info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Radical Agenda of Republicans
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Public Servant
Jan 7, 2012, 10:10:34 AM1/7/12
to
If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
the mistakes of
George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
Carter to Ronald Reagan.
In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
was the father of fiscal irresponsibility. He squandered $750
billion
in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich, and though it meant
quadrupling the deficit and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to
do it.
Reagan tried to make deep cuts in Social security but was forced to
back down due to strong opposition from congress and the public.
Reagan then made a substantial increase in payroll taxes, which
increased the tax burden on the majority of workers.
His massive deficits were worsened as he dramatically increased
military spending.
The rich got special favors. There were big tax breaks to the oil
industry and corporations, but his housing budget was only 15% that
of
Carters, which hurt the elderly and unfortunates. He also cut
unemployment insurance and the food stamp program.
He tried to cut student loans but was rebuffed by Congress.
When cornered about his proposed cuts to the student loan program, he
lied, saying he was just trying to end aid to families with a
combined
income exceeding $100,000. In truth, under his proposal, no student
could get more than $4,000 loans, pell grants and work study and
families with a combined income of $25,000 could get no grants, work-
study jobs or loans.
He opposed the minimum wage.
Indeed, it seems his very goal was to exaserbate income inequality.
Carter had plans to bring about a nationalized health insurance plan,
whereas in the 1960s, Reagan went around the country opposing
medicare, saying it
would introduce socialism into the country.
Reagan tried to cut 20 billion from Medicare.
What about the great dilemma of our dependence on foreign oil -- a
shrinking resource?
Carter was a real leader with regard to our energy debacle, warning
Americans that their growing dependence on foreign oil represented a
national security threat. He encouraged Americans to wear a sweater
and reduce their thermostat and he established the Department of
Energy, along with a goal that 20 percent of the nation's energy
would
be solar by the year 2000.
His administration created the Solar Training Institute, put solar
panels on the White House, worked with General Motors to develop
electric cars and trucks and developed schemes for increasing the
energy
efficiency of buildings.
His administartion also wrestled with the automobile industry,
forcing
auto makers to steadily raise fuel-efficiency standards.
There were plans for increasing fuel efficiency standards to 48 mpg
by
1995 -- along with technical details about how this could be done.
These grand schemes and others resulted in a remarkable 25 percent
decrease in reliance on imported oil by the United States -- in just
one term of office.
But Carters energy plans were undermined with the election of Ronald
Reagan. In fact, Reagan pledged in his campaign for office to do away
with the Dept. of Energy.
The Reagan Administration withdrew the notice to continue increasing
fuel efficiency standards and expressed faith that market pressures
would bring about fuel efficient vehicles.
Those on the far right like Reagan say government should be lasseiz
faire, keeping hands off business.
But this free market principle did not work.
Not only did fuel efficiency standards not increase. The automakers
asked for a rollback in federal fuel-economy standards and it was
granted by the Reagan Administration.
By 1988, automotive fuel economy, on average, was going down by
about
1 MPG a year, which meant a massive increase in dependency on foreign
oil.
Reagan's laxness allowed the Japanese automakers to out compete
American automakers, for the Japanese government stood for stiff
regulation, announcing that the fuel-efficiency standard will be set
some measure above the level reached by the company with the highest
attainment.
Reagan even took down the solar panels that carter had put on the
white house and eliminated the tax credit for putting solar panels on
your roof.
He slashed Carter's renewable energy research and development budget
by 85 percent. This eliminated the wind investment tax credit in
1986
and virturally eliminated funds for ocean thermal systems, wind
energy
and passive solar buildings.
There were also massive cuts in money for demonstration projects for
renewable energy devices.
It all set the country back a decade in our transition to renewables.
Starved of government support, many of our scientists who were doing
research on renewable energy for the Department of Energy were forced
to sell their expertise to oil companies, who bought out many solar
technologies.
Reagan even tried to end federal subsidies for Amtrak passenger rail
service and eliminate grants and loans for mass transit systems but
was rebuffed by Congress.
It's like he didn't realize that it is a matter of national security
to break our dependence on foreign oil.
There were also sharp differences in the way Jimmy Carter and Ronald
Reagan managed the protection of the water, land and air from toxic
substance.
While Carter put environmentalist in control of the environmental
protection agency, Reagan put staunch anti-environmentalists in
control who waged war against the clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
The case load of EPA offices declined by 79 percent.
Across his two terms, Reagan, who once said trees cause pollution,
cut
the EPA budget by 66 pcercent. and he vetoed efforts to strengthen
the Clean Water Act but was overridden by Congress -- the same
scenario as happened under Nixon when the Clean Water Act was passed.
Had these two presidents gotten their way, we'd still have fecal
matter floating on waterways and children drinking tap water from
rivers so full of solvents and other toxic industrial pollutants that
they catch afire.
Even with our clean water legislation, one in two men will contract
cancer at some point in their lives. For women, it is one in three,
according to the American Canver Society.
Reagan put a lawyer with a reputation for working against
environmentalists in the Dept. of Interior which oversees national
treasures and other lands needing federal protection such as scenic
trails, national wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, national
forests and national parks.
This man, James Watt began selling off these public lands at bargain
prices, allowed fisheries to be drilled for oil and cut funds for
endangered species protection. The money in the federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund that was supposed to be used to increase the
size of National Wildlife Refuges and other protected land was used
instead to rehibilitate existing parks.
He even resisted accepting donations of private land to be used for
conservation purposes
The Sierra Club was so enraged over all this that they began a "dump
Watt Petition Drive." The angry public gathered 1.1 milion
signatures,
forcing Watt to resign in 1983.
Yet another scandel involved hazardous substances.
While the Carter's administration issued an executive order to
prevent
pesticide manufacturers from selling other countries dangerous
pesticides that had been banned or serverly restricted in the United
States --- such as Chemicals that cause sterility, cancer and birth
defects -- Ronald Reagan -- a great lover of the unregulated market
--
revoked the ban, allowing pesticide companies to sell these chemcials
in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa.
The chemicals then made their way back to the United States as
residues inside or on food we imported from these countries, such as
coffee, bananas and cotton.
Perhaps the greatest blow to this country -- one still felt today --
was Reagans impact on the free and balanced flow of information.
When he took office, a fairness doctrine was in place that had
profoundly impacted the coverage of news for 30 years.
It was there to ensure that debate on public issues is robust and
wide
open -- that powerful individuals did not use their wealth to
monopolize the media as a tool of propaganda, airing biased
information to promote their own narrow interests, telling only one
side of vital issues
that affect people's lives.
Broadcasters were not allowed to to use their stations to promote
their own political, social or economic views. Instead, they operated
as a sort of community smorgasbord airing all shades of opinion on
public issues.
But Reagan revoked the fairness doctrine. His main justification for
doing this was that the supreme court decision that upheld the
fairness doctrine -- the Red Lion Supreme Court Decision -- is
defunct
since it was justified by the scarcity of broadcast frequencies. Now
we have cable and internet, said the Reagan administration.
However, 7 years later, the Supreme Court justices ruled that they
still regard broadcast frequencies to be a scarce resource, but no
one
seemed to notice.
So today, the rich, who own almost all of the broadcast stations,
have
virually overturned democracy, churning out yellow journalism in 2000
programs. The democrats have only 50
One broadcastaer, Rush Limbaugh, who makes $50 million a year,
promoting the narrow interests of the rich to 20 million people.
"People from other industrial democracies are shocked and puzzled by
our right wing propaganda machine," said Dr. Ben Bagdikian, former
dean of the graduate school of the University of California, Berkeley
and author of the book, "The New Media Monopoly."
Dr. Bagdikian said since 1980, "The political spectrum of the United
States has shifted radically to the far right."
picture:
Reagan also had a real impact on the financial sector in the United
States.
When Jimmy Carter left office, Americans saved approximately 10
percent of their income.
But Reagan changed this by scraping precaustionary regulations
pertaining to lending.
This reregulation led to "radical changes in American behavior" -- in
a "near zero savings rate," explained Dr. Paul Krugman, a Nobel
Prize-
winning economist at Princeton, who writes a column for the New York
Times.
The resulting "explosion of debt made us vulnerable," he said. This
along with deregulations that gave the financial sector a "license to
gamble with taxpayers money -- or simply to loot it" led to "utter
catastrophe" 25 years later -- "the worse economic crisis since the
great depression," said Krugman.
"Collapse was only averted by huge infusions of taxpayer funds," said
Krugman.
In a speech he called the teaching profession a "a resting place for
the unmotivated and the unqualified." In the same speech he called
for eliminating "unduly restrictive certification" requirements that
"prevent good people from entered the profession."
The Reagan administration also imposed ill-advised policies on other
countries by instituting structural adjustments policies -- All
kinds
of reforms countries must undergo to get loans from the World Bank
and IMF.
For instance, countries may be required to privatize communal lands;
privatize their government-owned enterprises, such as telephone
companies providing revenues for health and education, as well as
nursery-schools, day-care centers and school dormitories; reduce their
tariff barriers; enact
flexible labor laws, which some have interpreted to mean repressing
labor unions, s enacting minimum wages and giving no overtime pay.
Some of the other structural adjustment reforms include deregulating
financial services; restricting access to credit; lowering tariff
barriers, which has flooded countries with cheap imports, leading to
a
loss of small farmers and small businesses; eliminating subsidies to
farmers--unless the subsidies are for export production; who couldn't
compete; devalute their currencies; freeze wages, and more.
In short, policies once determined by democracy is now dictated by
Washington. More than 100 countries have lost their freedom.
And he sure didn't care about the free of Nicaraguans, who are among
the poorest people in Latin America -- people who were yearning for
democracy, the right to speak out without risk to their lives and
the
rights to education, land to grow food for their children and medical
treatment. Their hungry children were dying of diseases we've had
cures for for years.
Reagan said he was going to inaugurate "a new era of freedom," but he
didn't much care about the freedom of Nicaraguans, who are among the
poorest people in Latin America, and who were yearning for democracy,
the right to speak out without risk to their lives and the rights to
education, land to grow food for their children and medical
treatment.
Their hungry children were dying of diseases we've had cures for for
years.
In 1979, when Jimmy Carter was in power, a revolution took place in
Nicaragua to overthrew Somoza, one of the most corrupt and brutal
regimes in Latin America, though embraced by every U.S. president
since Calvin Coolidge. He was installed 46 years earlier by the U.S.
marines who occupied the
country for 21 years.
Almost the whole country was involved in the revolution to destroy the
dictatorship.
Everyone took to the streets. The children, the women, the men.
Involved was the socialist party, the christian democratic party, the
liberals, the
conservatives -- everyone. Even members of Samosa's family.
Christians at the same time with marxists took part in this
insurrection. The
church -- many priests and nuns took part in the insurrection -- even
fought in the insurrection. Now, after 4 years, this is a country
that
has 60 percent of the GDP in the hands of the private sector. After 4
years of revolution.
President Jimmy Carter watched the revolution very closely. When he
was firmly convinced that it was democratic and sound, he and the
U.S.
Congress blessed the Nicaraguans on their way with $75 million in aid
to help rebuild their war-shattered economy.
But when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he appropriated funds for
Nicaragua too -- but not exactly for development.
Reagan's funds and CIA expertise (covertly, without the
knowledge of the American people) raised up mercenary terrorists from
Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua called the Contra Rebels who
carried out wholesale, indiscriminate killing of civilians: children,
nuns,
teachers, men walking to work on agricultural cooperatives -- as well
as 50,000 soldiers, many who were barefoot, hungry and ragged
14-year-olds. Thousands of children had to drop out of school when
the buildings were bombed or their teachers murdered.
The money appropriated by Reagan funded the destruction of health
centers, day care centers, construction vehicles and food stocks.
Sweden doubled its aid to Nicaragua, Reagan funded the destruction of
bridges, dams and communication towers.
As the Sandinistas expanded daycare and psychiatric services, Reagan
had ports mined and funded the destruction of crops and fuel storage
tanks. As health care dramatically improved and the World Health
Organization and UNICEF declared Nicaragua, under the new government,
to be a model country in health, Reagan
funded the destruction of trucks bringing milk into the city,
electric power plants and radio stations. When the World Court ordered
the
United States to cease and desist immediately from all use of
force ...
against Nicaragua Reagan funded the destruction of lumber mills. As
UNICEF
praised the new government's National Campaign for the Defense of the
Life of the
Child program, Reagan funded the placement of bombs aboard passenger
planes.
As UNESCO awarded Nicaragua an honorable mention for its
phenomenal success in its literacy and adult education programs in
which 40,000 people learned to read, Reagan funded the partial
destruction of a hydroelectric dam.
In another mean-spirited move,Reagan also tripled its military aid to
Nicaragua's hostile neighbor, Honduras, and asked its army to harrass
Nicaragua.
Then in 1985, to ensure the cippled country didn't survive, Reagan
impeded their access to loans from the Inter American Development
Bank
and World Bank.
The Nicaraguan Congress was "held in the midst of repression so
fierce that it seemed a hallucination," said Thomas Borge, Sandinista
Minister of the Interior.
See more about this on my website at http://www.anniebirdsong.info
Please email this to people in your church directory.
Come to my website to see more videos: http://www.anniebirdsong.info
Here are youtube videos for you to view and email to others:
Rick Santorum wants to cut social security payments, but here's a
video clip of
a Democrat telling how social security can easily be fixed forever:
http://youtu.be/dG_yQ5vu6ts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Jimmy Carter telling how many times USA has invaded
other countries:
http://youtu.be/dREiIzgDZbY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the hawk, George W. Bush, won the presidency promoting peace, like
Ron Paul:
http://youtu.be/yAnjrwP2cxo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes by Nobel Prize-winning Republican on the radical agenda of
Republicans:
http://youtu.be/tnRokoy5hlA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with Thomas Frank, author of "Pity the Billionarie" about
the financial collapse
when Republicans deregulated, unleashing Wallstreet:
http://youtu.be/5ePxNziHw9c
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Hawks for war:
http://youtu.be/DDYKGFCM0rk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Kristof, an author with the New York Times, tells about the
huge disparities in wealth in the United States:
http://youtu.be/3fUkzCs_S4M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the mistakes of
George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
Carter to Ronald Reagan.
In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
was the father of fiscal irresponsibility. He squandered $750
billion
in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich, and though it meant
quadrupling the deficit and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to
do it.
Reagan tried to make deep cuts in Social security but was forced to
back down due to strong opposition from congress and the public.
Reagan then made a substantial increase in payroll taxes, which
increased the tax burden on the majority of workers.
His massive deficits were worsened as he dramatically increased
military spending.
The rich got special favors. There were big tax breaks to the oil
industry and corporations, but his housing budget was only 15% that
of
Carters, which hurt the elderly and unfortunates. He also cut
unemployment insurance and the food stamp program.
He tried to cut student loans but was rebuffed by Congress.
When cornered about his proposed cuts to the student loan program, he
lied, saying he was just trying to end aid to families with a
combined
income exceeding $100,000. In truth, under his proposal, no student
could get more than $4,000 loans, pell grants and work study and
families with a combined income of $25,000 could get no grants, work-
study jobs or loans.
He opposed the minimum wage.
Indeed, it seems his very goal was to exaserbate income inequality.
Carter had plans to bring about a nationalized health insurance plan,
whereas in the 1960s, Reagan went around the country opposing
medicare, saying it
would introduce socialism into the country.
Reagan tried to cut 20 billion from Medicare.
What about the great dilemma of our dependence on foreign oil -- a
shrinking resource?
Carter was a real leader with regard to our energy debacle, warning
Americans that their growing dependence on foreign oil represented a
national security threat. He encouraged Americans to wear a sweater
and reduce their thermostat and he established the Department of
Energy, along with a goal that 20 percent of the nation's energy
would
be solar by the year 2000.
His administration created the Solar Training Institute, put solar
panels on the White House, worked with General Motors to develop
electric cars and trucks and developed schemes for increasing the
energy
efficiency of buildings.
His administartion also wrestled with the automobile industry,
forcing
auto makers to steadily raise fuel-efficiency standards.
There were plans for increasing fuel efficiency standards to 48 mpg
by
1995 -- along with technical details about how this could be done.
These grand schemes and others resulted in a remarkable 25 percent
decrease in reliance on imported oil by the United States -- in just
one term of office.
But Carters energy plans were undermined with the election of Ronald
Reagan. In fact, Reagan pledged in his campaign for office to do away
with the Dept. of Energy.
The Reagan Administration withdrew the notice to continue increasing
fuel efficiency standards and expressed faith that market pressures
would bring about fuel efficient vehicles.
Those on the far right like Reagan say government should be lasseiz
faire, keeping hands off business.
But this free market principle did not work.
Not only did fuel efficiency standards not increase. The automakers
asked for a rollback in federal fuel-economy standards and it was
granted by the Reagan Administration.
By 1988, automotive fuel economy, on average, was going down by
about
1 MPG a year, which meant a massive increase in dependency on foreign
oil.
Reagan's laxness allowed the Japanese automakers to out compete
American automakers, for the Japanese government stood for stiff
regulation, announcing that the fuel-efficiency standard will be set
some measure above the level reached by the company with the highest
attainment.
Reagan even took down the solar panels that carter had put on the
white house and eliminated the tax credit for putting solar panels on
your roof.
He slashed Carter's renewable energy research and development budget
by 85 percent. This eliminated the wind investment tax credit in
1986
and virturally eliminated funds for ocean thermal systems, wind
energy
and passive solar buildings.
There were also massive cuts in money for demonstration projects for
renewable energy devices.
It all set the country back a decade in our transition to renewables.
Starved of government support, many of our scientists who were doing
research on renewable energy for the Department of Energy were forced
to sell their expertise to oil companies, who bought out many solar
technologies.
Reagan even tried to end federal subsidies for Amtrak passenger rail
service and eliminate grants and loans for mass transit systems but
was rebuffed by Congress.
It's like he didn't realize that it is a matter of national security
to break our dependence on foreign oil.
There were also sharp differences in the way Jimmy Carter and Ronald
Reagan managed the protection of the water, land and air from toxic
substance.
While Carter put environmentalist in control of the environmental
protection agency, Reagan put staunch anti-environmentalists in
control who waged war against the clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
The case load of EPA offices declined by 79 percent.
Across his two terms, Reagan, who once said trees cause pollution,
cut
the EPA budget by 66 pcercent. and he vetoed efforts to strengthen
the Clean Water Act but was overridden by Congress -- the same
scenario as happened under Nixon when the Clean Water Act was passed.
Had these two presidents gotten their way, we'd still have fecal
matter floating on waterways and children drinking tap water from
rivers so full of solvents and other toxic industrial pollutants that
they catch afire.
Even with our clean water legislation, one in two men will contract
cancer at some point in their lives. For women, it is one in three,
according to the American Canver Society.
Reagan put a lawyer with a reputation for working against
environmentalists in the Dept. of Interior which oversees national
treasures and other lands needing federal protection such as scenic
trails, national wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, national
forests and national parks.
This man, James Watt began selling off these public lands at bargain
prices, allowed fisheries to be drilled for oil and cut funds for
endangered species protection. The money in the federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund that was supposed to be used to increase the
size of National Wildlife Refuges and other protected land was used
instead to rehibilitate existing parks.
He even resisted accepting donations of private land to be used for
conservation purposes
The Sierra Club was so enraged over all this that they began a "dump
Watt Petition Drive." The angry public gathered 1.1 milion
signatures,
forcing Watt to resign in 1983.
Yet another scandel involved hazardous substances.
While the Carter's administration issued an executive order to
prevent
pesticide manufacturers from selling other countries dangerous
pesticides that had been banned or serverly restricted in the United
States --- such as Chemicals that cause sterility, cancer and birth
defects -- Ronald Reagan -- a great lover of the unregulated market
--
revoked the ban, allowing pesticide companies to sell these chemcials
in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa.
The chemicals then made their way back to the United States as
residues inside or on food we imported from these countries, such as
coffee, bananas and cotton.
Perhaps the greatest blow to this country -- one still felt today --
was Reagans impact on the free and balanced flow of information.
When he took office, a fairness doctrine was in place that had
profoundly impacted the coverage of news for 30 years.
It was there to ensure that debate on public issues is robust and
wide
open -- that powerful individuals did not use their wealth to
monopolize the media as a tool of propaganda, airing biased
information to promote their own narrow interests, telling only one
side of vital issues
that affect people's lives.
Broadcasters were not allowed to to use their stations to promote
their own political, social or economic views. Instead, they operated
as a sort of community smorgasbord airing all shades of opinion on
public issues.
But Reagan revoked the fairness doctrine. His main justification for
doing this was that the supreme court decision that upheld the
fairness doctrine -- the Red Lion Supreme Court Decision -- is
defunct
since it was justified by the scarcity of broadcast frequencies. Now
we have cable and internet, said the Reagan administration.
However, 7 years later, the Supreme Court justices ruled that they
still regard broadcast frequencies to be a scarce resource, but no
one
seemed to notice.
So today, the rich, who own almost all of the broadcast stations,
have
virually overturned democracy, churning out yellow journalism in 2000
programs. The democrats have only 50
One broadcastaer, Rush Limbaugh, who makes $50 million a year,
promoting the narrow interests of the rich to 20 million people.
"People from other industrial democracies are shocked and puzzled by
our right wing propaganda machine," said Dr. Ben Bagdikian, former
dean of the graduate school of the University of California, Berkeley
and author of the book, "The New Media Monopoly."
Dr. Bagdikian said since 1980, "The political spectrum of the United
States has shifted radically to the far right."
picture:
Reagan also had a real impact on the financial sector in the United
States.
When Jimmy Carter left office, Americans saved approximately 10
percent of their income.
But Reagan changed this by scraping precaustionary regulations
pertaining to lending.
This reregulation led to "radical changes in American behavior" -- in
a "near zero savings rate," explained Dr. Paul Krugman, a Nobel
Prize-
winning economist at Princeton, who writes a column for the New York
Times.
The resulting "explosion of debt made us vulnerable," he said. This
along with deregulations that gave the financial sector a "license to
gamble with taxpayers money -- or simply to loot it" led to "utter
catastrophe" 25 years later -- "the worse economic crisis since the
great depression," said Krugman.
"Collapse was only averted by huge infusions of taxpayer funds," said
Krugman.
In a speech he called the teaching profession a "a resting place for
the unmotivated and the unqualified." In the same speech he called
for eliminating "unduly restrictive certification" requirements that
"prevent good people from entered the profession."
The Reagan administration also imposed ill-advised policies on other
countries by instituting structural adjustments policies -- All
kinds
of reforms countries must undergo to get loans from the World Bank
and IMF.
For instance, countries may be required to privatize communal lands;
privatize their government-owned enterprises, such as telephone
companies providing revenues for health and education, as well as
nursery-schools, day-care centers and school dormitories; reduce their
tariff barriers; enact
flexible labor laws, which some have interpreted to mean repressing
labor unions, s enacting minimum wages and giving no overtime pay.
Some of the other structural adjustment reforms include deregulating
financial services; restricting access to credit; lowering tariff
barriers, which has flooded countries with cheap imports, leading to
a
loss of small farmers and small businesses; eliminating subsidies to
farmers--unless the subsidies are for export production; who couldn't
compete; devalute their currencies; freeze wages, and more.
In short, policies once determined by democracy is now dictated by
Washington. More than 100 countries have lost their freedom.
And he sure didn't care about the free of Nicaraguans, who are among
the poorest people in Latin America -- people who were yearning for
democracy, the right to speak out without risk to their lives and
the
rights to education, land to grow food for their children and medical
treatment. Their hungry children were dying of diseases we've had
cures for for years.
Reagan said he was going to inaugurate "a new era of freedom," but he
didn't much care about the freedom of Nicaraguans, who are among the
poorest people in Latin America, and who were yearning for democracy,
the right to speak out without risk to their lives and the rights to
education, land to grow food for their children and medical
treatment.
Their hungry children were dying of diseases we've had cures for for
years.
In 1979, when Jimmy Carter was in power, a revolution took place in
Nicaragua to overthrew Somoza, one of the most corrupt and brutal
regimes in Latin America, though embraced by every U.S. president
since Calvin Coolidge. He was installed 46 years earlier by the U.S.
marines who occupied the
country for 21 years.
Almost the whole country was involved in the revolution to destroy the
dictatorship.
Everyone took to the streets. The children, the women, the men.
Involved was the socialist party, the christian democratic party, the
liberals, the
conservatives -- everyone. Even members of Samosa's family.
Christians at the same time with marxists took part in this
insurrection. The
church -- many priests and nuns took part in the insurrection -- even
fought in the insurrection. Now, after 4 years, this is a country
that
has 60 percent of the GDP in the hands of the private sector. After 4
years of revolution.
President Jimmy Carter watched the revolution very closely. When he
was firmly convinced that it was democratic and sound, he and the
U.S.
Congress blessed the Nicaraguans on their way with $75 million in aid
to help rebuild their war-shattered economy.
But when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he appropriated funds for
Nicaragua too -- but not exactly for development.
Reagan's funds and CIA expertise (covertly, without the
knowledge of the American people) raised up mercenary terrorists from
Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua called the Contra Rebels who
carried out wholesale, indiscriminate killing of civilians: children,
nuns,
teachers, men walking to work on agricultural cooperatives -- as well
as 50,000 soldiers, many who were barefoot, hungry and ragged
14-year-olds. Thousands of children had to drop out of school when
the buildings were bombed or their teachers murdered.
The money appropriated by Reagan funded the destruction of health
centers, day care centers, construction vehicles and food stocks.
Sweden doubled its aid to Nicaragua, Reagan funded the destruction of
bridges, dams and communication towers.
As the Sandinistas expanded daycare and psychiatric services, Reagan
had ports mined and funded the destruction of crops and fuel storage
tanks. As health care dramatically improved and the World Health
Organization and UNICEF declared Nicaragua, under the new government,
to be a model country in health, Reagan
funded the destruction of trucks bringing milk into the city,
electric power plants and radio stations. When the World Court ordered
the
United States to cease and desist immediately from all use of
force ...
against Nicaragua Reagan funded the destruction of lumber mills. As
UNICEF
praised the new government's National Campaign for the Defense of the
Life of the
Child program, Reagan funded the placement of bombs aboard passenger
planes.
As UNESCO awarded Nicaragua an honorable mention for its
phenomenal success in its literacy and adult education programs in
which 40,000 people learned to read, Reagan funded the partial
destruction of a hydroelectric dam.
In another mean-spirited move,Reagan also tripled its military aid to
Nicaragua's hostile neighbor, Honduras, and asked its army to harrass
Nicaragua.
Then in 1985, to ensure the cippled country didn't survive, Reagan
impeded their access to loans from the Inter American Development
Bank
and World Bank.
The Nicaraguan Congress was "held in the midst of repression so
fierce that it seemed a hallucination," said Thomas Borge, Sandinista
Minister of the Interior.
See more about this on my website at http://www.anniebirdsong.info
Please email this to people in your church directory.
