Republicans were in total control of Congress almost the entire time Clinton was in office. Almost everything passed was written by them and Clinton had no choice but to agree with the Republicans, which was a great, great benefit to our nation! Go read up on your history. And stop reading the ones that start with, Once Upon a Time.

Been watching the Bachmann History Channel again, have you? Clinton forced his agenda over Republican opposition even though the Republicans had control. Go back and study what actually happened, Clinton was a true leader and achieved a great economy for the nation. Or do you still claim that the Republicans pushed the tax increases that eliminated the deficit that Reagan had created?

The world according to Viking....if it's a republican president and a democratic congress, what ever goes wrong is the fault of congress........whatever good happens is due to the president....however, if we have a democratic president and a republican congress, whatever goes wrong is the fault of the president, and whatever good happens is due to the congress. No thought or research required, he just knows that's the truth because that's what his party has told him. If we should have a republican president and a republican congress, and something goes wrong....well he just erases those years from his memory....they never happened.

That sure makes it easy when it comes to applying historical blame.....

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A better one:
I compromised with Democrats -
The nation tanked as a result.

So you are in agreement that Reagan was incapable of true leadership, as opposed to Clinton who was able to push his agenda over the opposition of the majority of Republicans to the great, great benefit of the nation.

What are you smoking when you learn history? The Republicans were in total control of Congress almost the entire time Clinton was in office. Almost everything passed was written by them and Clinton had no choice but to agree with the Republicans, which was a great, great benefit to our nation! Go read up on your history. And stop reading the ones that start with, Once Upon a Time.

Been watching the Bachmann History Channel again, have you? Clinton forced his agenda over Republican opposition even though the Republicans had control. Go back and study what actually happened, Clinton was a true leader and achieved a great economy for the nation. Or do you still claim that the Republicans pushed the tax increases that eliminated the deficit that Reagan had created?

Not the way I remembered it. Clinton had to give up on his and Hilary's healthcare plan, he realized the Assault Weapons Ban lost him Congress, Bill passed welfare reform. President Clinton tacked to the middle for the rest of his time in office. But if you think he dominated Congress, why don't we have ClintonCare?
I do admit that Clinton was able to achieve much more compromise with Congress than Barack. President Obama just seems to get upset rather than negotiate and then runs to another partisan campaign event so he can hear the cheers of people.