Come to my website to see more videos: http://www.anniebirdsong.info
Here are youtube videos for you to view and email to others:
Rick Santorum wants to cut social security payments, but here's a
video clip of
a Democrat telling how social security can easily be fixed forever:
http://youtu.be/dG_yQ5vu6ts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former President Jimmy Carter telling how many times USA has invaded
other countries:
http://youtu.be/dREiIzgDZbY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the hawk, George W. Bush, won the presidency promoting peace, like
Ron Paul:
http://youtu.be/yAnjrwP2cxo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes by Nobel Prize-winning Republican on the radical agenda of
Republicans:
http://youtu.be/tnRokoy5hlA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with Thomas Frank, author of "Pity the Billionarie" about
the financial collapse
when Republicans deregulated, unleashing Wallstreet:
http://youtu.be/5ePxNziHw9c
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Hawks for war:
http://youtu.be/DDYKGFCM0rk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Kristof, an author with the New York Times, tells about the
huge disparities in wealth in the United States:
http://youtu.be/3fUkzCs_S4M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
de...@dudu.org
Jan 7, 2012, 10:17:39 AM1/7/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
<public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>the mistakes of
>George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
<public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>the mistakes of
>George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
past hoping for a different result.
Bob
Jan 7, 2012, 10:20:56 AM1/7/12
to
"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> the mistakes of
> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>
> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
> the mistakes of
> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>
> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
de...@dudu.org
Jan 7, 2012, 10:26:47 AM1/7/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
Changes in debt by presidential terms
The President proposes the budget for the government to the US
Congress. Congress may change the budget, but it rarely appropriates
more than what the President requests.[13]
Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents
(Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and
Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the
last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush,
Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the
country’s indebtedness.[14]
Bob
Jan 7, 2012, 10:34:06 AM1/7/12
to
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
Back to school for you ...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
de...@dudu.org
Jan 7, 2012, 10:44:17 AM1/7/12
to
Democratic presidents improved the debt as compared to GDP while the
Repubicans made it worse. No matter how hard you try to blame
Democrats for increasing the debt the simple fact is the Republicans
have always been much worse.
Find a liberal to explain it to you dumbass.
ray
Jan 7, 2012, 11:26:02 AM1/7/12
to
In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> >the mistakes of
> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
> past hoping for a different result.
I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
government medical care programs are heading for a dirt road. Or maybe
with his phony Jobs Bill that was nothing more than Pork Bill 1 that was
a total failure.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> >the mistakes of
> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
> past hoping for a different result.
government medical care programs are heading for a dirt road. Or maybe
with his phony Jobs Bill that was nothing more than Pork Bill 1 that was
a total failure.
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Bob
Jan 7, 2012, 11:55:17 AM1/7/12
to
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com...
herrings doesn't help your case.
> So all the
> Democratic presidents improved the debt as compared to GDP while the
> Repubicans made it worse. No matter how hard you try to blame
> Democrats for increasing the debt the simple fact is the Republicans
> have always been much worse.
We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
Calvin Coolidge.
> Find a liberal to explain it to you dumbass.
No explanation required. Spin all you like, but the numbers don't lie. The
herrings)?
news:cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>>>> the mistakes of
>>>>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>>>
>>>>> the mistakes of
>>>>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>>>
>>>>> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
>>>>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
>>>>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>>>
>>>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>>
>>> Liar
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
>>>
>>> Changes in debt by presidential terms
>>>
>>> The President proposes the budget for the government to the US
>>> Congress. Congress may change the budget, but it rarely appropriates
>>> more than what the President requests.[13]
>>>
>>> Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents
>>> (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and
>>> Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the
>>> last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush,
>>> Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the
>>> country's indebtedness.[14]
>>
>>Back to school for you ...
>>
> You see the part about being compared to GDP, right?
Yes, which was NOT part of the statement you challenged. Inserting red
>>>>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
>>>>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>>>
>>>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>>
>>> Liar
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
>>>
>>> Changes in debt by presidential terms
>>>
>>> The President proposes the budget for the government to the US
>>> Congress. Congress may change the budget, but it rarely appropriates
>>> more than what the President requests.[13]
>>>
>>> Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents
>>> (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and
>>> Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the
>>> last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush,
>>> Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the
>>> country's indebtedness.[14]
>>
>>Back to school for you ...
>>
> You see the part about being compared to GDP, right?
herrings doesn't help your case.
> So all the
> Democratic presidents improved the debt as compared to GDP while the
> Repubicans made it worse. No matter how hard you try to blame
> Democrats for increasing the debt the simple fact is the Republicans
> have always been much worse.
Calvin Coolidge.
> Find a liberal to explain it to you dumbass.
national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
Do you deny the accuracy of the following numbers (without inserting any red
herrings)?
Public Servant
Jan 7, 2012, 2:03:31 PM1/7/12
to
HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich, though it meant
invest money by increasing interest rates. Other
countries then had to raise their rates to keep people from pulling
their
money out of the banks and investing it in the USA.
The high interest rates caused huge unemployment rates and great human
suffering.
Annie Birdsong
http://www.anniebirdsong.info
On Jan 7, 10:55 am, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
> <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>
> news:cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >><d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
> >>news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Public Servant" <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
> >>http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich, though it meant
quadrupling the deficit and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to
do it.
To fund the debt, the banks had to attract people to
do it.
invest money by increasing interest rates. Other
countries then had to raise their rates to keep people from pulling
their
money out of the banks and investing it in the USA.
The high interest rates caused huge unemployment rates and great human
suffering.
Annie Birdsong
http://www.anniebirdsong.info
On Jan 7, 10:55 am, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
> <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>
> news:cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >><d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
> >>news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Public Servant" <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>
> >>09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00- Hide quoted text -
> >>09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
> >>09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bible Studies with Satan
Jan 7, 2012, 4:24:21 PM1/7/12
to
de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
>>If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>the mistakes of
>>George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
> past hoping for a different result.
Good one!
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
>>If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>the mistakes of
>>George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
> past hoping for a different result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnNH7I07RY
Ezekiel 23:20
Ray Fischer
Jan 7, 2012, 8:44:53 PM1/7/12
to
Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>the mistakes of
>George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
"Mistakes"?
>If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>the mistakes of
>George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
That implies that they actions were not intentional and that the
outcome was not desired.
Consider that the rich have made out like bandits, that they've
managed to make several successful attacks on the size of government,
and that American wages are falling, it looks like they got exactly
what they wanted.
The only thing that they haven't yet managed is to shift the $2+
trillion Social Security trust fund to Wall Street so that they can
collect $20 billion a year from account holders.
But they haven't stopped trying.
--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe
Ray Fischer
Jan 7, 2012, 8:46:42 PM1/7/12
to
ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
>> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>> >the mistakes of
>> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
>> past hoping for a different result.
>
>I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
The US pays the highest price for health care, by far, when comared to
>In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
>> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>> >the mistakes of
>> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
>> past hoping for a different result.
>
>I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
other nations despite failure to provide care for tens of millions of
people.
And dumbass rightards still have no clue.
Ray Fischer
Jan 7, 2012, 8:47:46 PM1/7/12
to
2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
Ray Fischer
Jan 7, 2012, 8:50:18 PM1/7/12
to
Bob <daln...@att.net> wrote:
><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
>>>>
>>>> Changes in debt by presidential terms
>>>>
>>>> The President proposes the budget for the government to the US
>>>> Congress. Congress may change the budget, but it rarely appropriates
>>>> more than what the President requests.[13]
>>>>
>>>> Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents
>>>> (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and
>>>> Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the
>>>> last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush,
>>>> Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the
>>>> country's indebtedness.[14]
>>>
>>>Back to school for you ...
>>>
>> You see the part about being compared to GDP, right?
>
>Yes, which was NOT part of the statement you challenged. Inserting red
>herrings doesn't help your case.
Being a bigoted liar doesn't help your case, bigot boob.
>>>>
>>>> Changes in debt by presidential terms
>>>>
>>>> The President proposes the budget for the government to the US
>>>> Congress. Congress may change the budget, but it rarely appropriates
>>>> more than what the President requests.[13]
>>>>
>>>> Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents
>>>> (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and
>>>> Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the
>>>> last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush,
>>>> Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the
>>>> country's indebtedness.[14]
>>>
>>>Back to school for you ...
>>>
>> You see the part about being compared to GDP, right?
>
>Yes, which was NOT part of the statement you challenged. Inserting red
>herrings doesn't help your case.
>> So all the
>> Democratic presidents improved the debt as compared to GDP while the
>> Repubicans made it worse. No matter how hard you try to blame
>> Democrats for increasing the debt the simple fact is the Republicans
>> have always been much worse.
>
>We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
>Calvin Coolidge.
Reagan TRIPLED the national debt. Bush Sr almost doubled it. CLinton
managed to reduce the deficit and left office with an almost balanced
budget. Then the GOP started their insanity again and doubled the
debt again.
And you, being a malicious, goose-stepping America hater defend the
gross incompetance of the GOP.
Neolibertarian
Jan 7, 2012, 10:01:32 PM1/7/12
to
In article
<d0b8388a-ec26-4616...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
Revenues to the Treasury by year:
1982....$617 billion
1983....$643 billion
1984....$710 billion
1985....$774 billion
1986....$816 billion
1987....$896 billion
1988....$958 billion
1989....$1.03 trillion
1990....$1.08 trillion
From the Bureau of Economic Analysis;
http://tinyurl.com/6svyoty
> though it meant
> quadrupling the deficit and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to
> do it.
"Robbing the trust fund," begs the question.
There isn't a trust fund in the first place, of course. It's a thin
fiction which was jettisoned even by the Democrats last year when they
proposed the "Obama Payroll Tax Cut."
None of this can be blamed on Reagan in the first place.
He submitted 8 budgets, all of which were within Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
spending targets. (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was the late balanced budget
law.)
Speaker O'Neill (D) MS, famously declared each budget "DOA." It became
such a joke that in 1986, White House aides delivered the budget to
Capitol Hill in an ambulance, all dressed as EMT's.
None of Reagan's budgets were ever even entertained by the House of
Representatives.
Pretty simple.
Carter's last years in office had seen an inflation high watermark of
14%.
The only way to reduce inflation in an otherwise healthy economy, is to
reduce the money supply. This is accomplished by raising interest rates.
While there was inevitable pain involved in reigning in inflation
between 1981 and 1983, it also always proves healthy for the economy in
the long run. And it needn't take very long to yield positive effects.
By 1984, inflation was reduced to about 3%, and remained steady and
stable at that rate for the next 3 decades.
12 million jobs were created during Reagan's two terms.
Since all this information is so readily available, and easily
corroborated, one wonders if those who still claim what you've claimed
here aren't just out-and-out lying.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
<d0b8388a-ec26-4616...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
>
> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
>
> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
Revenues to the Treasury by year:
1982....$617 billion
1983....$643 billion
1984....$710 billion
1985....$774 billion
1986....$816 billion
1987....$896 billion
1988....$958 billion
1989....$1.03 trillion
1990....$1.08 trillion
From the Bureau of Economic Analysis;
http://tinyurl.com/6svyoty
> though it meant
> quadrupling the deficit and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to
> do it.
There isn't a trust fund in the first place, of course. It's a thin
fiction which was jettisoned even by the Democrats last year when they
proposed the "Obama Payroll Tax Cut."
None of this can be blamed on Reagan in the first place.
He submitted 8 budgets, all of which were within Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
spending targets. (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was the late balanced budget
law.)
Speaker O'Neill (D) MS, famously declared each budget "DOA." It became
such a joke that in 1986, White House aides delivered the budget to
Capitol Hill in an ambulance, all dressed as EMT's.
None of Reagan's budgets were ever even entertained by the House of
Representatives.
>
> To fund the debt, the banks had to attract people to
> invest money by increasing interest rates. Other
> countries then had to raise their rates to keep people from pulling
> their
> money out of the banks and investing it in the USA.
>
> The high interest rates caused huge unemployment rates and great human
> suffering.
Inflation = Money Supply x Velocity.
> To fund the debt, the banks had to attract people to
> invest money by increasing interest rates. Other
> countries then had to raise their rates to keep people from pulling
> their
> money out of the banks and investing it in the USA.
>
> The high interest rates caused huge unemployment rates and great human
> suffering.
Pretty simple.
Carter's last years in office had seen an inflation high watermark of
14%.
The only way to reduce inflation in an otherwise healthy economy, is to
reduce the money supply. This is accomplished by raising interest rates.
While there was inevitable pain involved in reigning in inflation
between 1981 and 1983, it also always proves healthy for the economy in
the long run. And it needn't take very long to yield positive effects.
By 1984, inflation was reduced to about 3%, and remained steady and
stable at that rate for the next 3 decades.
12 million jobs were created during Reagan's two terms.
Since all this information is so readily available, and easily
corroborated, one wonders if those who still claim what you've claimed
here aren't just out-and-out lying.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Neolibertarian
Jan 7, 2012, 10:58:53 PM1/7/12
to
In article <cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
wrote:
He does seemed to have missed that part.
However, GDP is not fixed, so what would be the purpose in using this as
a standard of comparative measurement?
In the past, the whole idea of deficits and debt were to "outgrow" them.
Inflation was used to make yesterday's borrowed dollar with higher value
easier to repay tomorrow with tomorrow's devalued one.
When the debt is = to GDP, this is no longer possible. Which is why some
are ringing the alarm bells these days.
> So all the
> Democratic presidents improved the debt as compared to GDP while the
> Repubicans made it worse. No matter how hard you try to blame
> Democrats for increasing the debt the simple fact is the Republicans
> have always been much worse.
>
> Find a liberal to explain it to you dumbass.
According to my Constitution, all appropriation bills originate in the
House of Representatives.
For instance, all 8 of Reagan's budgets were deemed "DOA" by House
Speaker O'Neill (D) Massachusetts, before they arrived at the Capitol.
It was such a joke that, in 1986, White House aides dressed up in EMT
uniforms, and delivered the budget to Capitol Hill in an ambulance.
All 8 of these budgets were submitted within Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
targets, BTW. (G-R-H was the late balanced budget law which was finally
overturned in its second iteration by a heavily Democrat Congress--who
had long ignored it, anyway.)
How can the deficits from 1982-1990 be considered "Reagan's?"
The budget was balanced in 1969. The next time it would be balanced
wouldn't be until 1998. It hasn't been balanced again since 2000.
That would be a total of three balanced budgets in the last 42 years,
for those playing along at home.
We've never really had a Republican nor a Democrat problem, when it
comes to out of control spending.
We have a Populist-Bureaucrat problem.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
wrote:
However, GDP is not fixed, so what would be the purpose in using this as
a standard of comparative measurement?
In the past, the whole idea of deficits and debt were to "outgrow" them.
Inflation was used to make yesterday's borrowed dollar with higher value
easier to repay tomorrow with tomorrow's devalued one.
When the debt is = to GDP, this is no longer possible. Which is why some
are ringing the alarm bells these days.
> So all the
> Democratic presidents improved the debt as compared to GDP while the
> Repubicans made it worse. No matter how hard you try to blame
> Democrats for increasing the debt the simple fact is the Republicans
> have always been much worse.
>
> Find a liberal to explain it to you dumbass.
House of Representatives.
For instance, all 8 of Reagan's budgets were deemed "DOA" by House
Speaker O'Neill (D) Massachusetts, before they arrived at the Capitol.
It was such a joke that, in 1986, White House aides dressed up in EMT
uniforms, and delivered the budget to Capitol Hill in an ambulance.
All 8 of these budgets were submitted within Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
targets, BTW. (G-R-H was the late balanced budget law which was finally
overturned in its second iteration by a heavily Democrat Congress--who
had long ignored it, anyway.)
How can the deficits from 1982-1990 be considered "Reagan's?"
The budget was balanced in 1969. The next time it would be balanced
wouldn't be until 1998. It hasn't been balanced again since 2000.
That would be a total of three balanced budgets in the last 42 years,
for those playing along at home.
We've never really had a Republican nor a Democrat problem, when it
comes to out of control spending.
We have a Populist-Bureaucrat problem.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
Dave Heil
Jan 8, 2012, 12:39:22 AM1/8/12
to
On 1/8/2012 01 47, Ray Fischer wrote:
> 1) Your a liar
1) Priceless, Wrong Ray.
> 1) Your a liar
1) Priceless, Wrong Ray.
Ray Fischer
Jan 8, 2012, 1:40:19 AM1/8/12
to
Dave Heil <k8...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>1) Priceless, Wrong Ray.
Still running from your idiotic ideology, Sig Heil?
>1) Priceless, Wrong Ray.
Still running from your idiotic ideology, Sig Heil?
Ray Fischer
Jan 8, 2012, 1:41:55 AM1/8/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
>> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>>
>>
>> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
>> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>
>How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
>cuts,"
>when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
>administrations?
The debt went up faster, moron.
> Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
>> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>>
>>
>> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
>> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>
>How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
>cuts,"
>when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
>administrations?
Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
Dave Heil
Jan 8, 2012, 2:02:56 AM1/8/12
to
>>> 1) Your a liar
continued bafflement over how to use your mother tongue.
>
>> 1) Priceless, Wrong Ray.
>
> Still running from your idiotic ideology, Sig Heil?
I wrote nothing of any ideology, Wrong Ray. I pointed out your
>> 1) Priceless, Wrong Ray.
>
> Still running from your idiotic ideology, Sig Heil?
continued bafflement over how to use your mother tongue.
Ray Fischer
Jan 8, 2012, 3:39:03 AM1/8/12
to
Dave Heil <k8...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>On 1/8/2012 06 40, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Still running from your idiotic ideology, Sig Heil?
>
>I wrote nothing of any ideology, Wrong Ray.
I just asked you a question, rightard.
>On 1/8/2012 06 40, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Still running from your idiotic ideology, Sig Heil?
>
>I wrote nothing of any ideology, Wrong Ray.
I'm not surprised that you don't want to answer.
Neolibertarian
Jan 8, 2012, 9:22:43 AM1/8/12
to
In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA." It was such a joke
that in 1986, the White House delivered its budget to Capitol Hill in an
ambulance:
"Congressional critics said that President Reagan's 1987 budget was
'dead on arrival,' but, when the Administration delivered it to
reporters Wednesday by ambulance, the apparent intention was to stress
that it is just sick and can be revived.
"As reporters waited in a drizzle outside the Government Printing Office
for the budget to be released at 7:30 a.m., an ambulance with sirens
blaring screeched to a halt and two attendants wheeled a gurney to the
door.
"They were met by a handful of government employees dressed in green
surgical gowns, a prank to rebut Capitol Hill critics.
"An attendant, fighting back a smile, said: 'It looks like a serious
situation.' Two attendants raced to the rear of the ambulance and
removed an employee of the White House Office of Management and
Budget--strapped to a gurney.
"They carried the supine patient, OMB public affairs assistant Paul
Olkhovski, to the second floor, where he rose from the gurney.
"Attendants placed a copy of the budget on his chest; Olkhovski then
pronounced it alive and kicking."
---Dead on Arrival? No, 'Document' is Alive and Kicking,
Associated Press, Febuary 6, 1986
http://tinyurl.com/7nqoxg4
>
> Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
Now you're trying to sound like Hayek.
Keep that up, and you might just have to join the Tea Party.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >>
> >>
> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >
> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> >cuts,"
> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> >administrations?
>
> The debt went up faster, moron.
With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >>
> >>
> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >
> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> >cuts,"
> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> >administrations?
>
> The debt went up faster, moron.
budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA." It was such a joke
that in 1986, the White House delivered its budget to Capitol Hill in an
ambulance:
"Congressional critics said that President Reagan's 1987 budget was
'dead on arrival,' but, when the Administration delivered it to
reporters Wednesday by ambulance, the apparent intention was to stress
that it is just sick and can be revived.
"As reporters waited in a drizzle outside the Government Printing Office
for the budget to be released at 7:30 a.m., an ambulance with sirens
blaring screeched to a halt and two attendants wheeled a gurney to the
door.
"They were met by a handful of government employees dressed in green
surgical gowns, a prank to rebut Capitol Hill critics.
"An attendant, fighting back a smile, said: 'It looks like a serious
situation.' Two attendants raced to the rear of the ambulance and
removed an employee of the White House Office of Management and
Budget--strapped to a gurney.
"They carried the supine patient, OMB public affairs assistant Paul
Olkhovski, to the second floor, where he rose from the gurney.
"Attendants placed a copy of the budget on his chest; Olkhovski then
pronounced it alive and kicking."
---Dead on Arrival? No, 'Document' is Alive and Kicking,
Associated Press, Febuary 6, 1986
http://tinyurl.com/7nqoxg4
>
> Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
Keep that up, and you might just have to join the Tea Party.
Bob
Jan 8, 2012, 11:12:21 AM1/8/12
to
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4f08f5c2$0$1728$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Post your numbers to see who is the liar.
> 2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
Reagan was fiscally irresponsible. On that we probably agree.
news:4f08f5c2$0$1728$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Bob <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>>"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>> the mistakes of
>>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
>>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
>>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>
>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
> 1) Your a liar
>>"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>> the mistakes of
>>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
>>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
>>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>
>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
Post your numbers to see who is the liar.
> 2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
Bob
Jan 8, 2012, 11:14:02 AM1/8/12
to
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63a5c$4f09a419$18f556a5$26...@allthenewsgroups.com...
A couple questions:
1. Did Reagan sign or veto these bills?
2. Isn't it true that, on average during his term, Congress reduced the
budget sent to them by Reagan?
news:63a5c$4f09a419$18f556a5$26...@allthenewsgroups.com...
1. Did Reagan sign or veto these bills?
2. Isn't it true that, on average during his term, Congress reduced the
budget sent to them by Reagan?
Ray Fischer
Jan 8, 2012, 3:53:06 PM1/8/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
>> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
>> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>> >
>> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
>> >cuts,"
>> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
>> >administrations?
>>
>> The debt went up faster, moron.
>
>With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
>budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
>
>O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA."
And yet they were all passed.
>In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
>> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
>> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>> >
>> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
>> >cuts,"
>> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
>> >administrations?
>>
>> The debt went up faster, moron.
>
>With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
>budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
>
>O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA."
Hmmm.
DogDiesel
Jan 8, 2012, 6:33:36 PM1/8/12
to
news:4f08f582$0$1728$742e...@news.sonic.net...
by far, when comared to
> other nations despite failure to provide care for tens of millions of
> people.
we arent susposed to provide for illegals and foreigners. But you fucked
that up with obamacare.
And people are susposed to provide their own healthcare. End of fucking
story.
And You lie, every person including illegals are welcome in the
emergency room.
> And dumbass rightards still have no clue.
We have a clue, you have no morals.
You piece of lying shit.
> ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
>>> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>> >the mistakes of
>>> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
>>> past hoping for a different result.
>>
>>I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
>
> The US pays the highest price for health care,
Because quality cost more you dumbfuck.
>>In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
>>> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>> >the mistakes of
>>> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
>>> past hoping for a different result.
>>
>>I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
>
> The US pays the highest price for health care,
by far, when comared to
> other nations despite failure to provide care for tens of millions of
> people.
that up with obamacare.
And people are susposed to provide their own healthcare. End of fucking
story.
And You lie, every person including illegals are welcome in the
emergency room.
> And dumbass rightards still have no clue.
You piece of lying shit.
Boo
Jan 9, 2012, 2:59:35 AM1/9/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:03:31 -0800, Public Servant wrote:
> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
>
> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion in tax
> cuts, mostly to the super rich, though it meant quadrupling the deficit
> and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to do it.
>
> To fund the debt, the banks had to attract people to invest money by
> increasing interest rates. Other countries then had to raise their
> rates to keep people from pulling their
> money out of the banks and investing it in the USA.
>
> The high interest rates caused huge unemployment rates and great human
> suffering.
>
> Annie Birdsong
> http://www.anniebirdsong.info
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 10:55 am, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>> <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >><d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>> >>news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>"Public Servant" <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in
>> >>>>message
>> >>>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c-
> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
>
> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion in tax
> cuts, mostly to the super rich, though it meant quadrupling the deficit
> and robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to do it.
>
> To fund the debt, the banks had to attract people to invest money by
> increasing interest rates. Other countries then had to raise their
> rates to keep people from pulling their
> money out of the banks and investing it in the USA.
>
> The high interest rates caused huge unemployment rates and great human
> suffering.
>
> Annie Birdsong
> http://www.anniebirdsong.info
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 10:55 am, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>> <d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cupgg7t688n2k2vb3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:34:06 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >><d...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>> >>news:evogg7ljevkkf0adm...@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>"Public Servant" <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in
>> >>>>message
ae9b-09b...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Normally, these would be restricted a bit, because of the anti-rich
content. However, it has been decided that sometimes it's better to let
the peoples consider various ideas - even anti-rich ones.
One of the problems is that people will find other ways to get their
ideas across, so we have decided for the time being to let these though...
I myself am not all that rich - just working for them.. Still, have a
pretty good life. I do pretty well, not that rich, not that poor, seems
to me. But then, there's those RICH... they want it all.
Anyway, whatever. At the moment, you can post. Even anti-Reagan stuff.
--
Boo Fetus Radley, II
Sid9
Jan 9, 2012, 8:29:46 PM1/9/12
to
"Boo" <b...@booradley.com> wrote in message
news:vomdnWPd3Lf6A5fS...@giganews.com...
They screw you, throw you a few crumbs and you cheer them!
A perfect Republican!
Neolibertarian
Jan 9, 2012, 9:28:02 PM1/9/12
to
In article <4f0a0232$0$1680$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
passed.
As in none.
As in zero.
This is all historical record.
But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Movies/SOU88.mp4
The rest of us will know that Reagan submitted all of his budgets within
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings targets, and none of us will ever again stoop to
explain to you what Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was, nor what that means.
There comes a point it's just a waste of time to persuade those who
refuse to reason, who cling to false narratives, and who can't consider
facts they irrationally regard as dangerous.
There's no point in explaining it anymore.
It's time to just sweep you and your ilk aside.
My Constitution provides the means, and it's high time the adults used
these means.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> >> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> >> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >> >
> >> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> >> >cuts,"
> >> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> >> >administrations?
> >>
> >> The debt went up faster, moron.
> >
> >With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> >budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
> >
> >O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA."
>
> And yet they were all passed.
If you define the word "all" as meaning "none," then yes, all were
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> >> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> >> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >> >
> >> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> >> >cuts,"
> >> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> >> >administrations?
> >>
> >> The debt went up faster, moron.
> >
> >With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> >budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
> >
> >O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA."
>
> And yet they were all passed.
passed.
As in none.
As in zero.
This is all historical record.
But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Movies/SOU88.mp4
The rest of us will know that Reagan submitted all of his budgets within
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings targets, and none of us will ever again stoop to
explain to you what Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was, nor what that means.
There comes a point it's just a waste of time to persuade those who
refuse to reason, who cling to false narratives, and who can't consider
facts they irrationally regard as dangerous.
There's no point in explaining it anymore.
It's time to just sweep you and your ilk aside.
My Constitution provides the means, and it's high time the adults used
these means.
Boo
Jan 10, 2012, 4:08:30 PM1/10/12
to
be able to post..)
I am not a Republican. I am for the peoples, but I have to eat. The
rich pay me well. In any case, Public Servant is no longer being
suppressed, despite the EXCELLENT anti-rich stuff she posts..
Sid9
Jan 10, 2012, 4:15:19 PM1/10/12
to
news:5YWdndeO5fpTNZHS...@giganews.com...
OK, You "live in the best of all possible worlds"!
"The statement that "we live in the best of all possible worlds" drew scorn,
most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide by
having the character Dr. Pangloss (a parody of Leibniz and Maupertuis)
repeat it like a mantra. From this, the adjective "Panglossian" describes a
person who believes that the world about us is the best possible one."
"The statement that "we live in the best of all possible worlds" drew scorn,
most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide by
having the character Dr. Pangloss (a parody of Leibniz and Maupertuis)
repeat it like a mantra. From this, the adjective "Panglossian" describes a
person who believes that the world about us is the best possible one."
Robert Fitzgerald
Jan 11, 2012, 12:59:53 AM1/11/12
to
good way to make money?
Why do you stay on the evil side? With the rich?
(I don't know if this will get through or not..)
--
Bobby
liberal
Jan 11, 2012, 12:34:30 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 8, 1:41 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
as well. However, Reagan refused to state what cuts he wanted. Claimed
that was Congress' duty. All he wanted to be known for was handing out
the candy of tax cuts, and let democrats take responsibility for the
castor oil of cuts.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
> rfisc...@sonic.net | Goethe
> Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Public Servant <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>
> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> >cuts,"
> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> >administrations?
>
> The debt went up faster, moron.
>
> Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
Reagan promised revenues would go up but that spending had to be cut
> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>
> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> >cuts,"
> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> >administrations?
>
> The debt went up faster, moron.
>
> Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
as well. However, Reagan refused to state what cuts he wanted. Claimed
that was Congress' duty. All he wanted to be known for was handing out
the candy of tax cuts, and let democrats take responsibility for the
castor oil of cuts.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
liberal
Jan 11, 2012, 12:59:44 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 8, 9:22 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
O'Neill's comments aside.
Ummm, just cuz a liberal and a teahadist might agree as to what time
it is, that doesn't mean the insanity of the teahadist philosophy is
catchy like the flu.
Please explain how looneytunarianism/laissez faire capitalism/
teahadism does not devolve into anarchy and political oppression? The
way pure socialism devolves into political oppression. See, here's the
intellectual problem: If looneytunarianism is such a powerful force
for economic success, Somalia would be rising out of anarchy as
brilliant and enlightened looneytunarians (like you) flocked there to
take advantage of the underlying economic opportunities.
> In article <4f093ab3$0$1674$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Public Servant <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>
> > >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> > >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
> > >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> > >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>
> > >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> > >cuts,"
> > >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> > >administrations?
>
> > The debt went up faster, moron.
>
> With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
That's odd, as Phil Gramm walked Reagan's budget through the House.
>
> > >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> > >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>
> > >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> > >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>
> > >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> > >cuts,"
> > >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> > >administrations?
>
> > The debt went up faster, moron.
>
> With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
O'Neill's comments aside.
it is, that doesn't mean the insanity of the teahadist philosophy is
catchy like the flu.
Please explain how looneytunarianism/laissez faire capitalism/
teahadism does not devolve into anarchy and political oppression? The
way pure socialism devolves into political oppression. See, here's the
intellectual problem: If looneytunarianism is such a powerful force
for economic success, Somalia would be rising out of anarchy as
brilliant and enlightened looneytunarians (like you) flocked there to
take advantage of the underlying economic opportunities.
Neolibertarian
Jan 11, 2012, 10:53:11 PM1/11/12
to
In article
<6b08c5ae-f21d-496d...@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
PPOR.
<6b08c5ae-f21d-496d...@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
liberal <liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:41 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Public Servant <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> > >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> > >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >
> > >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> > >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >
> > >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> > >cuts,"
> > >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> > >administrations?
> >
> > The debt went up faster, moron.
> >
> > Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
>
> Reagan promised revenues would go up but that spending had to be cut
> as well. However, Reagan refused to state what cuts he wanted. Claimed
> that was Congress' duty. All he wanted to be known for was handing out
> the candy of tax cuts, and let democrats take responsibility for the
> castor oil of cuts.
Heh.
> On Jan 8, 1:41 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Public Servant <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> > >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> > >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >
> > >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> > >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >
> > >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> > >cuts,"
> > >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> > >administrations?
> >
> > The debt went up faster, moron.
> >
> > Does anybody get richer by borrowing from their credit cards?
>
> Reagan promised revenues would go up but that spending had to be cut
> as well. However, Reagan refused to state what cuts he wanted. Claimed
> that was Congress' duty. All he wanted to be known for was handing out
> the candy of tax cuts, and let democrats take responsibility for the
> castor oil of cuts.
PPOR.
Neolibertarian
Jan 11, 2012, 11:25:26 PM1/11/12
to
In article
<cf336519-4c94-4942...@ck5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
It doesn't really matter, since none were ever passed, yet all were
submitted within Gramm-Rudman-Hollings targets--even those "draconian"
budgets Reagan proposed before GRH was finally passed.
Reagan shut the federal government down five times in 1981, the last
shutdown occurred when he vetoed a continuing resolution (which Congress
passes when it can't pass a budget--as in all the continuing resolutions
we've currently been witnessing since 2009).
No budget in 1984 resulted in another government shut down.
In 1990, there was no budget and no continuing resolution. The
government shut down during the Columbus Day weekend.
That's a tired, fallacious example, goofy.
Libertarianism isn't "no government."
How silly would that be? There's no liberty in anarchy.
(After all, absence of government isn't absence of force, izzit? Look at
Somalia, for instance.)
Libertarianism is ordered liberty. Without the rule of law, there is no
freedom.
Ordered liberty is maximum liberty.
In Somalia, you don't have the rule of law. You have the rule of men.
Progressive doctrine calls for a rule of men here in these not-so United
States, as well.
Progressives seem to think as long as law flows from enlightened men,
the rule of men is perfectly acceptable. It's just the savages in
Somalia and the Republicans Party which can bring ruin to what should be
a wise and effective system.
This is why one party rule is so essential to progressivism.
<cf336519-4c94-4942...@ck5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
liberal <liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Public Servant <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> > > >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >
> > > >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> > > >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >
> > > >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> > > >cuts,"
> > > >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> > > >administrations?
> >
> > > The debt went up faster, moron.
> >
> > With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> > budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
>
> That's odd, as Phil Gramm walked Reagan's budget through the House.
> O'Neill's comments aside.
There were 8 budgets. "Reagan's budget" begs the question.
> > > Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Public Servant <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
> > > >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
> >
> > > >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
> > > >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
> >
> > > >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
> > > >cuts,"
> > > >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
> > > >administrations?
> >
> > > The debt went up faster, moron.
> >
> > With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
> > budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
>
> That's odd, as Phil Gramm walked Reagan's budget through the House.
> O'Neill's comments aside.
It doesn't really matter, since none were ever passed, yet all were
submitted within Gramm-Rudman-Hollings targets--even those "draconian"
budgets Reagan proposed before GRH was finally passed.
Reagan shut the federal government down five times in 1981, the last
shutdown occurred when he vetoed a continuing resolution (which Congress
passes when it can't pass a budget--as in all the continuing resolutions
we've currently been witnessing since 2009).
No budget in 1984 resulted in another government shut down.
In 1990, there was no budget and no continuing resolution. The
government shut down during the Columbus Day weekend.
Libertarianism isn't "no government."
How silly would that be? There's no liberty in anarchy.
(After all, absence of government isn't absence of force, izzit? Look at
Somalia, for instance.)
Libertarianism is ordered liberty. Without the rule of law, there is no
freedom.
Ordered liberty is maximum liberty.
In Somalia, you don't have the rule of law. You have the rule of men.
Progressive doctrine calls for a rule of men here in these not-so United
States, as well.
Progressives seem to think as long as law flows from enlightened men,
the rule of men is perfectly acceptable. It's just the savages in
Somalia and the Republicans Party which can bring ruin to what should be
a wise and effective system.
This is why one party rule is so essential to progressivism.
Ray Fischer
Jan 12, 2012, 12:41:38 AM1/12/12
to
>> ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
>>>> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>>> >the mistakes of
>>>> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>>
>>>> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
>>>> past hoping for a different result.
>>>
>>>I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
>>
>> The US pays the highest price for health care,
>
>Because quality cost more you dumbfuck.
The US doesn't get quality, Dogshit. The US ranks way down the list
>>>In article <1fogg79ege3hr52p6...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 07:10:34 -0800 (PST), Public Servant
>>>> <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>>> >the mistakes of
>>>> >George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>>
>>>> Well DUH. Conservatism is defined as repeating the mistakes of the
>>>> past hoping for a different result.
>>>
>>>I would guess that's why DumBama proposed ObamaCare while our other
>>
>> The US pays the highest price for health care,
>
>Because quality cost more you dumbfuck.
for life expectancy and infant mortality.
> by far, when compared to
>> other nations despite failure to provide care for tens of millions of
>> people.
>
>we arent susposed to provide for illegals and foreigners.
Lay off of the drugs, Dogshit.
>> people.
>
>we arent susposed to provide for illegals and foreigners.
> But you fucked
>that up with obamacare.
Ray Fischer
Jan 12, 2012, 12:44:01 AM1/12/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
>> >> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
>> >> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>> >> >
>> >> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
>> >> >cuts,"
>> >> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
>> >> >administrations?
>> >>
>> >> The debt went up faster, moron.
>> >
>> >With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
>> >budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
>> >
>> >O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA."
>>
>> And yet they were all passed.
>
>If you define the word "all" as meaning "none," then yes, all were
>passed.
>
>As in none.
>
>As in zero.
>
>This is all historical record.
Unless it's all rightard lies.
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> HOW THE DEBT CAUSED BY REAGAN CAUSED
>> >> >> UNEMPLYOMENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I mentioned in the article, Reagan squandered $750 billion
>> >> >> in tax cuts, mostly to the super rich,
>> >> >
>> >> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax
>> >> >cuts,"
>> >> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his
>> >> >administrations?
>> >>
>> >> The debt went up faster, moron.
>> >
>> >With O'Neill's (D, MS) budgets, not Reagan's (R). None of Reagan's
>> >budgets were ever entertained by the Democrat House of Representatives.
>> >
>> >O'Neill pronounced all of Reagan's budgets "DOA."
>>
>> And yet they were all passed.
>
>If you define the word "all" as meaning "none," then yes, all were
>passed.
>
>As in none.
>
>As in zero.
>
>This is all historical record.
Again.
I happen to know that you're playing right-wing word games, claiming
that because Reagan only got 98% of what he asked for that none of his
budgets were passed.
But that's the sort of propaganda we expect from fascists. Reagan
tripled the national debt and you find some pathetic excuse to pretend
that he was just an incompetant old fool.
>But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan.
Neolibertarian
Jan 12, 2012, 9:42:33 PM1/12/12
to
In article <4f0e7321$0$1681$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Believe it or not, you have the equivalent of 10,000 libraries...right
at your fingertips. Some people call it the internet. Some used to call
it the information superhighway. The Germans call it the datenautobahn,
which is kind of cutesy.
Archived news stories, free encyclopedias, for profit research services,
free research services. The FAS even keeps a thorough range of
Congressional records archives--something Congress has deliberately kept
from being published at their own websites. There's scholarly historical
summaries, arguing both sides of this discussion, many available for
free, many more available for a charge. Of course, there's lots of
garbage out here, as well.
Someday, when you grow up, you'll learn how to access some of these
features, and you won't have to guess if facts which seem to threaten
your distorted map of the universe are, after all, "rightard lies."
Or not.
> I happen to know that you're playing right-wing word games, claiming
> that because Reagan only got 98% of what he asked for that none of his
> budgets were passed.
That's not what happened.
> But that's the sort of propaganda we expect from fascists. Reagan
> tripled the national debt and you find some pathetic excuse to pretend
> that he was just an incompetant old fool.
All of Reagan's budgets were DOA.
Since his budgets were never passed, it can't be claimed that his
budgets "tripled the national debt."
I'd like to see you prove they did.
again?
at your fingertips. Some people call it the internet. Some used to call
it the information superhighway. The Germans call it the datenautobahn,
which is kind of cutesy.
Archived news stories, free encyclopedias, for profit research services,
free research services. The FAS even keeps a thorough range of
Congressional records archives--something Congress has deliberately kept
from being published at their own websites. There's scholarly historical
summaries, arguing both sides of this discussion, many available for
free, many more available for a charge. Of course, there's lots of
garbage out here, as well.
Someday, when you grow up, you'll learn how to access some of these
features, and you won't have to guess if facts which seem to threaten
your distorted map of the universe are, after all, "rightard lies."
Or not.
> I happen to know that you're playing right-wing word games, claiming
> that because Reagan only got 98% of what he asked for that none of his
> budgets were passed.
> But that's the sort of propaganda we expect from fascists. Reagan
> tripled the national debt and you find some pathetic excuse to pretend
> that he was just an incompetant old fool.
Since his budgets were never passed, it can't be claimed that his
budgets "tripled the national debt."
I'd like to see you prove they did.
>
> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan.
>
> His policies. His budgets.
Too bad you don't have a Constitution. What country are you posting from
> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan.
>
> His policies. His budgets.
again?
Sid9
Jan 13, 2012, 12:14:43 AM1/13/12
to
news:c7ad5$4f0f9767$18f556a5$21...@allthenewsgroups.com...
That's easy.
Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
Are you plain ignorant.....or just another Republican liar?
Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
Are you plain ignorant.....or just another Republican liar?
Neolibertarian
Jan 13, 2012, 6:53:43 PM1/13/12
to
In article <jeoek6$h72$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
He who asserts must prove.
That's how it works. Sorry.
I know the facts of this case. But it's not up to me to look up
something that never really happened.
As my Grandma always told me: Neo, always beware of the word "cut" when
you're discussing public finances with a populist bureaucrat.
Many people mistake me for a Republican, but I'm not. I only play one on
election day.
wrote:
That's how it works. Sorry.
I know the facts of this case. But it's not up to me to look up
something that never really happened.
As my Grandma always told me: Neo, always beware of the word "cut" when
you're discussing public finances with a populist bureaucrat.
>
> Are you plain ignorant.....or just another Republican liar?
Ignorant, undoubtedly. I post to Usenet, after all.
> Are you plain ignorant.....or just another Republican liar?
Many people mistake me for a Republican, but I'm not. I only play one on
election day.
Ray Fischer
Jan 14, 2012, 12:19:06 AM1/14/12
to
your claim.
>> I happen to know that you're playing right-wing word games, claiming
>> that because Reagan only got 98% of what he asked for that none of his
>> budgets were passed.
>
>That's not what happened.
>> But that's the sort of propaganda we expect from fascists. Reagan
>> tripled the national debt and you find some pathetic excuse to pretend
>> that he was just an incompetant old fool.
>
>All of Reagan's budgets were DOA.
Ray Fischer
Jan 14, 2012, 12:19:57 AM1/14/12
to
Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
Prove it.
Neolibertarian
Jan 14, 2012, 7:24:54 AM1/14/12
to
In article <4f11107d$0$1711$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
Ray Fischer
Jan 14, 2012, 11:59:22 PM1/14/12
to
dishonest hypocrite.
Neolibertarian
Jan 15, 2012, 1:29:22 PM1/15/12
to
In article <4f125d2a$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
error on my part.
Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
submitted budget to reflect his own priorities, and got it passed, in
tact, through Congress. You might remember, President Obama was able to
accomplish his own revisions to the Dubya's last budget with similar
success (2009).
None of Reagan's subsequent budgets were accepted by the House of
Representatives. All would require almost endless wrangling.
For evidence, first there were the Presidential vetoes, some of which
briefly shut down the government:
2393 H.J. Res. 357.
Continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1982.
Vetoed 23, 1981. The veto message was laid before the House, referred to
the Committee on Appropriations, and printed as H. Doc. 97-115. (127
Cong. Rec 28880).
Veto unchallenged.
Pocket Veto
2399
H.R. 5922.
Makes urgent supplemental appropriations and rescinds certain budget
authority for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982.
Vetoed on June 2.4, 1982. The veto message was laid before the House and
printed as H. Doc. 97-204. (128 Cong. Rec. 15156).
The House sustained the veto on June 24, 1982 by a vote of 253 yeas to
151 nays. (128 Cong. Rec. 15167).
Veto sustained.
2401
H.R. 6682.
Urgent supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1982. Vetoed on June 25, 1982. The veto message was laid
before the House and printed as H. Doc. 97-205. (128
Cong. Rec. 15284).
The House sustained the veto on July 13, 1982, by a vote of 242 yeas to
169 nays. (128 Cong. Rec, 15167).
Veto sustained.
(Similar legislation enacted in 96 Stat. 180; Public Law 97-216).
2402
H.R. 6863.
Supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1982.
Vetoed on August 28, 1982. The veto message was laid before the House
and printed as H. Doc. 97-231. (128
Cong. Rec. 22857).
The House overrode the veto on September 9, 1982 by a vote of 301 yeas
to 117 nays. (128 Cong. Rec. 22977).
The Senate overrode the veto on September 10, 1982 by a vote of 60 yeas
to 30 nays. (128 Cong. Rec. 23166).
Veto overridden. (96 Stat 818; Public Law 97-257).
Pocket Veto
2437
H.J. Res. 748.
A joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 1987.
Vetoed on October 9, 1986. The veto message was laid before the House
and printed as H. Doc. 99-277. (132 Cong. Rec. 30103).
Veto unchallenged
2459 W.R. 4264.
To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1989 amended budget
request for military functions of the Department of Defense and to
prescribe military personnel Levels for such Department for fiscai year
1989, to amend the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1988 and
1989.
Vetoed on August 3, 1988. The veto message was laid before the House and
printed as EI. Doc. 100-22C
(134 Cong. Rec. 20280).
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/Presidents/ReaganR.pdf
Then there were the countless contemporary news stories. Here's a series
submitted during the appropriate years from just the Christian Science
Monitor (which has nearly complete, searchable archives, accessible for
free):
"In the House, Democratic Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. of Massachusetts
has waxed both despondent and bold, leaving a confused trail for his
party's House members to follow in a vote to cut spending half as much
as Mr. Reagan wants."
--- Richard J. Cattani, Why are Democrats in disarray?,
Christian Science Monitor, May 5, 1981
http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0505/050526.html
"Unless some precipitating event occurs -- a steep drop in the
President's approval rating or an alarming extension of the economic
doldrums into the summer, or both -- Mr. Reagan will likely stand pat on
his program and wait for Congress to come to him with a compromise
budget. 'We think a consensus will emerge on the Hill and move closer to
the President,' White House spokesman David Gergen told reporters at a
breakfast March 2."
---Richard J. Cattani, Both Reagan, Democrats likely to drag
heels on budget, Christian Science Monitor, March 3, 1982
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0303/030357.html
"While a deadlocked fiscal 1983 budget dominates the headlines, the
White House has quietly continued to snip at the fiscal '82 budget.
"The tool: impoundment, the President's refusal to dispense money
appropriated by Congress. It's a weapon Congress dislikes and few
outsiders understand.
"Now some congressmen and affected interest groups are getting piqued at
President Reagan's use of the tool - and General Accounting Office (GAO)
studies are charging the administration with technical illegalities.
"'We contend they have no right to hold these funds up,' says a
congressman's aide. 'The bottom line is they're looking for ways to cut.
They're looking in every nook and cranny.'"
---Peter Grier, Congress gives Reagan cash--but will he
spend?, Christian Science Monitor, March 31, 1982
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0331/033142.html
"All over Washington the search goes on for a way to persuade President
Reagan to propose - or at least to accept - major changes in his
economic plan.
"A blueprint of what those changes should include is widely agreed upon
by experts in both political parties and by some key White House
officials, informed sources say."
---Harry B. Ellis, Searching for compromise on '83 budget,
The Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 1982
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0326/032647.html
"It's a budget that 'all of my (Democratic) candidates can take home and
talk about in a very positive sense,' says a very satisfied Rep. Tony
Coelho of California, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee.
"The proposals from both parties are carefully crafted to avoid
offending vast numbers of voters. The biggest cuts are in the military.
(The House wants a $95 .6 billion trim over three years while the Senate
GOP is seeking a $41 billion cut.) New taxes include loophole closings
and adjustments that will spread increases broadly and hit voters
indirectly. Savings in medicare and medicaid will be chiefly through
technical changes and restrictions on payments to hospitals.
"Most voters will not feel the pinch. Congress can 'achieve these small
savings without hurting people,' says a House GOP leadership aide.
"These kindest cuts of all will almost certainly produce fewer savings
than President Reagan proposed when he called for a $100 billion
downpayment on the federal deficit. But the Reagan estimates assume cuts
that are probably impossible to pass in Congress. For example, the
President has proposed cuts in food stamps, in women and infant
nutrition programs, and in farm supports that are unlikely to win
passage."
---Julia Malone, Congress sheds election-year timidity to move
on deficit trims, The Christian Science Monitor, April 9,
1984.
http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0409/040948.html
"In the House of Representatives, where it often takes decades to make
the slightest ripple, Rep. William E. Gray III has made a big splash.
The new chairman of the House Budget Committee has accomplished in a few
months what no one in four years has done on the budget. The liberal
Democrat from Philadelphia united his party, including ``boll weevil''
conservatives, in almost blissful harmony.
"With the overwhelming passage last week of the House version of the
federal budget, Representative Gray's approval rating among colleagues
has soared off the charts.
"'I think he was terrific,' exuded House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr.
(D) of Massachusetts.
---Julia Malone, Chairman Gray's `fair' hand steered budget
through US House, The Christian Science Monitor, May 28, 1985
http://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0528/agray-f.html
After 1985, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings had passed. From this time on, Speaker
O'Neill would term all Reagan budgets "DOA." These are so well
documented, that no additional research on my part should be required. I
will do so, only after a formal request. And, of course, only after my
own call for evidence is forthcoming from either you, or from the poster
to whom I was replying.
error on my part.
Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
submitted budget to reflect his own priorities, and got it passed, in
tact, through Congress. You might remember, President Obama was able to
accomplish his own revisions to the Dubya's last budget with similar
success (2009).
None of Reagan's subsequent budgets were accepted by the House of
Representatives. All would require almost endless wrangling.
For evidence, first there were the Presidential vetoes, some of which
briefly shut down the government:
2393 H.J. Res. 357.
Continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1982.
Vetoed 23, 1981. The veto message was laid before the House, referred to
the Committee on Appropriations, and printed as H. Doc. 97-115. (127
Cong. Rec 28880).
Veto unchallenged.
Pocket Veto
2399
H.R. 5922.
Makes urgent supplemental appropriations and rescinds certain budget
authority for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982.
Vetoed on June 2.4, 1982. The veto message was laid before the House and
printed as H. Doc. 97-204. (128 Cong. Rec. 15156).
The House sustained the veto on June 24, 1982 by a vote of 253 yeas to
151 nays. (128 Cong. Rec. 15167).
Veto sustained.
2401
H.R. 6682.
Urgent supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1982. Vetoed on June 25, 1982. The veto message was laid
before the House and printed as H. Doc. 97-205. (128
Cong. Rec. 15284).
The House sustained the veto on July 13, 1982, by a vote of 242 yeas to
169 nays. (128 Cong. Rec, 15167).
Veto sustained.
(Similar legislation enacted in 96 Stat. 180; Public Law 97-216).
2402
H.R. 6863.
Supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1982.
Vetoed on August 28, 1982. The veto message was laid before the House
and printed as H. Doc. 97-231. (128
Cong. Rec. 22857).
The House overrode the veto on September 9, 1982 by a vote of 301 yeas
to 117 nays. (128 Cong. Rec. 22977).
The Senate overrode the veto on September 10, 1982 by a vote of 60 yeas
to 30 nays. (128 Cong. Rec. 23166).
Veto overridden. (96 Stat 818; Public Law 97-257).
Pocket Veto
2437
H.J. Res. 748.
A joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 1987.
Vetoed on October 9, 1986. The veto message was laid before the House
and printed as H. Doc. 99-277. (132 Cong. Rec. 30103).
Veto unchallenged
2459 W.R. 4264.
To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1989 amended budget
request for military functions of the Department of Defense and to
prescribe military personnel Levels for such Department for fiscai year
1989, to amend the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1988 and
1989.
Vetoed on August 3, 1988. The veto message was laid before the House and
printed as EI. Doc. 100-22C
(134 Cong. Rec. 20280).
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/Presidents/ReaganR.pdf
Then there were the countless contemporary news stories. Here's a series
submitted during the appropriate years from just the Christian Science
Monitor (which has nearly complete, searchable archives, accessible for
free):
"In the House, Democratic Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. of Massachusetts
has waxed both despondent and bold, leaving a confused trail for his
party's House members to follow in a vote to cut spending half as much
as Mr. Reagan wants."
--- Richard J. Cattani, Why are Democrats in disarray?,
Christian Science Monitor, May 5, 1981
http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0505/050526.html
"Unless some precipitating event occurs -- a steep drop in the
President's approval rating or an alarming extension of the economic
doldrums into the summer, or both -- Mr. Reagan will likely stand pat on
his program and wait for Congress to come to him with a compromise
budget. 'We think a consensus will emerge on the Hill and move closer to
the President,' White House spokesman David Gergen told reporters at a
breakfast March 2."
---Richard J. Cattani, Both Reagan, Democrats likely to drag
heels on budget, Christian Science Monitor, March 3, 1982
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0303/030357.html
"While a deadlocked fiscal 1983 budget dominates the headlines, the
White House has quietly continued to snip at the fiscal '82 budget.
"The tool: impoundment, the President's refusal to dispense money
appropriated by Congress. It's a weapon Congress dislikes and few
outsiders understand.
"Now some congressmen and affected interest groups are getting piqued at
President Reagan's use of the tool - and General Accounting Office (GAO)
studies are charging the administration with technical illegalities.
"'We contend they have no right to hold these funds up,' says a
congressman's aide. 'The bottom line is they're looking for ways to cut.
They're looking in every nook and cranny.'"
---Peter Grier, Congress gives Reagan cash--but will he
spend?, Christian Science Monitor, March 31, 1982
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0331/033142.html
"All over Washington the search goes on for a way to persuade President
Reagan to propose - or at least to accept - major changes in his
economic plan.
"A blueprint of what those changes should include is widely agreed upon
by experts in both political parties and by some key White House
officials, informed sources say."
---Harry B. Ellis, Searching for compromise on '83 budget,
The Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 1982
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0326/032647.html
"It's a budget that 'all of my (Democratic) candidates can take home and
talk about in a very positive sense,' says a very satisfied Rep. Tony
Coelho of California, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee.
"The proposals from both parties are carefully crafted to avoid
offending vast numbers of voters. The biggest cuts are in the military.
(The House wants a $95 .6 billion trim over three years while the Senate
GOP is seeking a $41 billion cut.) New taxes include loophole closings
and adjustments that will spread increases broadly and hit voters
indirectly. Savings in medicare and medicaid will be chiefly through
technical changes and restrictions on payments to hospitals.
"Most voters will not feel the pinch. Congress can 'achieve these small
savings without hurting people,' says a House GOP leadership aide.
"These kindest cuts of all will almost certainly produce fewer savings
than President Reagan proposed when he called for a $100 billion
downpayment on the federal deficit. But the Reagan estimates assume cuts
that are probably impossible to pass in Congress. For example, the
President has proposed cuts in food stamps, in women and infant
nutrition programs, and in farm supports that are unlikely to win
passage."
---Julia Malone, Congress sheds election-year timidity to move
on deficit trims, The Christian Science Monitor, April 9,
1984.
http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0409/040948.html
"In the House of Representatives, where it often takes decades to make
the slightest ripple, Rep. William E. Gray III has made a big splash.
The new chairman of the House Budget Committee has accomplished in a few
months what no one in four years has done on the budget. The liberal
Democrat from Philadelphia united his party, including ``boll weevil''
conservatives, in almost blissful harmony.
"With the overwhelming passage last week of the House version of the
federal budget, Representative Gray's approval rating among colleagues
has soared off the charts.
"'I think he was terrific,' exuded House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr.
(D) of Massachusetts.
---Julia Malone, Chairman Gray's `fair' hand steered budget
through US House, The Christian Science Monitor, May 28, 1985
http://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0528/agray-f.html
After 1985, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings had passed. From this time on, Speaker
O'Neill would term all Reagan budgets "DOA." These are so well
documented, that no additional research on my part should be required. I
will do so, only after a formal request. And, of course, only after my
own call for evidence is forthcoming from either you, or from the poster
to whom I was replying.
Ray Fischer
Jan 16, 2012, 9:43:30 PM1/16/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <4f125d2a$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's easy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
>> >> >
>> >> >He who asserts must prove.
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
>> >>
>> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
>>
>> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
>> dishonest hypocrite.
>
>Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
>error on my part.
>
>Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
More bullshit is not proof, rightard.
>In article <4f125d2a$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's easy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
>> >> >
>> >> >He who asserts must prove.
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
>> >>
>> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
>>
>> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
>> dishonest hypocrite.
>
>Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
>error on my part.
>
>Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>For evidence, first there were the Presidential vetoes, some of which
>briefly shut down the government:
Aren't you supposed to prove that Reagan got none of his spending
approved instead of showing that he got to enforce his will?
>2393 H.J. Res. 357.
>Continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1982.
>Vetoed 23, 1981.
>2399
>H.R. 5922.
>Makes urgent supplemental appropriations and rescinds certain budget
>authority for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982.
>Vetoed on June 2.4, 1982.
>H.R. 5922.
>Makes urgent supplemental appropriations and rescinds certain budget
>authority for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982.
>Vetoed on June 2.4, 1982.
Ray Fischer
Jan 17, 2012, 1:18:43 AM1/17/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's easy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
>> >> >
>> >> >He who asserts must prove.
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
>> >>
>> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
>>
>> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
>> dishonest hypocrite.
>
>Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
>error on my part.
YOu make a lot of "errors".
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's easy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
>> >> >
>> >> >He who asserts must prove.
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
>> >>
>> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
>>
>> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
>> dishonest hypocrite.
>
>Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
>error on my part.
>Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent
afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
Congress passed.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
liberal
Jan 17, 2012, 3:14:28 PM1/17/12
to
> <cf336519-4c94-4942-9e0b-215c4bbe2...@ck5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Goofy.....Somalia has a government. Its president once lived in the
US. But Somalia's government meets Norquist's standard. Thus the
anarchy you point to.
Why is it reichtards have a compulsion to prove how ignorant and
stupid they are? Repeatedly.
US. But Somalia's government meets Norquist's standard. Thus the
anarchy you point to.
Why is it reichtards have a compulsion to prove how ignorant and
stupid they are? Repeatedly.
Neolibertarian
Jan 18, 2012, 1:22:49 AM1/18/12
to
In article
<4f6f8544-3e11-48bd...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Hence, Somalia. Hence Palestine.
> Its president once lived in the
> US.
You're an idiot, and I say that with all due respect.
Which president are you referring to? Al-Shabaab doesn't have a
president. Somaliland is an unrecognized autonomous state. Did the
pirates in Puntland elect Jack Sparrow president when I wasn't looking?
If you're referring to President Sharif of Somalia, why would some
alleged visit to the United States have any bearing?
There is no end to the use of force in Somalia. But there is no
functional state.
Anarchy.
> But Somalia's government meets Norquist's standard.
Norquist isn't your enemy.
Sun Tzu tells us: you must know your enemy, and know yourself, else you
will lose 1,000 battles.
You've already lost 999. Must you learn all your lessons the hard way?
> Thus the
> anarchy you point to.
You point at liberty, and call it anarchy. Not me.
There is no liberty in anarchy.
You must believe, like the Soviet monkeys of the 20th Century, that
there's no sech thing as liberty in the first place.
That's why you'll never have any.
> Why is it reichtards have a compulsion to prove how ignorant and
> stupid they are? Repeatedly.
I'm here for the argument, dummy.
Is this all you got?
<4f6f8544-3e11-48bd...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
liberal <liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Please explain how looneytunarianism/laissez faire capitalism/
> > > teahadism does not devolve into anarchy and political oppression? The
> > > way pure socialism devolves into political oppression. See, here's the
> > > intellectual problem: If looneytunarianism is such a powerful force
> > > for economic success, Somalia would be rising out of anarchy as
> > > brilliant and enlightened looneytunarians (like you) flocked there to
> > > take advantage of the underlying economic opportunities.
> >
> > That's a tired, fallacious example, goofy.
> >
> > Libertarianism isn't "no government."
>
> Goofy.....Somalia has a government.
A UN Mandate isn't a government.
> > > Please explain how looneytunarianism/laissez faire capitalism/
> > > teahadism does not devolve into anarchy and political oppression? The
> > > way pure socialism devolves into political oppression. See, here's the
> > > intellectual problem: If looneytunarianism is such a powerful force
> > > for economic success, Somalia would be rising out of anarchy as
> > > brilliant and enlightened looneytunarians (like you) flocked there to
> > > take advantage of the underlying economic opportunities.
> >
> > That's a tired, fallacious example, goofy.
> >
> > Libertarianism isn't "no government."
>
> Goofy.....Somalia has a government.
Hence, Somalia. Hence Palestine.
> Its president once lived in the
> US.
Which president are you referring to? Al-Shabaab doesn't have a
president. Somaliland is an unrecognized autonomous state. Did the
pirates in Puntland elect Jack Sparrow president when I wasn't looking?
If you're referring to President Sharif of Somalia, why would some
alleged visit to the United States have any bearing?
There is no end to the use of force in Somalia. But there is no
functional state.
Anarchy.
> But Somalia's government meets Norquist's standard.
Sun Tzu tells us: you must know your enemy, and know yourself, else you
will lose 1,000 battles.
You've already lost 999. Must you learn all your lessons the hard way?
> Thus the
> anarchy you point to.
There is no liberty in anarchy.
You must believe, like the Soviet monkeys of the 20th Century, that
there's no sech thing as liberty in the first place.
That's why you'll never have any.
> Why is it reichtards have a compulsion to prove how ignorant and
> stupid they are? Repeatedly.
Is this all you got?
Neolibertarian
Jan 18, 2012, 1:36:05 AM1/18/12
to
In article <4f1512c3$0$1733$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
here at Usenet, that you couldn't tell the difference if your life
depended upon it.
Kangas?
According to Mr. Kangas (evidently "Kangaroo" to his friends), his
educational background consists of "today I have a major in Russian
studies, with an emphasis on political science and economics. However, I
am applying to grad school in U.S. political science, which has
interested me much more since communism fell."
Be that as it may, let's examine the linked information, anyway.
First of all, no matter what set of numbers Kangas or anyone else uses,
it's apparent that those huge deficits during Reagan's administration
were due to Congress, and not the president. If Reagan did, indeed,
request $29 billion more than Congress actually passed over those 8
years...well, all this means is those huge $200 billion + deficits were
Congress's responsibility, not Reagan's. If Reagan actually requested
more, this wouldn't exonerate Tip O'Neill, since they were Tip's
budgets. And $29 billion is less than 1% difference.
This discrepancy which the House Appropriations Committee was proudly
able to highlight, doesn't prove what it's purported to prove. The
reason Congress spent so much more than Reagan requested can't be
explained by the difference in the proposed and passed budgets--since as
pointed out, Congress's budgets, were slightly smaller than Reagan's
requests.
They spent more but proposed slightly less? How can that be?
Let's discuss the points one at a time, and try to find out.
This is the chart which Kangas includes at the outset:
Federal Budget Outlays
Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress)
(billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982...............695.3........745.8........7.3
1983...............773.3........808.4........4.5...........(12.1)
1984...............862.5........851.8.......-1.2...........(10.8)
1985...............940.3........946.4........0.7...........(11.6)
1986...............973.7........990.3........1.7...........(13.5)
1987...............994.0.......1003.9........1.0...........(14.6)
1988..............1024.3.......1064.1........3.9...........(19.1)
1989..............1094.2.......1144.2........4.6...........(24.5)
Totals...........$7,357.6....$7,554.9......Avg +2.8 (3.1)
Mr. Kangaroo shows us that Congress spent a cumulative 24.5% more than
President Reagan had initially requested in his submitted budgets.
"The problem with this chart," Kangaroo explains to us, "is that the
proposal numbers are phony. Reagan's proposals were based on such
optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to
reality."
This is strange statement, prima facie, since we know that the economy
underwent historically high growth rates during the Reagan Presidency:
1982 -1.9
1983 +4.5
1984 +7.2
1985 +4.1
1986 +3.5
1987 +3.2
1988 +4.1
1989 +3.6
http://tinyurl.com/2bf5clp
From 83 to 89 (the year following the recession, to Reagan's last year
in office), that's an average of 4.3% GDP growth per year.
David Stockman, Kangaroo reports, "came up with a super-optimistic
forecast of 5 percent growth" in one submitted budget. Stockman, as we
all know, was ousted from the OMB in 1985.
It's impossible to argue that a 5% projection in one particular budget
(perhaps 1985) was optimistic, but it's difficult to reconcile
Kangaroo's characterization that this bore "little resemblance to
reality." After all, 4.3% is not so far removed from 5%, is it? Kangaroo
tells us that actual spending was less than requested in only one year,
because "1984...actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth."
Of course, the actual growth that year was 7.2% (In one quarter, it
actually topped 9%). But we get what he was attempting to say.
Mr. Kangaroo explains that a major variable in budget requests-to-final
outlays are interest rates (for federal borrowing). But if Reagan's
budgets were optimistic concerning interest rates, so was the curve of
the Prime Rate during his administration. From the high point of 21.5%
in 1980, interest rates remained high until July of 1981 (still 20.5%).
From Reagan's first fiscal budget submission until his last, rates fell
precipitously. When he left office in January of 1989, the Prime Rate
was only 11%.
http://www.wsjprimerate.us/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm
Likewise, unemployment (another important variable, according to
Kangaroo) fell from a high of 10% in December of 1982, to an average of
5.25% throughout 1989.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
It would seem that Kangaroo's objections to his presented chart are not
even valid at all. GDP growth was, indeed, phenomenal. Interest rates,
indeed, fell and continued to fall throughout. Unemployment rates,
indeed, continued to drop.
Which leaves us with the fact that Reagan's budgets were about 1/4 less
in aggregate requests than what Congress spent. Yet Congressionally
authored budgets called for spending even less money than Reagan.
How can these facts be reconciled?
It's easy. During several fiscal years, while Reagan's DOA budgets were
rotting in the House morgue, Congress continued to spend money, not
through budgets, but through continuing resolutions and other arcane
measures.
Just as Congress is doing today.
For instance, there was no budget in 2010. Period. In February of 2011,
President Obama submitted a budget to Congress, but it was never voted
out of committee for consideration (in either the Democrat Senate, nor
the Republican House). Congressman Ryan submitted a House counter-budget
that was passed the House, but was killed in the Senate. Same result: no
budget. Period.
So, while Congressional appropriations bills routinely were late in the
1980's, sometimes not coming at all, Congress continued to spend at
automatic levels, just as they are doing today. Hence, when O'Neill's
House counter-budgets were passed, spending had already been carried out.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Movies/SOU88.mp4
Of course their spending requests for the fiscal year would be smaller
in October than they would have been in February. Much of the spending
had already been carried out automatically.
Which is how we got in trouble back then, and why we're really in
trouble today.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's easy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
> >> >>
> >> >> Great!
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
> >> >>
> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
> >>
> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
> >> dishonest hypocrite.
> >
> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
> >error on my part.
>
> YOu make a lot of "errors".
While most likely true, it's been firmly and categorically established
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's easy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
> >> >>
> >> >> Great!
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
> >> >>
> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
> >>
> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
> >> dishonest hypocrite.
> >
> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
> >error on my part.
>
> YOu make a lot of "errors".
here at Usenet, that you couldn't tell the difference if your life
depended upon it.
>
> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>
> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's
> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent
> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
> Congress passed.
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>
> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's
> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent
> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
> Congress passed.
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
Kangas?
According to Mr. Kangas (evidently "Kangaroo" to his friends), his
educational background consists of "today I have a major in Russian
studies, with an emphasis on political science and economics. However, I
am applying to grad school in U.S. political science, which has
interested me much more since communism fell."
Be that as it may, let's examine the linked information, anyway.
First of all, no matter what set of numbers Kangas or anyone else uses,
it's apparent that those huge deficits during Reagan's administration
were due to Congress, and not the president. If Reagan did, indeed,
request $29 billion more than Congress actually passed over those 8
years...well, all this means is those huge $200 billion + deficits were
Congress's responsibility, not Reagan's. If Reagan actually requested
more, this wouldn't exonerate Tip O'Neill, since they were Tip's
budgets. And $29 billion is less than 1% difference.
This discrepancy which the House Appropriations Committee was proudly
able to highlight, doesn't prove what it's purported to prove. The
reason Congress spent so much more than Reagan requested can't be
explained by the difference in the proposed and passed budgets--since as
pointed out, Congress's budgets, were slightly smaller than Reagan's
requests.
They spent more but proposed slightly less? How can that be?
Let's discuss the points one at a time, and try to find out.
This is the chart which Kangas includes at the outset:
Federal Budget Outlays
Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress)
(billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982...............695.3........745.8........7.3
1983...............773.3........808.4........4.5...........(12.1)
1984...............862.5........851.8.......-1.2...........(10.8)
1985...............940.3........946.4........0.7...........(11.6)
1986...............973.7........990.3........1.7...........(13.5)
1987...............994.0.......1003.9........1.0...........(14.6)
1988..............1024.3.......1064.1........3.9...........(19.1)
1989..............1094.2.......1144.2........4.6...........(24.5)
Totals...........$7,357.6....$7,554.9......Avg +2.8 (3.1)
Mr. Kangaroo shows us that Congress spent a cumulative 24.5% more than
President Reagan had initially requested in his submitted budgets.
"The problem with this chart," Kangaroo explains to us, "is that the
proposal numbers are phony. Reagan's proposals were based on such
optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to
reality."
This is strange statement, prima facie, since we know that the economy
underwent historically high growth rates during the Reagan Presidency:
1982 -1.9
1983 +4.5
1984 +7.2
1985 +4.1
1986 +3.5
1987 +3.2
1988 +4.1
1989 +3.6
http://tinyurl.com/2bf5clp
From 83 to 89 (the year following the recession, to Reagan's last year
in office), that's an average of 4.3% GDP growth per year.
David Stockman, Kangaroo reports, "came up with a super-optimistic
forecast of 5 percent growth" in one submitted budget. Stockman, as we
all know, was ousted from the OMB in 1985.
It's impossible to argue that a 5% projection in one particular budget
(perhaps 1985) was optimistic, but it's difficult to reconcile
Kangaroo's characterization that this bore "little resemblance to
reality." After all, 4.3% is not so far removed from 5%, is it? Kangaroo
tells us that actual spending was less than requested in only one year,
because "1984...actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth."
Of course, the actual growth that year was 7.2% (In one quarter, it
actually topped 9%). But we get what he was attempting to say.
Mr. Kangaroo explains that a major variable in budget requests-to-final
outlays are interest rates (for federal borrowing). But if Reagan's
budgets were optimistic concerning interest rates, so was the curve of
the Prime Rate during his administration. From the high point of 21.5%
in 1980, interest rates remained high until July of 1981 (still 20.5%).
From Reagan's first fiscal budget submission until his last, rates fell
precipitously. When he left office in January of 1989, the Prime Rate
was only 11%.
http://www.wsjprimerate.us/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm
Likewise, unemployment (another important variable, according to
Kangaroo) fell from a high of 10% in December of 1982, to an average of
5.25% throughout 1989.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
It would seem that Kangaroo's objections to his presented chart are not
even valid at all. GDP growth was, indeed, phenomenal. Interest rates,
indeed, fell and continued to fall throughout. Unemployment rates,
indeed, continued to drop.
Which leaves us with the fact that Reagan's budgets were about 1/4 less
in aggregate requests than what Congress spent. Yet Congressionally
authored budgets called for spending even less money than Reagan.
How can these facts be reconciled?
It's easy. During several fiscal years, while Reagan's DOA budgets were
rotting in the House morgue, Congress continued to spend money, not
through budgets, but through continuing resolutions and other arcane
measures.
Just as Congress is doing today.
For instance, there was no budget in 2010. Period. In February of 2011,
President Obama submitted a budget to Congress, but it was never voted
out of committee for consideration (in either the Democrat Senate, nor
the Republican House). Congressman Ryan submitted a House counter-budget
that was passed the House, but was killed in the Senate. Same result: no
budget. Period.
So, while Congressional appropriations bills routinely were late in the
1980's, sometimes not coming at all, Congress continued to spend at
automatic levels, just as they are doing today. Hence, when O'Neill's
House counter-budgets were passed, spending had already been carried out.
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Movies/SOU88.mp4
Of course their spending requests for the fiscal year would be smaller
in October than they would have been in February. Much of the spending
had already been carried out automatically.
Which is how we got in trouble back then, and why we're really in
trouble today.
Neolibertarian
Jan 18, 2012, 1:37:57 AM1/18/12
to
In article <4f14e052$0$1651$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
proposals.
2) Reagan's vetoes were overridden 9 times.
3) Vetoing appropriations bills didn't result in restoring his budgets.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <4f125d2a$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's easy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
> >> >>
> >> >> Great!
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
> >> >>
> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
> >>
> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
> >> dishonest hypocrite.
> >
> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
> >error on my part.
> >
> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>
> More bullshit is not proof, rightard.
A wonderfully caricatured response. Bravo!
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <4f125d2a$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's easy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
> >> >>
> >> >> Great!
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
> >> >>
> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
> >>
> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
> >> dishonest hypocrite.
> >
> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
> >error on my part.
> >
> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>
> More bullshit is not proof, rightard.
>
> >For evidence, first there were the Presidential vetoes, some of which
> >briefly shut down the government:
>
> So you're saying that Reagan vetoed appropriations acts.
>
> Aren't you supposed to prove that Reagan got none of his spending
> approved instead of showing that he got to enforce his will?
1) Believe it or not, it's pretty rare for a president to veto his own
> >For evidence, first there were the Presidential vetoes, some of which
> >briefly shut down the government:
>
> So you're saying that Reagan vetoed appropriations acts.
>
> Aren't you supposed to prove that Reagan got none of his spending
> approved instead of showing that he got to enforce his will?
proposals.
2) Reagan's vetoes were overridden 9 times.
3) Vetoing appropriations bills didn't result in restoring his budgets.
Ray Fischer
Jan 18, 2012, 3:06:55 AM1/18/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <4f1512c3$0$1733$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's easy.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Great!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
>> >>
>> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
>> >> dishonest hypocrite.
>> >
>> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
>> >error on my part.
>>
>> YOu make a lot of "errors".
>
>While most likely true, it's been firmly and categorically established
>here at Usenet, that you couldn't tell the difference if your life
>depended upon it.
And there's the inevitable rightard lying.
>In article <4f1512c3$0$1733$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's easy.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Great!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets passed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
>> >>
>> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
>> >> dishonest hypocrite.
>> >
>> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
>> >error on my part.
>>
>> YOu make a lot of "errors".
>
>While most likely true, it's been firmly and categorically established
>here at Usenet, that you couldn't tell the difference if your life
>depended upon it.
>> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>>
>> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's
>> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent
>> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
>> Congress passed.
>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
>
>Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
memory of your cult's founder.
Neolibertarian
Jan 18, 2012, 9:05:47 PM1/18/12
to
In article <4f167d9f$0$1705$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Ergo, we'll consider it withdrawn.
Even if it weren't contradictory; even if it weren't a fact that
Reagan's DOA budgets requested 1/4 less than Congress irresponsibly
spent--even if we didn't consider it withdrawn--you've proved my point
beyond the shadow of a doubt.
According to all of my evidence, and, now, according to all of yours,
those deficits were not Reagan's. They were definitely the sole
responsibility of the House of Representatives, led by Massachusetts
Democrat, Speaker O'Neill.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <4f1512c3$0$1733$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> That's easy.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Great!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets
> >> >> >> passed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
> >> >> dishonest hypocrite.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
> >> >error on my part.
> >>
> >> YOu make a lot of "errors".
> >
> >While most likely true, it's been firmly and categorically established
> >here at Usenet, that you couldn't tell the difference if your life
> >depended upon it.
>
> And there's the inevitable rightard lying.
That's telling me.
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <4f1512c3$0$1733$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> That's easy.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Democrats cut everyone of his bloated budgets...Look it up.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >He who asserts must prove.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Great!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Prove your claims. You say that Regan got none of his budgets
> >> >> >> passed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Okay, he got his revisions to Carter's last budget approved.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not proof, rightard. That's a demonstration that you're a
> >> >> dishonest hypocrite.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all, my sad, angry, illiterate friend. It was an admission of
> >> >error on my part.
> >>
> >> YOu make a lot of "errors".
> >
> >While most likely true, it's been firmly and categorically established
> >here at Usenet, that you couldn't tell the difference if your life
> >depended upon it.
>
> And there's the inevitable rightard lying.
>
> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
> >>
> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
> >> Reagan's
> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
> >> spent
> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
> >> Congress passed.
> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
> >
> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
>
> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
> memory of your cult's founder.
Your evidence is self contradictory. You obviously have no response.
> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
> >>
> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
> >> Reagan's
> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
> >> spent
> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
> >> Congress passed.
> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
> >
> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
>
> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
> memory of your cult's founder.
Ergo, we'll consider it withdrawn.
Even if it weren't contradictory; even if it weren't a fact that
Reagan's DOA budgets requested 1/4 less than Congress irresponsibly
spent--even if we didn't consider it withdrawn--you've proved my point
beyond the shadow of a doubt.
According to all of my evidence, and, now, according to all of yours,
those deficits were not Reagan's. They were definitely the sole
responsibility of the House of Representatives, led by Massachusetts
Democrat, Speaker O'Neill.
Ray Fischer
Jan 19, 2012, 2:38:16 AM1/19/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>> >>
>> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
>> >> Reagan's
>> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
>> >> spent
>> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
>> >> Congress passed.
>> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
>> >
>> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
>>
>> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
>> memory of your cult's founder.
>
>Your evidence is self contradictory.
You're a liar. A pathetic loonytarian trying to defend the memory
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>> >>
>> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
>> >> Reagan's
>> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
>> >> spent
>> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than
>> >> Congress passed.
>> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
>> >
>> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
>>
>> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
>> memory of your cult's founder.
>
>Your evidence is self contradictory.
of your messiah.
And failing.
Neolibertarian
Jan 21, 2012, 2:23:57 AM1/21/12
to
In article <4f17c868$0$1681$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Boy oh boy, the coward told me off that time, didn't he?
> A pathetic loonytarian trying to defend the memory
> of your messiah.
I don't need to defend the memory of my Moshiach.
The memory of Yeshua's life and deeds lives on, with or without me.
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
> >> >>
> >> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
> >> >> Reagan's
> >> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
> >> >> spent
> >> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more
> >> >> than
> >> >> Congress passed.
> >> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
> >> >
> >> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
> >>
> >> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
> >> memory of your cult's founder.
> >
> >Your evidence is self contradictory.
>
> You're a liar.
Tee-hee.
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
> >> >>
> >> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
> >> >> Reagan's
> >> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
> >> >> spent
> >> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more
> >> >> than
> >> >> Congress passed.
> >> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
> >> >
> >> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
> >>
> >> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
> >> memory of your cult's founder.
> >
> >Your evidence is self contradictory.
>
> You're a liar.
Boy oh boy, the coward told me off that time, didn't he?
> A pathetic loonytarian trying to defend the memory
> of your messiah.
The memory of Yeshua's life and deeds lives on, with or without me.
Ray Fischer
Jan 21, 2012, 3:46:38 PM1/21/12
to
Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <4f17c868$0$1681$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>> >> >>
>> >> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
>> >> >> Reagan's
>> >> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
>> >> >> spent
>> >> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> Congress passed.
>> >> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
>> >>
>> >> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
>> >> memory of your cult's founder.
>> >
>> >Your evidence is self contradictory.
>>
>> You're a liar.
>
>Tee-hee.
That the best you got, rightard?
>In article <4f17c868$0$1681$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Reagan's first budget battle was a success--he revised Carter's last
>> >> >>
>> >> >> House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared
>> >> >> Reagan's
>> >> >> concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was
>> >> >> spent
>> >> >> afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> Congress passed.
>> >> >> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >Why'd you link to a freebie website created by someone named Steve
>> >>
>> >> You can't cope with the truth so you lie in order to protect the
>> >> memory of your cult's founder.
>> >
>> >Your evidence is self contradictory.
>>
>> You're a liar.
>
>Tee-hee.
Governor Swill
Aug 20, 2012, 5:39:35 AM8/20/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:26:47 -0700, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
>>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>
>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>
>
>Liar
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
Are you guys 18 or something? I remember the 76 and 80 campaigns and
deficits and debt were major issues in both. I can't believe this
obviously incorrect post got by. Carter increased the national debt
by about a third. Here are the government's own figures.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
In September 1976, the year Carter was elected, the national debt
stood at 670B. In September of 1980, the year Reagan was elected, the
national debt had risen to 907B.
And lest you guys think I'm some leftard giving you the screws, in
September 1988, the year Bush I was elected, the national debt had
risen to 2.6 TRILLION. And Poppy DOUBLED that in only four years!
So much for fiscally responsible Republicans.
Y'all know the Ally commercial where they give a stranger on the
street 100 grand to watch for a few minutes? Obviously he wasn't a
Republican or that money would have been wasted in record time.
Swill
>On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
>>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>>> the mistakes of
>>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
>>> the mistakes of
>>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
>>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>
>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>
>
>Liar
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
Are you guys 18 or something? I remember the 76 and 80 campaigns and
deficits and debt were major issues in both. I can't believe this
obviously incorrect post got by. Carter increased the national debt
by about a third. Here are the government's own figures.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
In September 1976, the year Carter was elected, the national debt
stood at 670B. In September of 1980, the year Reagan was elected, the
national debt had risen to 907B.
And lest you guys think I'm some leftard giving you the screws, in
September 1988, the year Bush I was elected, the national debt had
risen to 2.6 TRILLION. And Poppy DOUBLED that in only four years!
So much for fiscally responsible Republicans.
Y'all know the Ally commercial where they give a stranger on the
street 100 grand to watch for a few minutes? Obviously he wasn't a
Republican or that money would have been wasted in record time.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 20, 2012, 5:41:04 AM8/20/12
to
On 08 Jan 2012 01:47:46 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
>1) Your a liar
>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
>2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
FAIL! He didn't triple it, he increased it by only 260%! :)
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Poppy managed to double it in four years though.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 20, 2012, 6:00:48 AM8/20/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600, "Bob" <daln...@att.net> wrote:
>We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
>Calvin Coolidge.
Clinton. And suprisingly, Obama. Obama's spending growth rate is the
lowest of any administration since WW II. Ironically this is largely
because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
Bush's last budget.
Swill
>We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
>Calvin Coolidge.
Clinton. And suprisingly, Obama. Obama's spending growth rate is the
lowest of any administration since WW II. Ironically this is largely
because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
Bush's last budget.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 20, 2012, 6:02:42 AM8/20/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:01:32 -0600, Neolibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
>when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
Because his spending went up even faster. Reagan piled 1.7 TRILLION
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
>when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
in debt up during the years you cite below. Btw, I do not click on
tinyurls. Can't tell where they go.
>Revenues to the Treasury by year:
>
>1982....$617 billion
>1983....$643 billion
>1984....$710 billion
>1985....$774 billion
>1986....$816 billion
>1987....$896 billion
>1988....$958 billion
>1989....$1.03 trillion
>1990....$1.08 trillion
>
>From the Bureau of Economic Analysis;
>http://tinyurl.com/6svyoty
From the department of the treasury.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 20, 2012, 6:05:50 AM8/20/12
to
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
>rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
>down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
>we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
>in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
>those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
Bee
Ess
Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
to control or even deal with his Congresses? And have you forgotten
that the GOP controlled the Senate during his first term? And that
the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate during his
administration?
Your attempts to blame Reagan's mistakes on the opposition party fall
on deaf ears.
Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
Swill
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
>rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
>down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
>we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
>in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
>those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
Bee
Ess
Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
to control or even deal with his Congresses? And have you forgotten
that the GOP controlled the Senate during his first term? And that
the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate during his
administration?
Your attempts to blame Reagan's mistakes on the opposition party fall
on deaf ears.
Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
Swill
ray
Aug 20, 2012, 6:09:58 AM8/20/12
to
In article <sq04385n7od147i4r...@4ax.com>,
Isn't it amazing how much money a President can spend when Congress has
the checkbook?
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
the checkbook?
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Sid9
Aug 20, 2012, 4:24:16 PM8/20/12
to
"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f1438tmu67cr2k49...@4ax.com...
.
.
You speak so harshly about the Republican beloved St. Reagan, the "Acting
President"
After all, look at his accomplishments.
He started the "Hate American Government" idea that permeates our right
wing.
He started the "spend and borrow" campaign that culminated in the 2008
crash...when we had to pay the piper.
Now Republicans have found a way to blame the people working to repair the
damage!
Whutta hero...!
NeoLibertarian
Aug 20, 2012, 9:41:52 PM8/20/12
to
On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
>
> Bee
>
> Ess
>
> Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> to control or even deal with his Congresses?
Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
>
> Bee
>
> Ess
>
> Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> to control or even deal with his Congresses?
established history.
His influence upon his Congresses needs to be judged by several
factors which we weren't discussing--at any rate his influence (just
as any president's) is a far more complex question than you seem
prepared to discuss.
Reagan's vetoes were overridden 9 times. Reagan shut down the federal
government three times, and threatened shut downs on four other
occasions.
Zero of his budgets were entertained by Congress.
After 1985, all of Reagan's budgets were sent to Congress within Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings targets (and previous to that as well, as a matter of
fact, even before there WAS a Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act).
==Begin Quote==
Ambulance Delivers The Budget
February 06, 1986 (UPI)
The 1987 budget may be considered dead on arrival by some critics, but
the budget office spoofed that notion Wednesday, delivering copies by
ambulance handled by attendants dressed in hospital green.
A siren broke the ranks of reporters lined up in a light drizzle
outside the Government Printing Office at 7:30 a.m., waiting for the
first copies of President Reagan`s proposed 1987 budget outline.
But the attendants came not to carry someone off, but to deliver the
administration plan for spending in the next fiscal year.
Siren off, lights still flashing, two attendants raced to the rear of
the ambulance, opened the door and removed, still strapped to a
stretcher on wheels and wrapped in a blue blanket, an employee of the
White House Office of Management and Budget.
They carried the supine Paul Olkhovski, an OMB public affairs
assistant, past the crush of cameras, up the steps and to the second
floor, where he was to rise Lazarus-like from the stretcher, very much
alive.
Attendants, clad in hospital green, placed a budget copy on his chest;
Olkhovski later pronounced it alive and kicking.
==End Quote==
http://tinyurl.com/cs2gyom
It was during Reagan's administration that I first learned of the
terms "Continuing Resolution" and "Omnibus Spending Bill," which are
prime factors, in conjunction with the 1974 Congressional Budget Act,
the deficit was allowed to balloon so alarmingly.
I've even seen where the Democrats claim that in total, Democrat
budgets involved less spending than which Reagan requested (which,
ironically, doesn't help them avoid their own responsibility for
raising the deficits and debt). The problem here is, of course,
Reagan's budgets were on time, i.e., before the beginning of the
fiscal. The Democrat budgets were all negotiated well into the fiscal,
and sometimes near the end. Their budgets were NEVER on time by any
stretch of the imagination, and reflected only a partial year's
spending. Most of what they spent was automatic CBA for large swaths
of the fiscal.
BTW, these exact same conditions are why the debt has ballooned so
alarmingly during the Obama Administration. Except this time, it's
bipartisan. Not one single vote has been offered on either side of the
aisle for any of Obama's budgets.
At any rate, it's high time the baseline budgeting portions of the CBA
be repealed.
> And have you forgotten
> that the GOP controlled the Senate during his first term?
the problem.
In order for a budget to become law, it requires more than one house
of Congress to pass it.
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
> And that
> the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate during his
> administration?
>
full support of the Republicans in the Senate by any stretch of the
imagination. Believe it or not, there were lots of liberal Republican
Senators back then--in fact the Republican Majority Leaders were well-
known squishes (Dole and Baker).
But it wasn't ever the Senate that was the real problem, obviously.
> Your attempts to blame Reagan's mistakes on the opposition party fall
> on deaf ears.
>
> Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
> ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
When Reagan was sworn into office on January 20th, 1981, the last time
> Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
> ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
the United States federal budget had been balanced was 1969.
Inflation (Money Supply x Velocity = Inflation) was out of control. A
year and a half before that cold January, it had hit a high water mark
of 14%. Between 2 years of Ford and 4 years of Carter the debt had
doubled. Republicans and Democrats, alike, were claiming that deficit
spending was not to be feared (since inflation at the time was wiping
out more than 100% of the debt incurred by 30 year Treasuries). We'd
gone so long without a balanced budget by the time Carter packed up
for Plains, that politicians on both sides of the aisle (especially
the Democrat Keynesians and Neo-Keynesians) were completely
uninterested in even discussing it.
By the end of Reagan's administration, almost every Democrat on the
Hill was complaining about deficit spending (as ironic as that may
have seemed). They've loudly clamored about balanced budgets ever
since, while behaving exactly the same way they did back in the 1970's
when they were assuring everyone deficit spending doesn't matter.
Maybe you weren't alive and paying attention back then, but to say
this was a sea-change is an understatement.
Ronald Reagan had never stopped talking about the evils of deficit
spending and federal debt since before the campaign of 1976. He was a
broken record on the subject.
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits because people
are taxed too little; we have deficits because big government spends
too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Harold Burton
Aug 20, 2012, 9:46:13 PM8/20/12
to
In article
<6e31aed8-88ca-4467...@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Leftards, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
snicker
<6e31aed8-88ca-4467...@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
NeoLibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >
> > <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> > >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> > >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> > >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> > >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> > >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
> >
> > Bee
> >
> > Ess
> >
> > Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> > to control or even deal with his Congresses?
>
> Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> established history.
Cite?
> On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >
> > <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> > >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> > >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> > >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> > >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> > >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
> >
> > Bee
> >
> > Ess
> >
> > Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> > to control or even deal with his Congresses?
>
> Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> established history.
Leftards, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
snicker
NeoLibertarian
Aug 20, 2012, 9:50:06 PM8/20/12
to
On Aug 20, 5:02 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:01:32 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:01:32 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
>
> Because his spending went up even faster. Reagan piled 1.7 TRILLION
> in debt up during the years you cite below.
Please point us to which of his budgets did so.
> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
>
> Because his spending went up even faster. Reagan piled 1.7 TRILLION
> in debt up during the years you cite below.
Since not one of his budgets was entertained in the House of
Representatives, this might be difficult. But I'm sure you can do it.
> Btw, I do not click on
> tinyurls. Can't tell where they go.
fear like that. Geesh.
Where they go is probably Russia and Singapore and all points in
between, of course. So what?
By the way, you may not click on tinyurls, but you evidently don't
check headers very well, either. This thread went dead back in
January.
>
> >Revenues to the Treasury by year:
>
> >1982....$617 billion
> >1983....$643 billion
> >1984....$710 billion
> >1985....$774 billion
> >1986....$816 billion
> >1987....$896 billion
> >1988....$958 billion
> >1989....$1.03 trillion
> >1990....$1.08 trillion
>
> >From the Bureau of Economic Analysis;
> >http://tinyurl.com/6svyoty
>
> From the department of the treasury.http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo...
> >Revenues to the Treasury by year:
>
> >1982....$617 billion
> >1983....$643 billion
> >1984....$710 billion
> >1985....$774 billion
> >1986....$816 billion
> >1987....$896 billion
> >1988....$958 billion
> >1989....$1.03 trillion
> >1990....$1.08 trillion
>
> >From the Bureau of Economic Analysis;
> >http://tinyurl.com/6svyoty
>
See what happens when a hyperlink is broken up into multiple lines?
By the way, since you've conveniently listed them, you should be able
to point to the year[s] that Reagan's budgets DIDN'T arrive at the
House "DOA."
NeoLibertarian
Aug 20, 2012, 9:57:29 PM8/20/12
to
On Aug 20, 4:39 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:26:47 -0700, d...@dudu.org wrote:
> >On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Public Servant" <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
speeches, etc. so you can shut everyone up.
No fair quoting Reagan back then. We already KNOW he was making them
issues in the 1970s.
I can give Carter his due, since he DID try to control the deficit
spending during a year or two of his administration. But he was
hampered by a Democrat majority in the House and Senate.
He was already controlling the debt by monetizing it. This way, he
succeeded in keeping it from doubling during his term.
I can't believe he got fired so abruptly by the American people.
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:26:47 -0700, d...@dudu.org wrote:
> >On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 09:20:56 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Public Servant" <public.serv...@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >>> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> >>> the mistakes of
> >>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> >>> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
> >>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>
> >>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
> >>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>
> >>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
> >Liar
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
>
> Are you guys 18 or something? I remember the 76 and 80 campaigns and
> deficits and debt were major issues in both.
Then it should be exceedingly easy to access archived articles,
> >>> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> >>> the mistakes of
> >>> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>
> >>> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
> >>> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>
> >>> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
> >>> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
>
> >>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
> >Liar
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt
>
> Are you guys 18 or something? I remember the 76 and 80 campaigns and
> deficits and debt were major issues in both.
speeches, etc. so you can shut everyone up.
No fair quoting Reagan back then. We already KNOW he was making them
issues in the 1970s.
I can give Carter his due, since he DID try to control the deficit
spending during a year or two of his administration. But he was
hampered by a Democrat majority in the House and Senate.
He was already controlling the debt by monetizing it. This way, he
succeeded in keeping it from doubling during his term.
I can't believe he got fired so abruptly by the American people.
NeoLibertarian
Aug 20, 2012, 10:35:13 PM8/20/12
to
On Aug 20, 5:00 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
embarrassed to repeat it here. No, it wasn't debunked by FoxNews, it
was debunked by The Fact Checker at the Washington Post.
==begin quote==
I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do
not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint
with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of
sloth and laziness.”
— White House spokesman Jay Carney, remarks to the press gaggle, May
23, 2012
The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact
Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.
Carney made his comments while berating reporters for not realizing
that “the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower
under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight
Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.” He cited as
his source an article by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama
spending binge never happened,” which has been the subject of lots of
buzz in the liberal blogosphere.
But we are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of
numbers — numbers that are easily manipulated. Let’s take a look.
[...]
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s
spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 —
Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress.
Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to
spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:
2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)
So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he
ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened
under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a
much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of
lawmakers, not Obama.
==end quote==
http://tinyurl.com/c4bwvsx
> Ironically this is largely
> because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
> Bush's last budget.
Bush's last budget was increased by President Obama and the
overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate by $1
trillion by the end of that fiscal. While this budget had BEGUN as
"Bush's," it certainly didn't resemble anything like his budget by the
time its spending mandates expired.
Because of the 1974 CBA, this meant that all that "stimulus" money is
STILL in the budget every damned year until Congress passes a budget
eliminating it, and the President signs it.
If you don't mind my pointing it out so baldly, it's people like you,
and millions of gullible, incurious idiots just like you, who give
voters in the United States such a bad name.
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
> >We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
> >Calvin Coolidge.
>
> Clinton. And suprisingly, Obama. Obama's spending growth rate is the
> lowest of any administration since WW II.
Good Lord man, that was debunked so long ago, you should be
> >We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
> >Calvin Coolidge.
>
> Clinton. And suprisingly, Obama. Obama's spending growth rate is the
> lowest of any administration since WW II.
embarrassed to repeat it here. No, it wasn't debunked by FoxNews, it
was debunked by The Fact Checker at the Washington Post.
==begin quote==
I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do
not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint
with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of
sloth and laziness.”
— White House spokesman Jay Carney, remarks to the press gaggle, May
23, 2012
The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact
Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.
Carney made his comments while berating reporters for not realizing
that “the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower
under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight
Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.” He cited as
his source an article by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama
spending binge never happened,” which has been the subject of lots of
buzz in the liberal blogosphere.
But we are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of
numbers — numbers that are easily manipulated. Let’s take a look.
[...]
Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s
spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 —
Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress.
Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to
spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:
2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)
So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he
ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened
under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a
much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of
lawmakers, not Obama.
==end quote==
http://tinyurl.com/c4bwvsx
> Ironically this is largely
> because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
> Bush's last budget.
overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate by $1
trillion by the end of that fiscal. While this budget had BEGUN as
"Bush's," it certainly didn't resemble anything like his budget by the
time its spending mandates expired.
Because of the 1974 CBA, this meant that all that "stimulus" money is
STILL in the budget every damned year until Congress passes a budget
eliminating it, and the President signs it.
If you don't mind my pointing it out so baldly, it's people like you,
and millions of gullible, incurious idiots just like you, who give
voters in the United States such a bad name.
NeoLibertarian
Aug 20, 2012, 10:44:19 PM8/20/12
to
On Aug 20, 8:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <6e31aed8-88ca-4467-9c52-2a43b2b34...@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
again...but Mommy and Daddy will certainly scold you for hanging
around here too long--you see, this is adult talk.
> In article
> <6e31aed8-88ca-4467-9c52-2a43b2b34...@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> > > <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> > > >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> > > >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> > > >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> > > >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> > > >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
>
> > > Bee
>
> > > Ess
>
> > > Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> > > to control or even deal with his Congresses?
>
> > Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> > established history.
>
I'd cite it for you once again, and let you go away without reading it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> > > <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> > > >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> > > >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> > > >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> > > >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> > > >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
>
> > > Bee
>
> > > Ess
>
> > > Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> > > to control or even deal with his Congresses?
>
> > Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> > established history.
>
again...but Mommy and Daddy will certainly scold you for hanging
around here too long--you see, this is adult talk.
Capt. Justice
Aug 20, 2012, 11:05:30 PM8/20/12
to
19-year-old suspect arrested in connection with Jerusalem 'lynching'
.
The brutal and apparently unprovoked attack by dozens of Jewish teens
against four young Palestinians took place in downtown Jerusalem early
Friday morning. .
.
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/19-year-old-suspect-arrested-in-connection-with-jerusalem-lynch.premium-1.459099
By Nir Hasson | 00:35 19.08.12 | 6 .
.
A 19-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a brutal and
apparently unprovoked attack against four young Palestinians in downtown
Jerusalem early Friday morning. The attack was allegedly perpetrated by
dozens of Jewish teens, whom eyewitnesses say were wandering around the
area "searching" for Arabs to beat up.
.
The suspect in custody, a Jewish resident of Jerusalem, aged about 19,
was arrested on Saturday, according to police. The suspect is to be
brought before a judge today for a detention hearing.
Authorities say additional arrests can be expected. Acting Jerusalem
police chief Maj. Gen. Menachem Yitzhaki has appointed a special team to
investigate the incident.
.
Several organizations associated with the Tag Me'ir anti-racist
coalition demonstrated in Jerusalem last night to protest the attack.
.
Jamal Julani, one of the victims of the attack, remains in serious
condition, according to authorities. Julani, 17, from Jerusalem's Ras al
Amud neighborhood, was admitted to the intensive care unit at Hadassah
University Hospital, Ein Karem, in critical condition and is on a
respirator.
His mother told Haaretz that he has woken from his coma but is very
confused, did not remember the assault and did not understand why he was
in the hospital.
.
The other three victims, who were not seriously injured, are cousins of
Jamal's.
"There were four of us," one of the cousins, Mohammed Mujahad, said on
Saturday, recalling what happened after he and his three cousins reached
the Zion Square area of Jerusalem after midnight Thursday. "We were
walking and suddenly maybe 50 Jews came toward us shouting, 'Arabs
Arabs.' I don't understand what they said. They weren't calling us. They
were just generally shouting."
.
According to another eyewitness, the group of teenagers appeared to be
hunting for Arab victims, calling out "Death to Arabs" and other
anti-Arab slurs.
.
"We walked slowly, so there wouldn't be trouble," related Nuaman Julani,
another of Jamal's cousins. "Suddenly one of them said to Jamal, 'What
are you doing, you son of a bitch?' Jamal tried to flee, but [the
attacker] whacked him in the chest and [Jamal] fell with his head on the
floor."
.
The incident was brief, according to Mujahad and Nuaman Julani. One of
the cousins says he saw a few of the attackers hitting and kicking Jamal
as he lay on the ground. Both cousins noted that police officers quickly
arrived on the scene, after which all the perpetrators dispersed. Jamal
lost consciousness, presumably when his head struck the ground.
.
"They told me he died. His whole face was blue," Julani said. When
paramedics from Magen David Adom and the volunteer EMS organization
Ichud Hatzalah arrived on the scene, Jamal was not breathing and had no
pulse. They performed resuscitation measures for several minutes before
taking him to the hospital.
.
Writing on her Facebook page, one eyewitness decribed the attack as a
"lynching": "It's late at night, and I can't sleep," she wrote. "My eyes
have been filled with tears for a good few hours now and my stomach is
turning inside out with the question of the loss of humanity, the image
of God in mankind, a loss that I am not willing to accept."
.
"But today I saw a lynching with my own eyes, in Zion Square, the center
of Jerusalem," she wrote, adding, "Dozens (!! ) of youths ran and
gathered and started to really beat to death three [sic] Arab youths who
were walking quietly on Ben Yehuda Street.
.
"When one of the Palestinians fell to the floor, they continued to kick
him in the head, he lost consciousness, his eyes rolled, his angled head
twitched, and then [the perpetrators] fled and the rest gathered in a
circle, with some still shouting with hate in their eyes. When we
returned to the area ... two teens stood there who did not understand
why we wanted to give a bottle of water to the cousin of the victim. 'He
is an Arab, and they don't need to walk around in the center of the
city, and they deserve it, because this way they will finally be
afraid.' ... Children aged 15-18 are killing a child their own age with
their own hands. Really with their own hands.
Children whose hearts were unmoved when they beat to death a boy their
age who lay writhing on the floor."
.
The brutal and apparently unprovoked attack by dozens of Jewish teens
against four young Palestinians took place in downtown Jerusalem early
Friday morning. .
.
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/19-year-old-suspect-arrested-in-connection-with-jerusalem-lynch.premium-1.459099
By Nir Hasson | 00:35 19.08.12 | 6 .
.
A 19-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a brutal and
apparently unprovoked attack against four young Palestinians in downtown
Jerusalem early Friday morning. The attack was allegedly perpetrated by
dozens of Jewish teens, whom eyewitnesses say were wandering around the
area "searching" for Arabs to beat up.
.
The suspect in custody, a Jewish resident of Jerusalem, aged about 19,
was arrested on Saturday, according to police. The suspect is to be
brought before a judge today for a detention hearing.
Authorities say additional arrests can be expected. Acting Jerusalem
police chief Maj. Gen. Menachem Yitzhaki has appointed a special team to
investigate the incident.
.
Several organizations associated with the Tag Me'ir anti-racist
coalition demonstrated in Jerusalem last night to protest the attack.
.
Jamal Julani, one of the victims of the attack, remains in serious
condition, according to authorities. Julani, 17, from Jerusalem's Ras al
Amud neighborhood, was admitted to the intensive care unit at Hadassah
University Hospital, Ein Karem, in critical condition and is on a
respirator.
His mother told Haaretz that he has woken from his coma but is very
confused, did not remember the assault and did not understand why he was
in the hospital.
.
The other three victims, who were not seriously injured, are cousins of
Jamal's.
"There were four of us," one of the cousins, Mohammed Mujahad, said on
Saturday, recalling what happened after he and his three cousins reached
the Zion Square area of Jerusalem after midnight Thursday. "We were
walking and suddenly maybe 50 Jews came toward us shouting, 'Arabs
Arabs.' I don't understand what they said. They weren't calling us. They
were just generally shouting."
.
According to another eyewitness, the group of teenagers appeared to be
hunting for Arab victims, calling out "Death to Arabs" and other
anti-Arab slurs.
.
"We walked slowly, so there wouldn't be trouble," related Nuaman Julani,
another of Jamal's cousins. "Suddenly one of them said to Jamal, 'What
are you doing, you son of a bitch?' Jamal tried to flee, but [the
attacker] whacked him in the chest and [Jamal] fell with his head on the
floor."
.
The incident was brief, according to Mujahad and Nuaman Julani. One of
the cousins says he saw a few of the attackers hitting and kicking Jamal
as he lay on the ground. Both cousins noted that police officers quickly
arrived on the scene, after which all the perpetrators dispersed. Jamal
lost consciousness, presumably when his head struck the ground.
.
"They told me he died. His whole face was blue," Julani said. When
paramedics from Magen David Adom and the volunteer EMS organization
Ichud Hatzalah arrived on the scene, Jamal was not breathing and had no
pulse. They performed resuscitation measures for several minutes before
taking him to the hospital.
.
Writing on her Facebook page, one eyewitness decribed the attack as a
"lynching": "It's late at night, and I can't sleep," she wrote. "My eyes
have been filled with tears for a good few hours now and my stomach is
turning inside out with the question of the loss of humanity, the image
of God in mankind, a loss that I am not willing to accept."
.
"But today I saw a lynching with my own eyes, in Zion Square, the center
of Jerusalem," she wrote, adding, "Dozens (!! ) of youths ran and
gathered and started to really beat to death three [sic] Arab youths who
were walking quietly on Ben Yehuda Street.
.
"When one of the Palestinians fell to the floor, they continued to kick
him in the head, he lost consciousness, his eyes rolled, his angled head
twitched, and then [the perpetrators] fled and the rest gathered in a
circle, with some still shouting with hate in their eyes. When we
returned to the area ... two teens stood there who did not understand
why we wanted to give a bottle of water to the cousin of the victim. 'He
is an Arab, and they don't need to walk around in the center of the
city, and they deserve it, because this way they will finally be
afraid.' ... Children aged 15-18 are killing a child their own age with
their own hands. Really with their own hands.
Children whose hearts were unmoved when they beat to death a boy their
age who lay writhing on the floor."
Capt. Justice
Aug 20, 2012, 11:06:24 PM8/20/12
to
Harold Burton
Aug 21, 2012, 1:26:48 PM8/21/12
to
In article
<dc8d7859-5305-4e9e...@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
except you don't seem to be able to.
snicker
<dc8d7859-5305-4e9e...@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
NeoLibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:46�pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6e31aed8-88ca-4467-9c52-2a43b2b34...@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 5:05�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >
> > > > <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> > > > >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> > > > >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> > > > >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> > > > >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't
> > > > >sign
> > > > >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
> >
> > > > Bee
> >
> > > > Ess
> >
> > > > Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> > > > to control or even deal with his Congresses?
> >
> > > Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> > > established history.
> >
> I'd cite it for you once again . . .
> On Aug 20, 8:46�pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6e31aed8-88ca-4467-9c52-2a43b2b34...@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 5:05�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >
> > > > <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> > > > >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> > > > >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> > > > >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> > > > >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't
> > > > >sign
> > > > >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
> >
> > > > Bee
> >
> > > > Ess
> >
> > > > Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> > > > to control or even deal with his Congresses?
> >
> > > Incredulous--why? I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> > > established history.
> >
except you don't seem to be able to.
snicker
Oglethorpe
Aug 21, 2012, 11:57:58 PM8/21/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:k0u6dh$oe0$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7f1438tmu67cr2k49...@4ax.com...
>> On 08 Jan 2012 01:47:46 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>>
>>>1) Your a liar
>>>2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
>>
>>
>> FAIL! He didn't triple it, he increased it by only 260%! :)
>>
>> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
>>
>> Poppy managed to double it in four years though.
>>
>> Swill
> .
> .
> .
> You speak so harshly about the Republican beloved St. Reagan, the "Acting
> President"
> After all, look at his accomplishments.
Let's list Obama's
> "Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7f1438tmu67cr2k49...@4ax.com...
>> On 08 Jan 2012 01:47:46 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>>The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>>
>>>1) Your a liar
>>>2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
>>
>>
>> FAIL! He didn't triple it, he increased it by only 260%! :)
>>
>> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
>>
>> Poppy managed to double it in four years though.
>>
>> Swill
> .
> .
> .
> You speak so harshly about the Republican beloved St. Reagan, the "Acting
> President"
> After all, look at his accomplishments.
That completes the list.
Harold Burton
Aug 21, 2012, 10:12:17 PM8/21/12
to
In article <4f08f5c2$0$1728$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> >"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
snicker
> >"Public Servant" <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote in message
> >news:1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> >> the mistakes of
> >> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
> >>
> >> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
> >> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
> >>
> >> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
> >> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
> >
> >> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> >> the mistakes of
> >> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
> >>
> >> To understand just how radical republicans are, let's compare Jimmy
> >> Carter to Ronald Reagan.
> >>
> >> In contrast is stark. While Jimmy Carter balanced his budget, Reagan
> >> was the father of fiscal irresponsibility.
> >
> >The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>
> 1) Your a liar
> 2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
And the Current Resident topped that!
>
> 1) Your a liar
> 2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
snicker
Harold Burton
Aug 21, 2012, 10:11:47 PM8/21/12
to
In article
<1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Hussein Obama.
snicker
<1ce7f139-236a-457c...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Public Servant <public....@anniebirdsong.com> wrote:
> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> the mistakes of
> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Gawd, I hope so. What I fear is they might repeat all the mistakes of
> If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
> the mistakes of
> George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Hussein Obama.
snicker
Harold Burton
Aug 21, 2012, 10:12:51 PM8/21/12
to
ray
Aug 22, 2012, 6:02:00 AM8/22/12
to
In article <hal.i.burton-A1C8...@news.newsguy.com>,
Amazing. Four years later, and they are still running against George
Bush.
Bush.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
Aug 22, 2012, 8:32:28 AM8/22/12
to
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-clinton-has-the-real-rape-problem/
Bill Clinton has the real 'rape' problem
Clinton knows just what a woman who has been raped should do. As he told
Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back,
"You better get some ice on that."
"You have to learn to look in the mirror and say,
'What am I honestly good at..."
-- Clinton'05
LIBs. What FARCE their Vision?
---
LIBs plead for a Morality which holds COMPROMISE as its standard of
Value, making it possible to judge Virtue on the basis of the number of
Values which one is willing to Betray.
Governor Swill
Aug 23, 2012, 6:44:18 PM8/23/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:35:13 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 5:00 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>> >We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
>> >Calvin Coolidge.
>>
>> Clinton. And suprisingly, Obama. Obama's spending growth rate is the
>> lowest of any administration since WW II.
>
>Good Lord man, that was debunked so long ago, you should be
>embarrassed to repeat it here. No, it wasn't debunked by FoxNews, it
>was debunked by The Fact Checker at the Washington Post.
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 5:00 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
>> >We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
>> >Calvin Coolidge.
>>
>> Clinton. And suprisingly, Obama. Obama's spending growth rate is the
>> lowest of any administration since WW II.
>
>Good Lord man, that was debunked so long ago, you should be
>embarrassed to repeat it here. No, it wasn't debunked by FoxNews, it
>was debunked by The Fact Checker at the Washington Post.
>Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
>year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s
>spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 —
>Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
>3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
This is the kind of statistical horseshit that disturbs me. No
>year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s
>spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 —
>Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
>3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
comparison is given. So, list the Presidents whose spending growth
was lower than Obama's. To start with, you'll eliminate every
Republican except, perhaps, Eisenhower.
>Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress.
>Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to
>spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:
>
>2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
>2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
>2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)
>
>So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he
>ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened
>under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a
>much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of
>lawmakers, not Obama.
case, his spending should be higher because the economy is weak. Spend
in a weak economy, pull back in a strong one. The GOP tends to get
this backward. Sort of. They spend money like water all the time no
matter what the economy is doing. And instead of doing the
responsible thing and paying for their spending with revenue increases
or cuts elsewhere, they just put it on the credit card and then
complain years later about sticking our kids with the bills.
Folks need to stop voting with their 'feelings' and start voting with
their heads. The LAST thing you want to do is put Republicans in
charge of the economy. They'll trash it every time. Fiscal
irresponsibility and economic incompetence have become their most
distinctive traits.
>> Ironically this is largely
>> because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
>> Bush's last budget.
>
>Bush's last budget was increased by President Obama and the
>overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate by $1
>trillion by the end of that fiscal. While this budget had BEGUN as
>"Bush's," it certainly didn't resemble anything like his budget by the
>time its spending mandates expired.
projection was correct.
>Because of the 1974 CBA, this meant that all that "stimulus" money is
>STILL in the budget every damned year until Congress passes a budget
>eliminating it, and the President signs it.
Democrat speaks, nothing is going to get done. The GOP have set
records for filibuster threats every session since they lost the
Senate.
>If you don't mind my pointing it out so baldly, it's people like you,
>and millions of gullible, incurious idiots just like you, who give
>voters in the United States such a bad name.
irresponsibility and economic incompetence and you know it.
They had a lock on Congress for 12 years and the White house for 10
when the Great Depression followed the crash of 29.
They'd had the Congress for 12 years and the White House for 6 when
this last banking panic started to unravel.
There have been only 2 major banking panics since the Dems created the
Fed in 1913 and both of those followed extended control of the
Legislative and Executive branches by the GOP.
The most corrupt governments in American history were Republican.
Take the blinders off and LOOK.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 23, 2012, 7:00:15 PM8/23/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 5:02�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:01:32 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
>> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
>>
>> Because his spending went up even faster. �Reagan piled 1.7 TRILLION
>> in debt up during the years you cite below.
>
>Please point us to which of his budgets did so.
All of them. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just posted the
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 5:02�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:01:32 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >How could it be said that Reagan "squandered $750 billion in tax cuts,"
>> >when revenues to the treasury went up every year of his administrations?
>>
>> Because his spending went up even faster. �Reagan piled 1.7 TRILLION
>> in debt up during the years you cite below.
>
>Please point us to which of his budgets did so.
link showing his growing debt. Those figures come from the Department
of the Treasury. The revenues you list were not enough to deal with
his massive spending on defence and social programs. Let us not
forget that it was Reagan who "saved" Social Security.
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
You can find out the significance of those asterisks by going to the
link yourself.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Note that I include 1981 for comparison because that was Carter's last
budget and 1989 because that was Reagan's. Note please that Carter's
last budget ended with a debt of just under a trillion and Reagan's
with a debt of almost three trillion. By any measure, Reagan tripled
the national debt.
>Since not one of his budgets was entertained in the House of
>Representatives, this might be difficult. But I'm sure you can do it.
>
>> Btw, I do not click on
>> tinyurls. Can't tell where they go.
>
>Get yourself a Mac for crying out loud. No Mac user lives in constant
>fear like that. Geesh.
underperforming. I'll never have another.
>Where they go is probably Russia and Singapore and all points in
>between, of course. So what?
>
>By the way, you may not click on tinyurls, but you evidently don't
>check headers very well, either. This thread went dead back in
>January.
an article in it while up dating and was shocked that the OP made the
erroneous claim that Carter had balanced a budget! This was followed
by partisans on the other side still struggling to pretend that the
GOP has any relation to fiscal responsibility other than to trash it.
>> >1982....$617 billion
>> >1983....$643 billion
>> >1984....$710 billion
>> >1985....$774 billion
>> >1986....$816 billion
>> >1987....$896 billion
>> >1988....$958 billion
>> >1989....$1.03 trillion
>> >1990....$1.08 trillion
going up faster than revenues. Bear in mind also that inflation ate
up a lot of that revenue. Inflation was rampant until the Saudis
started slashing oil prices in mid 1984.
>By the way, since you've conveniently listed them, you should be able
>to point to the year[s] that Reagan's budgets DIDN'T arrive at the
>House "DOA."
agreed to the allocations that tripled the national debt in 8 years.
It doesn't matter whether those budgets were his or the Congress's.
The signature at the bottom was Ronald Reagan's. And lest you go on
some tear about him being forced to sign, I call BS. On more than one
occasion he very publicly vetoed bills for spending too much. During
the 2010 midterms a tape of Reagan vetoing a highway bill for having
too much pork in it was run heavily in the media to provide some
context for modern pork.
Back in the day when I told friends I was voting for Reagan in 1980 I
was admonished by a few who pointed to his heavy borrowing and
spending while Governor of California. That borrowing and spending
put the state deeply into the red and led directly to Proposition 13.
Too bad I ignored their timely advice.
Swill
Neolibertarian
Aug 23, 2012, 10:59:19 PM8/23/12
to
In article <brbd38p30dtf2mg87...@4ax.com>,
like a drone.
It's okay, it happens. Shake it off.
> No
> comparison is given. So, list the Presidents whose spending growth
> was lower than Obama's. To start with, you'll eliminate every
> Republican except, perhaps, Eisenhower.
I know you're completely unaware of it, but the rule is: he who asserts
must prove.
This is entirely your assertion.
Don't blame me--I didn't make up the rules.
Continuing Resolutions, friend.
When a President won't fight for his budget, or fails to comprise on
one, the only immediate consequence is that he can no longer have a say
in how much or in what ways it's spent.
Congress decided to spend less than had they passed Obama's budgets.
It goes on by increasing levels every year, too, even without a budget,
because of the 1974 CBA which mandates baseline appropriations.
> In any
> case, his spending should be higher because the economy is weak. Spend
> in a weak economy, pull back in a strong one.
Now there's a recipe for disaster if I've ever heard one.
There is no Keynesian Multiplier, you know.
Shuffling money through an economy doesn't boost an economy, except in a
strictly cosmetic sense, and in an extremely limited fashion.
Money isn't wealth.
The overriding disaster in spending more during a downturn is the fact
that you will only be able to do so by selling Treasuries.
Sure, you've been told the Chinese own all the Treasuries, but nothing
could be farther from the truth. The debt is soon to surpass $16
trillion, but the total GDP of China is only about $6 trillion, and
there's lots of evidence it isn't even that high.
We could only wish our debt was foreign held. It's far, far worse than
that. China only holds about 30% of the total of foreign held debt
(Japan holds almost that much), and the total foreign debt is less than
30%. The percentage is fast diminishing as the debt climbs higher and
higher into the stratosphere.
No, that's not it. So who holds all that debt?
It turns out we owe all those unimaginable $ trillions to, well,
/ourselves./
And now about $11.7 trillion of the $16 trillion total) has been
sidelined from the US economy. A huge amount of it is sitting in
fractional reserves, and will only collect dust as time progresses.
These fractional reserves are filling up at a breathtaking pace.
Throughout 2009, for instance, bank reserves were doubling each and
every month.
They eventually leveled off, and yes, there's still room in the reserves
for more Treasuries. But what happens when the banks and financial
institutions finally run out of room?
Bernanke has already promised Wall Street a QE3, you know.
Well, what happens when the reserves are full is pretty much analogous
to what happens when an aneurysm bursts, of course.
> The GOP tends to get
> this backward. Sort of. They spend money like water all the time no
> matter what the economy is doing. And instead of doing the
> responsible thing and paying for their spending with revenue increases
> or cuts elsewhere, they just put it on the credit card and then
> complain years later about sticking our kids with the bills.
It's not a strictly Republican problem, of course. It's not even a
majority Republican problem.
There is no party of angels, nor is there a party of devils.
The populist-bureaucrats only promote that fiction so you'll be so busy
hating one party of the other, you'll never notice THEM.
The Republican party is an organizing principle--it's not an ideology,
after all.
You've heard about the Third Rail of Politics, right?
I'm here to tell you, the new Third Rail is Not Spending Money.
Not Spending Money is political suicide, for Republicans and Democrats,
alike.
economy, you lunatic!
Party majority has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
History is extraordinarily clear on this issue.
A government is incapable of making economic decisions--the only thing
its capable of is making are political decisions. And it even does that
rather poorly.
There may have been a time those two weren't completely incompatible,
but those days are long gone now.
Mostly because so many idiots seem to still buy into Keynesian
Multiplies and other economic fictions.
> Fiscal
> irresponsibility and economic incompetence have become their most
> distinctive traits.
It's the most distinctive trait of /governments/, my inexplicably
partisan friend.
> The GOP have set
> records for filibuster threats every session since they lost the
> Senate.
I'm waiting for you to give me the bad part.
If only it WERE.
But then, "if only" is for children.
who's "disturbed" by the facts.
balanced for the first time since 1969). In March of 2001, the Democrats
took control of the Senate because of Jeffords defection.
How could you forget so easily? You've never heard the name Tom Daschel?
The GOP recovered the Senate at end of that Congress, and the Senate
returned to their control in January of 2003.
The GOP learned their lesson from that little episode: Not Spending
Money is the Third Rail of Politics.
Even so, it seems not enough learned that lesson well enough--they shot
themselves in the foot yet again: they were finally able to get the
deficit down to about $200 billion dollars in 2006 ('07 fiscal). For
that sin, they were all summarily fired by the American People, and the
Dubya became a lame duck for the rest of his second term.
Remember those $200 billion and $500 billion deficits?
Ah for the good old days!
It's enough to bring tears to your eyes, innit?
And, completely irrelevant.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
That's Latin for: "After they've pawned all your belongings, and taken
away all your reason, they're coming for you."
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:35:13 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 20, 5:00�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
> >> >Calvin Coolidge.
> >>
> >> Clinton. �And suprisingly, Obama. �Obama's spending growth rate is the
> >> lowest of any administration since WW II.
> >
> >Good Lord man, that was debunked so long ago, you should be
> >embarrassed to repeat it here. No, it wasn't debunked by FoxNews, it
> >was debunked by The Fact Checker at the Washington Post.
>
> >Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
> >year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama�s
> >spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 �
> >Nutting�s first year � and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
> >3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
>
> This is the kind of statistical horseshit that disturbs me.
Of course it disturbs you because you were caught not thinking, just
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:35:13 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 20, 5:00�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:55:17 -0600, "Bob" <dalnet...@att.net> wrote:
> >> >We haven't had a fiscally responsible president (from either party) since
> >> >Calvin Coolidge.
> >>
> >> Clinton. �And suprisingly, Obama. �Obama's spending growth rate is the
> >> lowest of any administration since WW II.
> >
> >Good Lord man, that was debunked so long ago, you should be
> >embarrassed to repeat it here. No, it wasn't debunked by FoxNews, it
> >was debunked by The Fact Checker at the Washington Post.
>
> >Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
> >year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama�s
> >spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 �
> >Nutting�s first year � and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
> >3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
>
> This is the kind of statistical horseshit that disturbs me.
like a drone.
It's okay, it happens. Shake it off.
> No
> comparison is given. So, list the Presidents whose spending growth
> was lower than Obama's. To start with, you'll eliminate every
> Republican except, perhaps, Eisenhower.
must prove.
This is entirely your assertion.
Don't blame me--I didn't make up the rules.
>
> >Of course, it takes two to tangle � a president and a Congress.
> >Obama�s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to
> >spend, using CBO�s estimates of his budgets:
> >
> >2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
> >2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
> >2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)
> >
> >So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he
> >ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened
> >under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a
> >much higher, post-emergency level � thanks in part to the efforts of
> >lawmakers, not Obama.
The appropriations and spending are still conducted by Congress through
> >Of course, it takes two to tangle � a president and a Congress.
> >Obama�s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to
> >spend, using CBO�s estimates of his budgets:
> >
> >2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)
> >2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)
> >2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)
> >
> >So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he
> >ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened
> >under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a
> >much higher, post-emergency level � thanks in part to the efforts of
> >lawmakers, not Obama.
Continuing Resolutions, friend.
When a President won't fight for his budget, or fails to comprise on
one, the only immediate consequence is that he can no longer have a say
in how much or in what ways it's spent.
Congress decided to spend less than had they passed Obama's budgets.
>
> Which means nothing because those numbers were never enacted.
But the spending goes on...alas.
> Which means nothing because those numbers were never enacted.
It goes on by increasing levels every year, too, even without a budget,
because of the 1974 CBA which mandates baseline appropriations.
> In any
> case, his spending should be higher because the economy is weak. Spend
> in a weak economy, pull back in a strong one.
There is no Keynesian Multiplier, you know.
Shuffling money through an economy doesn't boost an economy, except in a
strictly cosmetic sense, and in an extremely limited fashion.
Money isn't wealth.
The overriding disaster in spending more during a downturn is the fact
that you will only be able to do so by selling Treasuries.
Sure, you've been told the Chinese own all the Treasuries, but nothing
could be farther from the truth. The debt is soon to surpass $16
trillion, but the total GDP of China is only about $6 trillion, and
there's lots of evidence it isn't even that high.
We could only wish our debt was foreign held. It's far, far worse than
that. China only holds about 30% of the total of foreign held debt
(Japan holds almost that much), and the total foreign debt is less than
30%. The percentage is fast diminishing as the debt climbs higher and
higher into the stratosphere.
No, that's not it. So who holds all that debt?
It turns out we owe all those unimaginable $ trillions to, well,
/ourselves./
And now about $11.7 trillion of the $16 trillion total) has been
sidelined from the US economy. A huge amount of it is sitting in
fractional reserves, and will only collect dust as time progresses.
These fractional reserves are filling up at a breathtaking pace.
Throughout 2009, for instance, bank reserves were doubling each and
every month.
They eventually leveled off, and yes, there's still room in the reserves
for more Treasuries. But what happens when the banks and financial
institutions finally run out of room?
Bernanke has already promised Wall Street a QE3, you know.
Well, what happens when the reserves are full is pretty much analogous
to what happens when an aneurysm bursts, of course.
> The GOP tends to get
> this backward. Sort of. They spend money like water all the time no
> matter what the economy is doing. And instead of doing the
> responsible thing and paying for their spending with revenue increases
> or cuts elsewhere, they just put it on the credit card and then
> complain years later about sticking our kids with the bills.
majority Republican problem.
There is no party of angels, nor is there a party of devils.
The populist-bureaucrats only promote that fiction so you'll be so busy
hating one party of the other, you'll never notice THEM.
The Republican party is an organizing principle--it's not an ideology,
after all.
You've heard about the Third Rail of Politics, right?
I'm here to tell you, the new Third Rail is Not Spending Money.
Not Spending Money is political suicide, for Republicans and Democrats,
alike.
>
> Folks need to stop voting with their 'feelings' and start voting with
> their heads. The LAST thing you want to do is put Republicans in
> charge of the economy. They'll trash it every time.
The last thing you want to do is put a GOVERNMENT in charge of an
> Folks need to stop voting with their 'feelings' and start voting with
> their heads. The LAST thing you want to do is put Republicans in
> charge of the economy. They'll trash it every time.
economy, you lunatic!
Party majority has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
History is extraordinarily clear on this issue.
A government is incapable of making economic decisions--the only thing
its capable of is making are political decisions. And it even does that
rather poorly.
There may have been a time those two weren't completely incompatible,
but those days are long gone now.
Mostly because so many idiots seem to still buy into Keynesian
Multiplies and other economic fictions.
> Fiscal
> irresponsibility and economic incompetence have become their most
> distinctive traits.
partisan friend.
>
> >> Ironically this is largely
> >> because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
> >> Bush's last budget.
> >
> >Bush's last budget was increased by President Obama and the
> >overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate by $1
> >trillion by the end of that fiscal. While this budget had BEGUN as
> >"Bush's," it certainly didn't resemble anything like his budget by the
> >time its spending mandates expired.
>
> Not true. That deficit was projected before the election and the
> projection was correct.
No, it wasn't. You're just sinking into denial at this point, I'm afraid.
> >> Ironically this is largely
> >> because he hasn't gotten a budget passed so we're still working off
> >> Bush's last budget.
> >
> >Bush's last budget was increased by President Obama and the
> >overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate by $1
> >trillion by the end of that fiscal. While this budget had BEGUN as
> >"Bush's," it certainly didn't resemble anything like his budget by the
> >time its spending mandates expired.
>
> Not true. That deficit was projected before the election and the
> projection was correct.
>
> >Because of the 1974 CBA, this meant that all that "stimulus" money is
> >STILL in the budget every damned year until Congress passes a budget
> >eliminating it, and the President signs it.
>
> Exactly. And since the GOP in the Senate filibuster every time a
> Democrat speaks, nothing is going to get done.
Sometimes nothing can be a mighty cool hand.
> >Because of the 1974 CBA, this meant that all that "stimulus" money is
> >STILL in the budget every damned year until Congress passes a budget
> >eliminating it, and the President signs it.
>
> Exactly. And since the GOP in the Senate filibuster every time a
> Democrat speaks, nothing is going to get done.
> The GOP have set
> records for filibuster threats every session since they lost the
> Senate.
>
> >If you don't mind my pointing it out so baldly, it's people like you,
> >and millions of gullible, incurious idiots just like you, who give
> >voters in the United States such a bad name.
>
> Step away from the mirror. The GOP has become the party of fiscal
> irresponsibility and economic incompetence and you know it.
It's not even that, alas.
> >If you don't mind my pointing it out so baldly, it's people like you,
> >and millions of gullible, incurious idiots just like you, who give
> >voters in the United States such a bad name.
>
> Step away from the mirror. The GOP has become the party of fiscal
> irresponsibility and economic incompetence and you know it.
If only it WERE.
But then, "if only" is for children.
>
> They had a lock on Congress for 12 years and the White house for 10
> when the Great Depression followed the crash of 29.
You can't even get that irrelevancy straight. No wonder you're the one
> They had a lock on Congress for 12 years and the White house for 10
> when the Great Depression followed the crash of 29.
who's "disturbed" by the facts.
>
> They'd had the Congress for 12 years and the White House for 6 when
> this last banking panic started to unravel.
The GOP held the House and Senate from 1995-2001 (In 1998 the budget was
> They'd had the Congress for 12 years and the White House for 6 when
> this last banking panic started to unravel.
balanced for the first time since 1969). In March of 2001, the Democrats
took control of the Senate because of Jeffords defection.
How could you forget so easily? You've never heard the name Tom Daschel?
The GOP recovered the Senate at end of that Congress, and the Senate
returned to their control in January of 2003.
The GOP learned their lesson from that little episode: Not Spending
Money is the Third Rail of Politics.
Even so, it seems not enough learned that lesson well enough--they shot
themselves in the foot yet again: they were finally able to get the
deficit down to about $200 billion dollars in 2006 ('07 fiscal). For
that sin, they were all summarily fired by the American People, and the
Dubya became a lame duck for the rest of his second term.
Remember those $200 billion and $500 billion deficits?
Ah for the good old days!
It's enough to bring tears to your eyes, innit?
>
> There have been only 2 major banking panics since the Dems created the
> Fed in 1913 and both of those followed extended control of the
> Legislative and Executive branches by the GOP.
That's a silly, self contradictory statement.
> There have been only 2 major banking panics since the Dems created the
> Fed in 1913 and both of those followed extended control of the
> Legislative and Executive branches by the GOP.
And, completely irrelevant.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
That's Latin for: "After they've pawned all your belongings, and taken
away all your reason, they're coming for you."
>
> The most corrupt governments in American history were Republican.
>
> Take the blinders off and LOOK.
Heh.
> The most corrupt governments in American history were Republican.
>
> Take the blinders off and LOOK.
Neolibertarian
Aug 23, 2012, 11:32:36 PM8/23/12
to
In article <ticd38p94toek2f8l...@4ax.com>,
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
That's Latin for: "He who lives by irrelevant evidence, will die by
irrelevant evidence."
You must not have been paying much attention back in those days, but
surely you've seen the latest chapters in that age old game.
You know, the old "The Government is going to default" ploy. Grandma's
not going to get her Social Security check in the mail. No more postal
deliveries. No more scientific discoveries will be made. Thousands of
bureaucrats laid off. And it will ALL BE YOUR FAULT.
Think he had allies in the Senate with Baker and Dole?
Heh. They wanted to spend more than he was requesting too.
> On more than one
> occasion he very publicly vetoed bills for spending too much. During
> the 2010 midterms a tape of Reagan vetoing a highway bill for having
> too much pork in it was run heavily in the media to provide some
> context for modern pork.
He used the veto some 39 times. He was overridden 9 times.
Vetoes don't usually result in spending MORE money, do they?
The fact of the matter is, in aggregate, Congress spent over 25% more
than the aggregate of what Reagan had requested in all his DOA budgets.
Explain that as his responsibility, and I'm sure your think-masters will
give you a cookie.
Congress spent more, Reagan requested less. And you want me to believe
that that's Reagan's responsibility, because, you know, the Constitution
set up the Presidency to be a dictatorship and all.
Despite their demagoguery, Reagan knew that not to sign a budget was
worse than signing un unbalanced one.
As you can clearly see today, it's far more expensive to the American
People to run the government without a budget, than to pass and sign a
bad budget.
track during the Indy 500 to issue a speeding ticket to a single car.
> That borrowing and spending
> put the state deeply into the red and led directly to Proposition 13.
> Too bad I ignored their timely advice.
Logic was removed from the curriculum at your peril.
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Please point us to which of his budgets did so.
>
> All of them. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just posted the
> link showing his growing debt. Those figures come from the Department
> of the Treasury. The revenues you list were not enough to deal with
> his massive spending on defence and social programs. Let us not
> forget that it was Reagan who "saved" Social Security.
>
> 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
> 09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
> 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
>
> You can find out the significance of those asterisks by going to the
> link yourself.
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
No budgets there, I'm afraid.
> >Please point us to which of his budgets did so.
>
> All of them. Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just posted the
> link showing his growing debt. Those figures come from the Department
> of the Treasury. The revenues you list were not enough to deal with
> his massive spending on defence and social programs. Let us not
> forget that it was Reagan who "saved" Social Security.
>
> 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
> 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
> 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
> 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
> 09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
> 09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
> 09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
> 09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
> 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
>
> You can find out the significance of those asterisks by going to the
> link yourself.
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
That's Latin for: "He who lives by irrelevant evidence, will die by
irrelevant evidence."
surely you've seen the latest chapters in that age old game.
You know, the old "The Government is going to default" ploy. Grandma's
not going to get her Social Security check in the mail. No more postal
deliveries. No more scientific discoveries will be made. Thousands of
bureaucrats laid off. And it will ALL BE YOUR FAULT.
Think he had allies in the Senate with Baker and Dole?
Heh. They wanted to spend more than he was requesting too.
> On more than one
> occasion he very publicly vetoed bills for spending too much. During
> the 2010 midterms a tape of Reagan vetoing a highway bill for having
> too much pork in it was run heavily in the media to provide some
> context for modern pork.
Vetoes don't usually result in spending MORE money, do they?
The fact of the matter is, in aggregate, Congress spent over 25% more
than the aggregate of what Reagan had requested in all his DOA budgets.
Explain that as his responsibility, and I'm sure your think-masters will
give you a cookie.
Congress spent more, Reagan requested less. And you want me to believe
that that's Reagan's responsibility, because, you know, the Constitution
set up the Presidency to be a dictatorship and all.
Despite their demagoguery, Reagan knew that not to sign a budget was
worse than signing un unbalanced one.
As you can clearly see today, it's far more expensive to the American
People to run the government without a budget, than to pass and sign a
bad budget.
>
> Back in the day when I told friends I was voting for Reagan in 1980 I
> was admonished by a few who pointed to his heavy borrowing and
> spending while Governor of California.
Your friends must have been the kind of people who'd run out on the
> Back in the day when I told friends I was voting for Reagan in 1980 I
> was admonished by a few who pointed to his heavy borrowing and
> spending while Governor of California.
track during the Indy 500 to issue a speeding ticket to a single car.
> That borrowing and spending
> put the state deeply into the red and led directly to Proposition 13.
> Too bad I ignored their timely advice.
Governor Swill
Aug 24, 2012, 12:27:15 AM8/24/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 5:05�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
>> >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
>> >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
>> >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
>> >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
>> >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
>>
>> Bee
>>
>> Ess
>>
>> Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
>> to control or even deal with his Congresses?
>
>Incredulous--why?
I was responding to the poster who seemed to think that Reagan was not
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 5:05�am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>
>> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
>> >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
>> >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
>> >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
>> >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
>> >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
>>
>> Bee
>>
>> Ess
>>
>> Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
>> to control or even deal with his Congresses?
>
>Incredulous--why?
in control of his government and was unable to work with half an
opposition Congress.
> I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
>established history.
signed the bills and as conservatives and republicans were so anxious
to tell us when Dems occupy the OO, that makes that spending his
responsibility.
>His influence upon his Congresses needs to be judged by several
>factors which we weren't discussing--at any rate his influence (just
>as any president's) is a far more complex question than you seem
>prepared to discuss.
>Reagan's vetoes were overridden 9 times. Reagan shut down the federal
>government three times, and threatened shut downs on four other
>occasions.
with Clinton too and lost. During Clinton's time they were trying to
increase spending to eat up the surplus but he wouldn't allow it.
>Zero of his budgets were entertained by Congress.
all surprised. I'm sure the debt would have been worse had he been
given a free hand to spend and tax as he liked. There was quite a
controversy over the massive military spending he wanted. Especially
considering the USSR was in it's dying throes and everybody knew it.
Jimmy Carter wisely vetoed the B-1 bomber and funneled that money into
stealth aircraft instead. As early as the Nixon administration CIA
analyses advised that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet
Union collapsed upon itself. I knew it was dying when they started
begging us to sell them wheat in the mid seventies because they could
no longer feed their own people. The images of queues and empty store
shelves that peppered TV news and visitor reports were also
indications that long before Reagan came to power, the USSR was
already terminal.
The Democrats did that, btw.
>After 1985, all of Reagan's budgets were sent to Congress within Gramm-
>Rudman-Hollings targets (and previous to that as well, as a matter of
>fact, even before there WAS a Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act).
teeth before they sent it to Reagan to have its throat slit.
>==Begin Quote==
>
>Ambulance Delivers The Budget
>February 06, 1986 (UPI)
>
>The 1987 budget may be considered dead on arrival by some critics, but
>the budget office spoofed that notion Wednesday, delivering copies by
>ambulance handled by attendants dressed in hospital green.
>It was during Reagan's administration that I first learned of the
>terms "Continuing Resolution" and "Omnibus Spending Bill," which are
>prime factors, in conjunction with the 1974 Congressional Budget Act,
>the deficit was allowed to balloon so alarmingly.
chambers of Congress (1987-94), there were omnibus bills in just two
of those years. In the last nine years Republicans have controlled
both chambers (1995-2000 and 2003-05), there have been seven. "
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/omnibus-spending-bills-portend-ominous-consequences
Hardly a partisan program. If it is, it's not a Democratic one.
So now we know that Reagan and the GOP "invented" omnibus bills. LOL!
The eighties deficits bloomed because first Reagan, then Bush colluded
with Congress to spend. "If you let me spend this, I'll let you spend
that." All the while misleading the voters by pretending to veto
excessive spending. Clinton and his Congresses reversed that
procedure. "If I can't spend this, you can't spend that."
>I've even seen where the Democrats claim that in total, Democrat
>budgets involved less spending than which Reagan requested (which,
>ironically, doesn't help them avoid their own responsibility for
>raising the deficits and debt).
small modicum of restraint. Reagan acted like a high school boy with
a case of whiskey and a pocket full of car keys.
> The problem here is, of course,
>Reagan's budgets were on time, i.e., before the beginning of the
>fiscal. The Democrat budgets were all negotiated well into the fiscal,
>and sometimes near the end.
the omnibus is used for, when the budget process remains incomplete as
the fy nears its end. Basically as government has grown, a process
the GOP has done nothing to change, it's having to be dealt with in
bigger chunks.
> Their budgets were NEVER on time by any
>stretch of the imagination, and reflected only a partial year's
>spending. Most of what they spent was automatic CBA for large swaths
>of the fiscal.
and auto increasing all playing parts in the budget process.
>BTW, these exact same conditions are why the debt has ballooned so
>alarmingly during the Obama Administration. Except this time, it's
>bipartisan. Not one single vote has been offered on either side of the
>aisle for any of Obama's budgets.
enormous deficit. When Bush came to town we had a healthy economy, a
budget surplus and our biggest security concern was keeping former
Soviet nukes from getting passed out to terrorists. When he left, we
had a trillion dollar deficit, the worst economic disaster since 1930,
the only banking system collapse since the early thirties, two wars,
one in the wrong country, the other one a failure on more levels than
I care to count, a national reputation more damaged than since Vietnam
and an electorate so divided that the legislative process has crawled
to a stop. Any way you slice it that adds up to a republican disaster
and I'm not at all convinced they can or will fix it.
>At any rate, it's high time the baseline budgeting portions of the CBA
>be repealed.
the entire budget would have to be rewritten every year. You want to
expand government and inflate the bureaucracy, that's a good way to do
it.
>> And have you forgotten
>> that the GOP controlled the Senate during his first term?
>
>Of course not. For part of his second, as well. But the Senate wasn't
>the problem.
lost it in 1984.
>In order for a budget to become law, it requires more than one house
>of Congress to pass it.
>
>Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
admitted that the GOP president wanted to spend even more than the Dem
Congress. You've complained about ominbus bills and we see now that
the process is more often used by Republicans than Democrats. As a
conservative one would expect you to support small government yet here
you are wanting to institute a policy that would expand the Washington
bureaucracy.
>> And that
>> the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate during his
>> administration?
>>
>The Senate just wasn't the problem, though Reagan never did have the
>full support of the Republicans in the Senate by any stretch of the
>imagination. Believe it or not, there were lots of liberal Republican
>Senators back then--in fact the Republican Majority Leaders were well-
>known squishes (Dole and Baker).
more trouble with his own party than the opposition. While perhaps
not technically true, he encountered enough Democratic resistance to
prevent him from instituting a number of his intentions.
>But it wasn't ever the Senate that was the real problem, obviously.
does spending. In practice though, the President is as involved in
both as the House is. The Senate is left to mostly approve or
disapprove of what the House and Oval Office have worked out with each
other.
>> Your attempts to blame Reagan's mistakes on the opposition party fall
>> on deaf ears.
>
>Like I was expecting a different result?
with my head. Imo, those who vote based on emotion are making a
cataclysmic mistake.
>> Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
>> ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
>
>When Reagan was sworn into office on January 20th, 1981, the last time
>the United States federal budget had been balanced was 1969.
Democratic "War on Poverty" Congress. The next time a budget would
balance would be under Democrat Bill Clinton with his Republican
Congress.
They acted the opposite of Reagan and his opposition Congresses. While
Reagan colluded to spend, Clinton vetoed to block spending and his
Congress also blocked spending he wanted. Iow, while Reagan and
Congress enabled each other's spending to get what they wanted,
Clinton and Congress blocked each other's spending each to keep the
other from getting what they wanted.
It is well documented that Clinton's GOP congress fought and fought
hard not to balance the budget, but to spend as much as they possibly
could. And yet the GOP faithful continue to buy the illusion that the
Republican Party is fiscally responsible.
>Inflation (Money Supply x Velocity = Inflation) was out of control. A
>year and a half before that cold January, it had hit a high water mark
>of 14%. Between 2 years of Ford and 4 years of Carter the debt had
>doubled. Republicans and Democrats, alike, were claiming that deficit
>spending was not to be feared (since inflation at the time was wiping
>out more than 100% of the debt incurred by 30 year Treasuries). We'd
>gone so long without a balanced budget by the time Carter packed up
>for Plains, that politicians on both sides of the aisle (especially
>the Democrat Keynesians and Neo-Keynesians) were completely
>uninterested in even discussing it.
sixties the French instituted a policy of dollar payment. That is, if
you wanted to trade with the French, you had to pay them in dollars.
If you owed them a debt, even if it had been loaned out in francs, you
had to pay them back in dollars. At the time, the US still backed its
currency with gold. The point was that Paris wanted to hoard dollars
and then force the US to exchange them for gold at the global set rate
of around $35 per ounce. Nixon saw only one effective means of
preventing the French from draining America's gold reserves; he took
us off the gold standard.
And thereby hangs the tale. When the dollar was no longer backed by
metal, it's value decreased and inflation set in. About the same time
OPEC moved to a dollar only policy as well. So when in 1973 OPEC
embargoed the US in reaction to American policy regarding the
Palestinians (itself a reaction to the PLA terror at the 1972 Olympics
in Munich), a decade long spiral of inflation set in.
With Nixon's French policy as a base, inflation was exacerbated by the
exploding cost of energy. Energy underlay our entire economy back
then and it still does. The result was an increasingly uncontrollable
inflation. Ford made it still worse by spending enormously in order
to reduce unemployment. He correctly saw that inflation would eat up
the value of that debt. But by the time Carter was in office, the
inflation had gotten too severe. As early as 1978 there was talk of
"hyperinflation" and what it could do to an economy.
Where Ford's chief objective had been to reduce unemployment, Carter
now had to get the resultant inflation down. The primary means used
was Fed interest rates. By raising them, Volker hoped to reduce the
money supply. Theoretically, less money in circulation would mean a
curb on inflation. Carter meanwhile got no help from his own party in
Congress when it came to his part of the program. Unable to get
Congress to curb spending, the debt continued to climb.
>By the end of Reagan's administration, almost every Democrat on the
>Hill was complaining about deficit spending (as ironic as that may
>have seemed). They've loudly clamored about balanced budgets ever
>since, while behaving exactly the same way they did back in the 1970's
>when they were assuring everyone deficit spending doesn't matter.
>
>Maybe you weren't alive and paying attention back then, but to say
>this was a sea-change is an understatement.
>
>Ronald Reagan had never stopped talking about the evils of deficit
>spending and federal debt since before the campaign of 1976. He was a
>broken record on the subject.
forgetting the significance of his chosen profession. Reagan lied
like a master because that was what he'd done for a living before
entering politics. He was an actor. Reagan never practiced fiscal
responsibility as governor of California or POTUS. That he's
remembered as a fiscal conservative is due entirely to the acting job
he performed for us.
>"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits because people
>are taxed too little; we have deficits because big government spends
>too much."
> ---Ronald Reagan
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 24, 2012, 12:28:11 AM8/24/12
to
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 24, 2012, 12:31:25 AM8/24/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:57:29 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are you guys 18 or something? �I remember the 76 and 80 campaigns and
>> deficits and debt were major issues in both.
>
>Then it should be exceedingly easy to access archived articles,
>speeches, etc. so you can shut everyone up.
>
>No fair quoting Reagan back then. We already KNOW he was making them
>issues in the 1970s.
>
>I can give Carter his due, since he DID try to control the deficit
>spending during a year or two of his administration. But he was
>hampered by a Democrat majority in the House and Senate.
>
>He was already controlling the debt by monetizing it. This way, he
>succeeded in keeping it from doubling during his term.
>
>I can't believe he got fired so abruptly by the American people.
Same here. Hindsight is 20/20 and the most amazing thing to me is how
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are you guys 18 or something? �I remember the 76 and 80 campaigns and
>> deficits and debt were major issues in both.
>
>Then it should be exceedingly easy to access archived articles,
>speeches, etc. so you can shut everyone up.
>
>No fair quoting Reagan back then. We already KNOW he was making them
>issues in the 1970s.
>
>I can give Carter his due, since he DID try to control the deficit
>spending during a year or two of his administration. But he was
>hampered by a Democrat majority in the House and Senate.
>
>He was already controlling the debt by monetizing it. This way, he
>succeeded in keeping it from doubling during his term.
>
>I can't believe he got fired so abruptly by the American people.
quickly the social conservative right embraced a divorced Hollywood
actor to defeat a Sunday school teacher.
Swill
Mr.B1ack
Aug 24, 2012, 2:28:12 AM8/24/12
to
circuses MUST keep coming - whether they're actually
affordable or warranted or not.
Reagan got elected because he promised endless bread
and circuses ... just don't ask where the money came
from.
This is a systemic problem with "popularity"-based
political systems. The electorate is always very
myopic ... and if Leader-A will make tomorrow seem
better (to HELL with the day AFTER tomorrow) then
they'll support Leader-A.
Neolibertarian
Aug 25, 2012, 1:48:21 AM8/25/12
to
In article <olkd38lim80b5egsk...@4ax.com>,
motives.
You're flying blind, and it shows.
We're not formal around here, so we'll just consider this withdrawn and
ask the jury to disregard your unfounded and pointless accusations.
> Reagan
> signed the bills and as conservatives and republicans were so anxious
> to tell us when Dems occupy the OO, that makes that spending his
> responsibility.
It's utterly irrelevant what "Republicans" and "Democrats" tell us.
"Republicans" and "Democrats" tell us all sorts of things, none of which
can be reconciled with all sorts of other things they tell us. Their
supposed opinions upon whose shoulders government spending might rest is
a red herring. We don't require their opinions, do we?
According to my Constitution, the Executive proposes the budgets, and
Congress holds the purse strings. It's a pretty straight forward
arrangement, and the responsibilities are extraordinarily clear.
It's a shared powers thingy.
Once again, the fact of the matter is, Reagan submitted his budgets on
time. All budgets were geared towards what would by 1985 become the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill Targets: A balanced budget within 10 years
(which had seemed pretty much a pipe dream since 1969, and few believed
G-R-H held the magic elixir to finally turn the dream to reality).
None of these budgets were even entertained in the House of
Representatives.
Tip O'Neill can't have declared all of Reagan's "draconian" budgets
"Dead On Arrival"; he can't have then gone on to demagogue about how
Reagan's push back with impoundment and government shutdowns was robbing
old ladies of their Social Security checks; then singlehandedly forced
budget negotiations into the Fall and Winter; and then somehow think he
could walk away scott free, as if the deficits were none of O'Neill's
responsibility.
We aren't all amnesiacs. And some of us have a Constitution.
O'Neill was quite public and overt in his intent: he was not going to
allow Ronald Reagan to set the spending priorities for the federal
budget. He was quite proud of his every achievement in this regard.
Every budget that Reagan signed was signed late, and under duress, and
even under repeated threats of default.
Reagan's goals were clear and well articulated. Tip O'Neill's goals were
clear and well articulated.
Why mischaracterize them as if you weren't aware of any of that?
> >His influence upon his Congresses needs to be judged by several
> >factors which we weren't discussing--at any rate his influence (just
> >as any president's) is a far more complex question than you seem
> >prepared to discuss.
>
> More complicated than Clinton's was with his Congresses?
What does that have to do with this discussion?
And they seem to have lost their taste for it under the alleged
leadership of Speaker Boehner.
> They did it
> with Clinton too and lost.
The Congress didn't lose that battle.
Clinton's approvals plummeted to the second lowest point of his
Presidency during the 1995-1996 Government shutdown.
Gingrich began to lose the battle only AFTER the shut down. Newt has a
tendency to do this every time he begins wining anything. At this late
date, he's shot himself in the foot so many times, it's hard to believe
he can still walk at all.
I suppose in this way, he personifies the GOP.
> During Clinton's time they were trying to
> increase spending to eat up the surplus but he wouldn't allow it.
There was no surplus. That's a dangerous fiction born from the laughable
US government's so-called accounting practices.
You can't have a surplus when you're $5.7 trillion in debt, and when
your entitlements are in the Autobahn Fast Lane, heading towards
bankruptcy.
Clinton and Congress were patting themselves on the back, trying to
steal the credit from each other and gain political advantage, while the
time bomb kept ticking.
By the way, when Clinton left office, all of the elements that would
later be called the "Financial Crisis of 2008" were firmly in place.
Clinton is on record approving all of these elements (I'll fetch all of
his joyful and proud signing statements if you wish), and he especially
took credit for the exact parts which would later bring the whole circus
down around our ears.
the term "draconian spending habits."
> I'm sure the debt would have been worse had he been
> given a free hand to spend and tax as he liked.
Won't prove the negative, so why try? You keep wiping your nose on logic
that way, people are gonna start thinking you've a palpable contempt for
it.
The fact is, Congress spent more every year than what Reagan had
requested in his budgets. IIRC, some years it was only 3% or 9% more,
but in 1988 Congress spent 20% more than he had requested in his morgued
budget.
As we all know Congress absolutely cut loose during GHW Bush's term. But
then everyone knows: those Bush's are pushovers when it comes to
spending.
> There was quite a
> controversy over the massive military spending he wanted. Especially
> considering the USSR was in it's dying throes and everybody knew it.
Heh.
Who's revising history now?
I was there and paying attention at the time. I'm aware of less than a
handful of books/op eds in the 1970s and 1980s which claimed any such
thing. The authors, few as they were, were complete outliers, including
Ayn Rand. In every case, the Wizards of Smart laughed such predictions
off the stage.
There are no Democrat Congressmen, for instance, on the record as
claiming such a sentiment in print or spoken word.
For those with any history at all, it was rather obvious the Soviet
Union had weathered much harder times through the years since 1917.
Carter, for instance, was sure the existence of the CCCP was a fact of
life the US just had to get used to--he wasn't even sure containment
would ever work against Moscow. He publicly began speaking as if he
believed it were time to end the Cold War. Unilaterally if need be.
Brzezinski had a more hopeful attitude. After all, we know now that he
had Carter agree to secretly funding a US attempt to trigger the
Afghanistan invasion. They were both as surprised as anyone when it
worked. But even Brzezinski wasn't crazy enough to believe once that
invasion/occupation finally ended, so would the CCCP.
The Fall of the Soviet Union ain't called the greatest intelligence
failure in CIA history for nothin'.
> Jimmy Carter wisely vetoed the B-1 bomber and funneled that money into
> stealth aircraft instead. As early as the Nixon administration CIA
> analyses advised that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet
> Union collapsed upon itself.
At that point, it was even more widely predicted it was just "a matter
of time" before the US collapsed upon itself, as well.
That's the nature of a Cold War.
As to your alleged pre-1974 "CIA analysis," I'd be quite interested in
your evidence. Additionally, please show us this report wasn't an
outlier among many other analysis reports predicting just the opposite.
> I knew it was dying when they started
> begging us to sell them wheat in the mid seventies because they could
> no longer feed their own people.
There was no reason at the time to believe that it was "dying," which is
why no one did.
Are you acquainted with even a rudimentary history of the CCCP?
> The images of queues and empty store
> shelves that peppered TV news and visitor reports were also
> indications that long before Reagan came to power, the USSR was
> already terminal.
What images of long queues do you believe you're referring to?
You realize that foreign journalists weren't allowed to film "long
lines," right? And TASS simply wouldn't film any scenes like that at all
because...well, you know.
There weren't any cell phone cameras, and no YouTube.
They were reports, not tv images. The reports were universally met with
more than a grain of salt.
You might be conflating with the late 1980's, and you're probably
remembering Poland during the Solidarity insurrections and riots.
If the Democrats were expecting the Soviet Union to fall as far back as
1974, it's just a little hard to explain Ted Kennedy's secret letter to
Yuri Andropov in 1983, innit?
Why would he attempt to strike a secret deal with Moscow to sabotage
Reagan's anti-Soviet policies, if he believed it was kaput?
Did the Party of Angels believe that appeasement would hasten the
already impending fall?
If that's it, maybe you need to explain it to me, because on the face of
it, there's no discernible sense in there whatsoever.
Certainly not in conjunction with your ridiculously transparent
revisionism.
of a doubt, that they're helpless when it comes to spending excesses.
Not Spending has become the New Third Rail of American Politics, don't
forget.
But G-R-H in its two iterations did turn out to be unconstitutional.
Which I should have perceived.
There's no way to enact a law relieving Congress of its Constitutional
duties. That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
> It's an old joke now. Congress pulled it's
> teeth before they sent it to Reagan to have its throat slit.
Alas for my children and unborn grandchildren.
Hard not to admire it.
I didn't. And the period in question isn't 1987-1994. BTW, do you know
what happened to federal deficit spending during those years "in which
Democrats held both chambers of Congress"?
If one didn't know better, one might assume you're emotionally invested
in partisanship or something.
Tee-hee!
> The eighties deficits bloomed because first Reagan, then Bush colluded
> with Congress to spend. "If you let me spend this, I'll let you spend
> that." All the while misleading the voters by pretending to veto
> excessive spending. Clinton and his Congresses reversed that
> procedure. "If I can't spend this, you can't spend that."
Those aren't defensible characterizations at all, I'm afraid.
You need to warn me if you're just going to start disassociating
yourself from facts and merely begin spouting incoherent drivel.
Sure, it's typical of Usenet, but I've got a life to lead.
If that's all you got...well, then it is.
than Reagan had requested in his iced budgets.
> That's what
> the omnibus is used for, when the budget process remains incomplete as
> the fy nears its end. Basically as government has grown, a process
> the GOP has done nothing to change, it's having to be dealt with in
> bigger chunks.
There are no omnibus bills being passed anymore. Certainly not since
2010. Nor is there any negotiation going on.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have EVER been able to stem
the tide of growing government. Now that they've run out of excuses, and
they HAVE to do something, they've become completely paralyzed.
Paralyzed, and yet the deficit spending next year will be 1,100,000
million dollars.
If that's paralyzed, then we're all screwed.
And I can assure you, we are.
> > Their budgets were NEVER on time by any
> >stretch of the imagination, and reflected only a partial year's
> >spending. Most of what they spent was automatic CBA for large swaths
> >of the fiscal.
>
> Standard practice across both parties. There's baseline, inflation
> and auto increasing all playing parts in the budget process.
"Playing parts" as in bankrupting, yes.
> He inherited that
> enormous deficit.
What in the hell does that have to do with anything? Obama VOTED for it!
Am I supposed to ignore that like most ignorant partisans who've no
Constitution?
> When Bush came to town we had a healthy economy, a
> budget surplus and our biggest security concern was keeping former
> Soviet nukes from getting passed out to terrorists
History can be your friend. You just have to get to know it first.
> When he left, we
> had a trillion dollar deficit, the worst economic disaster since 1930,
> the only banking system collapse since the early thirties, two wars,
> one in the wrong country,
> the other one a failure on more levels than
> I care to count, a national reputation more damaged than since Vietnam
> and an electorate so divided that the legislative process has crawled
> to a stop. Any way you slice it that adds up to a republican disaster
> and I'm not at all convinced they can or will fix it.
Hunh?
> and
> admitted that the GOP president wanted to spend even more than the Dem
> Congress.
Reading comprehension a problem with you now?
> You've complained about ominbus bills
Omnibus spending bills and continuing resolutions and the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974...yes.
Among many other serious, systemic problems that have enabled my
children's bankruptcy.
> and we see now that
> the process is more often used by Republicans than Democrats.
That couldn't be the point, even if you really, really wanted it to be.
> As a
> conservative one would expect you to support small government yet here
> you are wanting to institute a policy that would expand the Washington
> bureaucracy.
Who's a conservative?
Did my newsreader hiccup? According to it, you're responding to ME.
Did I inadvertently interrupt a conversation between you and someone
else?
Holy cow! When did that happen?
> While perhaps
> not technically true, he encountered enough Democratic resistance to
> prevent him from instituting a number of his intentions.
Like what? The THIRD "stimulus" bill?
Outlawing coal?
Raising income taxes?
> The Senate is left to mostly approve or
> disapprove of what the House and Oval Office have worked out with each
> other.
That's not even partly true.
Not that I give a shit either way.
Why you brought up this, at this juncture, is anyone's guess.
I don't remember even hinting that you didn't "vote with your head."
It never even occurred to me.
> Imo, those who vote based on emotion are making a
> cataclysmic mistake.
Then stop handing the franchise out for free, why dontchya?
If you're serious, why don't we switch to all touchscreen voting. We
could lock out the ballot with a randomly generated quadratic equation.
Solve it, you get to vote.
for the war (and all the socialist projects he shoved through Congress),
he merely raised taxes and inflated the currency.
The poor man's tax.
Inflation = Money Supply x Velocity.
"Exploding cost of energy" is a black cow, in a dark basement at
midnight, that isn't actually there after all.
In other words, it might be fun to refer to it, but you'll never put
your finger on it.
Inflation caused high commodity (energy) prices, not the other way
around.
The 1973 Oil Embargo was, at least in part, a defensive move against
America's irresponsible monetary policies.
These policies had all but unraveled Bretton Woods by then.
> Energy underlay our entire economy back
> then and it still does. The result was an increasingly uncontrollable
> inflation.
Cereal Box Macro Econ 101?
Or just Walter Cronkite?
> Ford made it still worse by spending enormously in order
> to reduce unemployment.
Here we go--let's blame Congressional spending on the universally
acknowledged weakest president in US history; On a President who claimed
that America was falling subject to a "Dictatorship of the Legislature."
> He correctly saw that inflation would eat up
> the value of that debt. But by the time Carter was in office, the
> inflation had gotten too severe. As early as 1978 there was talk of
> "hyperinflation" and what it could do to an economy.
All from irresponsible monetary policies.
But then, irresponsible is a relative term, innit?
Alan Greenspan made the Fed Chairmen of the 1970s seem like Ebenezer
Scrooges.
"hope" the flow of water stops.
You know, reading the Constitution doesn't really take all that long.
It's written in rather clear language, and it's pretty easy to grasp. If
you have problems, you can usually find reliable help online at some
accredited websites.
You really don't have any excuses to remain in the dark anymore.
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >>
> >> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> >> >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> >> >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> >> >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> >> >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> >> >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
> >>
> >> Bee
> >>
> >> Ess
> >>
> >> Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> >> to control or even deal with his Congresses?
> >
> >Incredulous--why?
>
> I was responding to the poster who seemed to think that Reagan was not
> in control of his government and was unable to work with half an
> opposition Congress.
The record and circumstances are exceedingly clear.
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), NeoLibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 20, 5:05 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:28:02 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >>
> >> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >But feel free to keep blaming those ludicrous budgets on Reagan. The
> >> >rest of us won't forget how many times the federal government was shut
> >> >down. How many times the budget was late under Speaker O'Neill, and
> >> >we'll not forget any of the demagogic threats leveled by the Democrats
> >> >in Congress, about having the government default if Reagan wouldn't sign
> >> >those bloated appropriations bills and the continuing resolutions.
> >>
> >> Bee
> >>
> >> Ess
> >>
> >> Are you telling us that Reagan was so ineffectual that he was unable
> >> to control or even deal with his Congresses?
> >
> >Incredulous--why?
>
> I was responding to the poster who seemed to think that Reagan was not
> in control of his government and was unable to work with half an
> opposition Congress.
>
> > I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> >established history.
>
> No you're not. You're revising history to match your agenda.
It's apparent you're not very good at guessing anyone's agenda or
> > I'm merely relating well-known and firmly
> >established history.
>
> No you're not. You're revising history to match your agenda.
motives.
You're flying blind, and it shows.
We're not formal around here, so we'll just consider this withdrawn and
ask the jury to disregard your unfounded and pointless accusations.
> Reagan
> signed the bills and as conservatives and republicans were so anxious
> to tell us when Dems occupy the OO, that makes that spending his
> responsibility.
"Republicans" and "Democrats" tell us all sorts of things, none of which
can be reconciled with all sorts of other things they tell us. Their
supposed opinions upon whose shoulders government spending might rest is
a red herring. We don't require their opinions, do we?
According to my Constitution, the Executive proposes the budgets, and
Congress holds the purse strings. It's a pretty straight forward
arrangement, and the responsibilities are extraordinarily clear.
It's a shared powers thingy.
Once again, the fact of the matter is, Reagan submitted his budgets on
time. All budgets were geared towards what would by 1985 become the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill Targets: A balanced budget within 10 years
(which had seemed pretty much a pipe dream since 1969, and few believed
G-R-H held the magic elixir to finally turn the dream to reality).
None of these budgets were even entertained in the House of
Representatives.
Tip O'Neill can't have declared all of Reagan's "draconian" budgets
"Dead On Arrival"; he can't have then gone on to demagogue about how
Reagan's push back with impoundment and government shutdowns was robbing
old ladies of their Social Security checks; then singlehandedly forced
budget negotiations into the Fall and Winter; and then somehow think he
could walk away scott free, as if the deficits were none of O'Neill's
responsibility.
We aren't all amnesiacs. And some of us have a Constitution.
O'Neill was quite public and overt in his intent: he was not going to
allow Ronald Reagan to set the spending priorities for the federal
budget. He was quite proud of his every achievement in this regard.
Every budget that Reagan signed was signed late, and under duress, and
even under repeated threats of default.
Reagan's goals were clear and well articulated. Tip O'Neill's goals were
clear and well articulated.
Why mischaracterize them as if you weren't aware of any of that?
> >His influence upon his Congresses needs to be judged by several
> >factors which we weren't discussing--at any rate his influence (just
> >as any president's) is a far more complex question than you seem
> >prepared to discuss.
>
> More complicated than Clinton's was with his Congresses?
>
> >Reagan's vetoes were overridden 9 times. Reagan shut down the federal
> >government three times, and threatened shut downs on four other
> >occasions.
>
> Republicans seem to like shutting down the government.
Not nearly enough, friend.
> >Reagan's vetoes were overridden 9 times. Reagan shut down the federal
> >government three times, and threatened shut downs on four other
> >occasions.
>
> Republicans seem to like shutting down the government.
And they seem to have lost their taste for it under the alleged
leadership of Speaker Boehner.
> They did it
> with Clinton too and lost.
Clinton's approvals plummeted to the second lowest point of his
Presidency during the 1995-1996 Government shutdown.
Gingrich began to lose the battle only AFTER the shut down. Newt has a
tendency to do this every time he begins wining anything. At this late
date, he's shot himself in the foot so many times, it's hard to believe
he can still walk at all.
I suppose in this way, he personifies the GOP.
> During Clinton's time they were trying to
> increase spending to eat up the surplus but he wouldn't allow it.
US government's so-called accounting practices.
You can't have a surplus when you're $5.7 trillion in debt, and when
your entitlements are in the Autobahn Fast Lane, heading towards
bankruptcy.
Clinton and Congress were patting themselves on the back, trying to
steal the credit from each other and gain political advantage, while the
time bomb kept ticking.
By the way, when Clinton left office, all of the elements that would
later be called the "Financial Crisis of 2008" were firmly in place.
Clinton is on record approving all of these elements (I'll fetch all of
his joyful and proud signing statements if you wish), and he especially
took credit for the exact parts which would later bring the whole circus
down around our ears.
>
> >Zero of his budgets were entertained by Congress.
>
> Considering his spending habits, reputation and priorities I'm not at
> all surprised.
Just what the Great Demagogue O'Neill used to say. Well, except he used
> >Zero of his budgets were entertained by Congress.
>
> Considering his spending habits, reputation and priorities I'm not at
> all surprised.
the term "draconian spending habits."
> I'm sure the debt would have been worse had he been
> given a free hand to spend and tax as he liked.
that way, people are gonna start thinking you've a palpable contempt for
it.
The fact is, Congress spent more every year than what Reagan had
requested in his budgets. IIRC, some years it was only 3% or 9% more,
but in 1988 Congress spent 20% more than he had requested in his morgued
budget.
As we all know Congress absolutely cut loose during GHW Bush's term. But
then everyone knows: those Bush's are pushovers when it comes to
spending.
> There was quite a
> controversy over the massive military spending he wanted. Especially
> considering the USSR was in it's dying throes and everybody knew it.
Who's revising history now?
I was there and paying attention at the time. I'm aware of less than a
handful of books/op eds in the 1970s and 1980s which claimed any such
thing. The authors, few as they were, were complete outliers, including
Ayn Rand. In every case, the Wizards of Smart laughed such predictions
off the stage.
There are no Democrat Congressmen, for instance, on the record as
claiming such a sentiment in print or spoken word.
For those with any history at all, it was rather obvious the Soviet
Union had weathered much harder times through the years since 1917.
Carter, for instance, was sure the existence of the CCCP was a fact of
life the US just had to get used to--he wasn't even sure containment
would ever work against Moscow. He publicly began speaking as if he
believed it were time to end the Cold War. Unilaterally if need be.
Brzezinski had a more hopeful attitude. After all, we know now that he
had Carter agree to secretly funding a US attempt to trigger the
Afghanistan invasion. They were both as surprised as anyone when it
worked. But even Brzezinski wasn't crazy enough to believe once that
invasion/occupation finally ended, so would the CCCP.
The Fall of the Soviet Union ain't called the greatest intelligence
failure in CIA history for nothin'.
> Jimmy Carter wisely vetoed the B-1 bomber and funneled that money into
> stealth aircraft instead. As early as the Nixon administration CIA
> analyses advised that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet
> Union collapsed upon itself.
of time" before the US collapsed upon itself, as well.
That's the nature of a Cold War.
As to your alleged pre-1974 "CIA analysis," I'd be quite interested in
your evidence. Additionally, please show us this report wasn't an
outlier among many other analysis reports predicting just the opposite.
> I knew it was dying when they started
> begging us to sell them wheat in the mid seventies because they could
> no longer feed their own people.
why no one did.
Are you acquainted with even a rudimentary history of the CCCP?
> The images of queues and empty store
> shelves that peppered TV news and visitor reports were also
> indications that long before Reagan came to power, the USSR was
> already terminal.
You realize that foreign journalists weren't allowed to film "long
lines," right? And TASS simply wouldn't film any scenes like that at all
because...well, you know.
There weren't any cell phone cameras, and no YouTube.
They were reports, not tv images. The reports were universally met with
more than a grain of salt.
You might be conflating with the late 1980's, and you're probably
remembering Poland during the Solidarity insurrections and riots.
>
> The Democrats did that, btw.
What do you imagine the Party of Angels did?
> The Democrats did that, btw.
If the Democrats were expecting the Soviet Union to fall as far back as
1974, it's just a little hard to explain Ted Kennedy's secret letter to
Yuri Andropov in 1983, innit?
Why would he attempt to strike a secret deal with Moscow to sabotage
Reagan's anti-Soviet policies, if he believed it was kaput?
Did the Party of Angels believe that appeasement would hasten the
already impending fall?
If that's it, maybe you need to explain it to me, because on the face of
it, there's no discernible sense in there whatsoever.
Certainly not in conjunction with your ridiculously transparent
revisionism.
>
> >After 1985, all of Reagan's budgets were sent to Congress within Gramm-
> >Rudman-Hollings targets (and previous to that as well, as a matter of
> >fact, even before there WAS a Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act).
>
> GRH was a joke then.
It wasn't a joke to me, bub. Congresses have proved, beyond the shadow
> >After 1985, all of Reagan's budgets were sent to Congress within Gramm-
> >Rudman-Hollings targets (and previous to that as well, as a matter of
> >fact, even before there WAS a Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act).
>
> GRH was a joke then.
of a doubt, that they're helpless when it comes to spending excesses.
Not Spending has become the New Third Rail of American Politics, don't
forget.
But G-R-H in its two iterations did turn out to be unconstitutional.
Which I should have perceived.
There's no way to enact a law relieving Congress of its Constitutional
duties. That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
> It's an old joke now. Congress pulled it's
> teeth before they sent it to Reagan to have its throat slit.
>
> >==Begin Quote==
> >
> >Ambulance Delivers The Budget
> >February 06, 1986 (UPI)
> >
> >The 1987 budget may be considered dead on arrival by some critics, but
> >the budget office spoofed that notion Wednesday, delivering copies by
> >ambulance handled by attendants dressed in hospital green.
>
> Political grandstanding of the highest order! Lol!
It was certainly humorous, in an in your face kind of way.
> >==Begin Quote==
> >
> >Ambulance Delivers The Budget
> >February 06, 1986 (UPI)
> >
> >The 1987 budget may be considered dead on arrival by some critics, but
> >the budget office spoofed that notion Wednesday, delivering copies by
> >ambulance handled by attendants dressed in hospital green.
>
> Political grandstanding of the highest order! Lol!
Hard not to admire it.
>
> >It was during Reagan's administration that I first learned of the
> >terms "Continuing Resolution" and "Omnibus Spending Bill," which are
> >prime factors, in conjunction with the 1974 Congressional Budget Act,
> >the deficit was allowed to balloon so alarmingly.
>
> Oopsie! "In the last eight years in which Democrats controlled both
> chambers of Congress (1987-94), there were omnibus bills in just two
> of those years. In the last nine years Republicans have controlled
> both chambers (1995-2000 and 2003-05), there have been seven. "
> http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/omnibus-spending-bills-portend-ominous
> -consequences
I didn't only refer to omnibus spending bills, did I? Let me check. No,
> >It was during Reagan's administration that I first learned of the
> >terms "Continuing Resolution" and "Omnibus Spending Bill," which are
> >prime factors, in conjunction with the 1974 Congressional Budget Act,
> >the deficit was allowed to balloon so alarmingly.
>
> Oopsie! "In the last eight years in which Democrats controlled both
> chambers of Congress (1987-94), there were omnibus bills in just two
> of those years. In the last nine years Republicans have controlled
> both chambers (1995-2000 and 2003-05), there have been seven. "
> http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/omnibus-spending-bills-portend-ominous
> -consequences
I didn't. And the period in question isn't 1987-1994. BTW, do you know
what happened to federal deficit spending during those years "in which
Democrats held both chambers of Congress"?
>
> Hardly a partisan program. If it is, it's not a Democratic one.
Why do you insist on making this discussion partisan?
> Hardly a partisan program. If it is, it's not a Democratic one.
If one didn't know better, one might assume you're emotionally invested
in partisanship or something.
>
> So now we know that Reagan and the GOP "invented" omnibus bills. LOL!
That's an abysmally ignorant statement.
> So now we know that Reagan and the GOP "invented" omnibus bills. LOL!
Tee-hee!
> The eighties deficits bloomed because first Reagan, then Bush colluded
> with Congress to spend. "If you let me spend this, I'll let you spend
> that." All the while misleading the voters by pretending to veto
> excessive spending. Clinton and his Congresses reversed that
> procedure. "If I can't spend this, you can't spend that."
You need to warn me if you're just going to start disassociating
yourself from facts and merely begin spouting incoherent drivel.
Sure, it's typical of Usenet, but I've got a life to lead.
If that's all you got...well, then it is.
>
> >I've even seen where the Democrats claim that in total, Democrat
> >budgets involved less spending than which Reagan requested (which,
> >ironically, doesn't help them avoid their own responsibility for
> >raising the deficits and debt).
>
> Certainly it does. It shows that they were showing at least some
> small modicum of restraint. Reagan acted like a high school boy with
> a case of whiskey and a pocket full of car keys.
Congress wasn't showing restraint. It spent more money every damned year
> >I've even seen where the Democrats claim that in total, Democrat
> >budgets involved less spending than which Reagan requested (which,
> >ironically, doesn't help them avoid their own responsibility for
> >raising the deficits and debt).
>
> Certainly it does. It shows that they were showing at least some
> small modicum of restraint. Reagan acted like a high school boy with
> a case of whiskey and a pocket full of car keys.
than Reagan had requested in his iced budgets.
>
> > The problem here is, of course,
> >Reagan's budgets were on time, i.e., before the beginning of the
> >fiscal. The Democrat budgets were all negotiated well into the fiscal,
> >and sometimes near the end.
>
> As the Republicans do and even more often than the Dems.
Hunh?
> > The problem here is, of course,
> >Reagan's budgets were on time, i.e., before the beginning of the
> >fiscal. The Democrat budgets were all negotiated well into the fiscal,
> >and sometimes near the end.
>
> As the Republicans do and even more often than the Dems.
> That's what
> the omnibus is used for, when the budget process remains incomplete as
> the fy nears its end. Basically as government has grown, a process
> the GOP has done nothing to change, it's having to be dealt with in
> bigger chunks.
2010. Nor is there any negotiation going on.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have EVER been able to stem
the tide of growing government. Now that they've run out of excuses, and
they HAVE to do something, they've become completely paralyzed.
Paralyzed, and yet the deficit spending next year will be 1,100,000
million dollars.
If that's paralyzed, then we're all screwed.
And I can assure you, we are.
> > Their budgets were NEVER on time by any
> >stretch of the imagination, and reflected only a partial year's
> >spending. Most of what they spent was automatic CBA for large swaths
> >of the fiscal.
>
> Standard practice across both parties. There's baseline, inflation
> and auto increasing all playing parts in the budget process.
>
> >BTW, these exact same conditions are why the debt has ballooned so
> >alarmingly during the Obama Administration. Except this time, it's
> >bipartisan. Not one single vote has been offered on either side of the
> >aisle for any of Obama's budgets.
>
> Again, you seem to want to blame Obama for it all.
Hunh? What the hell are you talking about?
> >BTW, these exact same conditions are why the debt has ballooned so
> >alarmingly during the Obama Administration. Except this time, it's
> >bipartisan. Not one single vote has been offered on either side of the
> >aisle for any of Obama's budgets.
>
> Again, you seem to want to blame Obama for it all.
> He inherited that
> enormous deficit.
Am I supposed to ignore that like most ignorant partisans who've no
Constitution?
> When Bush came to town we had a healthy economy, a
> budget surplus and our biggest security concern was keeping former
> Soviet nukes from getting passed out to terrorists
> When he left, we
> had a trillion dollar deficit, the worst economic disaster since 1930,
> the only banking system collapse since the early thirties, two wars,
> one in the wrong country,
> the other one a failure on more levels than
> I care to count, a national reputation more damaged than since Vietnam
> and an electorate so divided that the legislative process has crawled
> to a stop. Any way you slice it that adds up to a republican disaster
> and I'm not at all convinced they can or will fix it.
>
> >At any rate, it's high time the baseline budgeting portions of the CBA
> >be repealed.
>
> Nonsense. They don't call it baseline for nothing. Without baseline
> the entire budget would have to be rewritten every year. You want to
> expand government and inflate the bureaucracy, that's a good way to do
> it.
>
> >> And have you forgotten
> >> that the GOP controlled the Senate during his first term?
> >
> >Of course not. For part of his second, as well. But the Senate wasn't
> >the problem.
>
> They held the Senate for only two years. They took it in 1982 and
> lost it in 1984.
>
> >In order for a budget to become law, it requires more than one house
> >of Congress to pass it.
> >
> >Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
>
> You do when you vote. You've complained about massive spending
Something more than complained, I should think.
> >At any rate, it's high time the baseline budgeting portions of the CBA
> >be repealed.
>
> Nonsense. They don't call it baseline for nothing. Without baseline
> the entire budget would have to be rewritten every year. You want to
> expand government and inflate the bureaucracy, that's a good way to do
> it.
>
> >> And have you forgotten
> >> that the GOP controlled the Senate during his first term?
> >
> >Of course not. For part of his second, as well. But the Senate wasn't
> >the problem.
>
> They held the Senate for only two years. They took it in 1982 and
> lost it in 1984.
>
> >In order for a budget to become law, it requires more than one house
> >of Congress to pass it.
> >
> >Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules.
>
> You do when you vote. You've complained about massive spending
> and
> admitted that the GOP president wanted to spend even more than the Dem
> Congress.
> You've complained about ominbus bills
Budget Act of 1974...yes.
Among many other serious, systemic problems that have enabled my
children's bankruptcy.
> and we see now that
> the process is more often used by Republicans than Democrats.
> As a
> conservative one would expect you to support small government yet here
> you are wanting to institute a policy that would expand the Washington
> bureaucracy.
Did my newsreader hiccup? According to it, you're responding to ME.
Did I inadvertently interrupt a conversation between you and someone
else?
>
> >> And that
> >> the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate during his
> >> administration?
> >>
> >The Senate just wasn't the problem, though Reagan never did have the
> >full support of the Republicans in the Senate by any stretch of the
> >imagination. Believe it or not, there were lots of liberal Republican
> >Senators back then--in fact the Republican Majority Leaders were well-
> >known squishes (Dole and Baker).
>
> He and Obama share that. It was foretold by many that he would have
> more trouble with his own party than the opposition.
Obama has had "trouble" with his own party?
> >> And that
> >> the Dems never had a filibuster proof Senate during his
> >> administration?
> >>
> >The Senate just wasn't the problem, though Reagan never did have the
> >full support of the Republicans in the Senate by any stretch of the
> >imagination. Believe it or not, there were lots of liberal Republican
> >Senators back then--in fact the Republican Majority Leaders were well-
> >known squishes (Dole and Baker).
>
> He and Obama share that. It was foretold by many that he would have
> more trouble with his own party than the opposition.
Holy cow! When did that happen?
> While perhaps
> not technically true, he encountered enough Democratic resistance to
> prevent him from instituting a number of his intentions.
Outlawing coal?
Raising income taxes?
>
> >But it wasn't ever the Senate that was the real problem, obviously.
>
> Certainly taxation rests mostly with the House and Constitutionally so
> does spending. In practice though, the President is as involved in
> both as the House is.
Wellya.
> >But it wasn't ever the Senate that was the real problem, obviously.
>
> Certainly taxation rests mostly with the House and Constitutionally so
> does spending. In practice though, the President is as involved in
> both as the House is.
> The Senate is left to mostly approve or
> disapprove of what the House and Oval Office have worked out with each
> other.
>
> >> Your attempts to blame Reagan's mistakes on the opposition party fall
> >> on deaf ears.
> >
> >Like I was expecting a different result?
>
> Then why did you speak? Truly I do not vote with my heart, I vote
> with my head.
The evidence is mounting that you're either lying to yourself, or to me.
> >> Your attempts to blame Reagan's mistakes on the opposition party fall
> >> on deaf ears.
> >
> >Like I was expecting a different result?
>
> Then why did you speak? Truly I do not vote with my heart, I vote
> with my head.
Not that I give a shit either way.
Why you brought up this, at this juncture, is anyone's guess.
I don't remember even hinting that you didn't "vote with your head."
It never even occurred to me.
> Imo, those who vote based on emotion are making a
> cataclysmic mistake.
If you're serious, why don't we switch to all touchscreen voting. We
could lock out the ballot with a randomly generated quadratic equation.
Solve it, you get to vote.
>
> >> Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
> >> ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
> >
> >When Reagan was sworn into office on January 20th, 1981, the last time
> >the United States federal budget had been balanced was 1969.
>
> And that was the last budget of Democrat Lyndon Johnson and his
> Democratic "War on Poverty" Congress.
Right. Johnson was a financial genius. Instead of having the rich pay
> >> Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that Reagan was an
> >> ineffective leader who was unable to control his own government.
> >
> >When Reagan was sworn into office on January 20th, 1981, the last time
> >the United States federal budget had been balanced was 1969.
>
> And that was the last budget of Democrat Lyndon Johnson and his
> Democratic "War on Poverty" Congress.
for the war (and all the socialist projects he shoved through Congress),
he merely raised taxes and inflated the currency.
The poor man's tax.
"Exploding cost of energy" is a black cow, in a dark basement at
midnight, that isn't actually there after all.
In other words, it might be fun to refer to it, but you'll never put
your finger on it.
Inflation caused high commodity (energy) prices, not the other way
around.
The 1973 Oil Embargo was, at least in part, a defensive move against
America's irresponsible monetary policies.
These policies had all but unraveled Bretton Woods by then.
> Energy underlay our entire economy back
> then and it still does. The result was an increasingly uncontrollable
> inflation.
Or just Walter Cronkite?
> Ford made it still worse by spending enormously in order
> to reduce unemployment.
acknowledged weakest president in US history; On a President who claimed
that America was falling subject to a "Dictatorship of the Legislature."
> He correctly saw that inflation would eat up
> the value of that debt. But by the time Carter was in office, the
> inflation had gotten too severe. As early as 1978 there was talk of
> "hyperinflation" and what it could do to an economy.
But then, irresponsible is a relative term, innit?
Alan Greenspan made the Fed Chairmen of the 1970s seem like Ebenezer
Scrooges.
>
> Where Ford's chief objective had been to reduce unemployment, Carter
> now had to get the resultant inflation down. The primary means used
> was Fed interest rates. By raising them, Volker hoped to reduce the
> money supply.
Heh. "Hoped," like when you twist shut the valve to a water faucet you
> Where Ford's chief objective had been to reduce unemployment, Carter
> now had to get the resultant inflation down. The primary means used
> was Fed interest rates. By raising them, Volker hoped to reduce the
> money supply.
"hope" the flow of water stops.
It's written in rather clear language, and it's pretty easy to grasp. If
you have problems, you can usually find reliable help online at some
accredited websites.
You really don't have any excuses to remain in the dark anymore.
Governor Swill
Aug 25, 2012, 3:46:31 PM8/25/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:24:16 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>You speak so harshly about the Republican beloved St. Reagan, the "Acting
>President"
>After all, look at his accomplishments.
>He started the "Hate American Government" idea that permeates our right
>wing.
No, he didn't. That's been around since George Washington put down
the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
>He started the "spend and borrow" campaign that culminated in the 2008
>crash...when we had to pay the piper.
Actually it was Gerald Ford who first experimented with borrow and
spend.
>Now Republicans have found a way to blame the people working to repair the
>damage!
That's been going on for since 1792
>Whutta hero...!
He made astrology mainstream. Does that count as an accomplishment?
Swill
wrote:
>You speak so harshly about the Republican beloved St. Reagan, the "Acting
>President"
>After all, look at his accomplishments.
>He started the "Hate American Government" idea that permeates our right
>wing.
the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
>He started the "spend and borrow" campaign that culminated in the 2008
>crash...when we had to pay the piper.
spend.
>Now Republicans have found a way to blame the people working to repair the
>damage!
>Whutta hero...!
He made astrology mainstream. Does that count as an accomplishment?
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 25, 2012, 8:39:35 PM8/25/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:59:19 -0500, Neolibertarian
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <brbd38p30dtf2mg87...@4ax.com>,
> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
>> >year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s
>> >spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 —
>> >Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
>> >3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
>>
>> This is the kind of statistical horseshit that disturbs me.
>
>Of course it disturbs you because you were caught not thinking, just
>like a drone.
You will find out differently below. Your above quote is statistical
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <brbd38p30dtf2mg87...@4ax.com>,
> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base
>> >year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s
>> >spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 —
>> >Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is
>> >3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)
>>
>> This is the kind of statistical horseshit that disturbs me.
>
>Of course it disturbs you because you were caught not thinking, just
>like a drone.
horseshit. I thought so when I looked at it, I knew it when I read
the article you referenced and have proven it below. Obama's rate of
spending growth is lower than any President in the Post Truman period.
To bypass the suspense (more detail below):
Here is the list beginning with the number one spending administration
over the past 60 years.
#1 Nixon/Ford spending up 225B, 122.3% increase or 15% avg per year.
#2 Kennedy/Johnson spending up 86B, 88% increase or 11% avg per year.
#3 Carter spending up 359B, 88% increase or 22% avg per year
#4 Bush II spending up 1655B, 88.8% increase or 11% avg per year
#5 Reagan spending up 375B, 49% increase or 6% avg per year
#6 Bush I spending up 266B, 23% increase or 5.8% avg per year
#7 Eisenhower's spending up 22B, a 29% increase or 3.6% avg per year.
(note: Eisenhower is ranked below Bush I because although his total
increase was more, he served twice as many years and had nearly half
the annual rate)
#8 Clinton spending up 454B, 32.2% increase or 4% avg per year
And the President with the lowest spending growth since Truman is, not
surprisingly, Barack Obama whose spending rose 85B, a 2.4% increase or
1.2% avg per year
>It's okay, it happens. Shake it off.
>
>> No
>> comparison is given. So, list the Presidents whose spending growth
>> was lower than Obama's. To start with, you'll eliminate every
>> Republican except, perhaps, Eisenhower.
>
>I know you're completely unaware of it, but the rule is: he who asserts
>must prove.
>
>This is entirely your assertion.
Your source did NOT PROVIDE PROOF that Obama's spending is the lowest
of any president since Eisenhower. I invite everyone to view the
article you cite at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
The article does not show Obama's spending growth. It shows only the
amounts and does not provide the previous administration's spending
for comparison.
NO WHERE IN THIS PIECE DOES IT EVER SHOW OBAMA'S SPENDING GROWTH. Not
in real dollars, not in percent, not as percent of GDP.
It gives Obama's spending in dollars and % of GDP but not the growth.
I repeat, though giving the claim three pinocchios, the author doesn't
give any growth figures for Obama or any other President. This makes
the article extremely misleading.
Even worse, the Post article engages in a bald faced lie. To wit:
" In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S.
economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of
percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the
end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by
Carney."
Carney made no such assertion in his remarks, transcript here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-en-route-colorado-springs-co-523
Btw, the above transcript link is the same one used in the Post Fact
Checker article.
Carney does not ever in the comments the post referenced mention
spending as percent of the economy. Never, not even once. I invite
you to read Carney's remarks and find spending as a percent of GDP.
Here is a statement of great interest. Carney said: "I think it is
often noted, but not enough, that -- I remember the chart, seeing it,
that the -- in the postwar era, the only two Presidents under which
the size of the federal government shrank -- not Reagan, not Nixon,
not Bush or Bush; Clinton and Carter. How could that be? Well, it’s
a fact."
Spending does not always equal growth of the government though it is a
fairly reliable indicator. In any case, as you will see below,
Carter's spending is third highest for the given period so that part
of the above is likely incorrect.
Finding spending growth is simple enough. Compare the total spending
of any President's last FY to the total spending of his predecessor's
last FY. A bit of subtraction gives the dollar increase. Simple
division gives the percent increase and another bit of simple division
gives an annual average rate.
I used the below table to get the total spending figures. Since Mr
Kessler saw fit to reference whitehouse.gov publications, I saw no
reason not to continue to do so.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
I used Truman's last budget as a baseline. The Truman period
shouldn't be counted because the war ended early in his first term and
so there was a massive drop through the post war period. For that
reason, I'm doing this post Truman rather than Post War. I didn't
work out the figures but Truman would be the only President to preside
over spending *reductions*. Except as noted, each year given is the
year a newly elected President was sworn in and also technically the
year of the last budget of his predecessor.
1953 Total Outlays 76B Eisenhower baseline.
This would be Truman's last FY. While there is always discussion
about how much inauguration year spending belongs to which President,
I have for convenience and simplicity assumed for this purpose that it
belongs to the outgoing President. While the incoming President does
have an influence on appropriations, the budget, which is to say
spending plan, has already been set. Further, when you see the
spending growth dollars and percents, you'll see that any argument
about the inauguration year spending is splitting hairs only and would
have a minimal effect on the totals for each President.
I also dispute Kessler's "distribution" of 2009 spending just as I
dispute Obama's responsibilty for "saving Detroit". The auto bail out
was a fait accompli and the checks written before 1/20/09. Just as
Tarp was completed and the checks written before the election. Yes,
all the arrangements were completed by Paulson and Bernanke while Bush
was still President. Therefore I do not credit Obama with any of the
economic disaster spending UNTIL his own stimulus in the first half of
2009.
Also, there is no need for discussion of Congressional responsibility
since the issue has been couched in terms of the Executive in power.
1961 TO 98B Kennedy baseline - giving 1961 to Eisenhower.
1964 TO 119B Johnson succeeds Kennedy.
1969 TO 184B Nixon baseline - Vietnam spending peaks
1974 TO 269B Nixon leaves office, Ford sworn in.
1975 TO 332B 1975 was Ford's first budget as Nixon left office in
August before FY 1975 budget process began.
1977 TO 409B Carter baseline
1981 TO 768B Reagan baseline
1989 TO 1,143 Bush I baseline
1993 TO 1,409B Clinton baseline
2001 TO 1,863B Bush II baseline
2009 TO 3,518B Obama baseline
2011 TO 3,603 The last year for which there is a spending total.
Here is the list beginning with the number one spending administration
over the past 60 years.
#1 Nixon/Ford spending up 225B, 122.3% increase or 15% avg per year.
#2 Kennedy/Johnson spending up 86B, 88% increase or 11% avg per year.
#3 Carter spending up 359B, 88% increase or 22% avg per year
#4 Bush II spending up 1655B, 88.8% increase or 11% avg per year
#5 Reagan spending up 375B, 49% increase or 6% avg per year
#6 Bush I spending up 266B, 23% increase or 5.8% avg per year
#7 Eisenhower's spending up 22B, a 29% increase or 3.6% avg per year.
(note: Eisenhower is ranked below Bush I because although his total
increase was more, he served twice as many years and had nearly half
the annual rate)
#8 Clinton spending up 454B, 32.2% increase or 4% avg per year
And the President with the lowest spending growth since Truman is, not
surprisingly, Barack Obama whose spending rose 85B, a 2.4% increase or
1.2% avg per year
These figures are based on total spending and include off budget as
well as on budget spending. The discussion being about total spending
growth, I've shown the total growth per administration and the average
per year for each administration.
A few notes:
Because this is spending only and does not look at revenue, these
figures don't give much indication of deficits or debt.
For example, even though Kennedy/Johnson spending growth was massive
and taxes went down under Kennedy, the FY 1969 budget balanced.
Some will be surprised to discover that Nixon/Ford tops the list of
spending growth. They will probably begin immediately finding a way
to blame this on the Democrats even though Ford's spending in
particular was deliberately massive and directed by the Executive in
order to combat unemployment.
Because Ford was sworn in August 1974, the 1975, 76 and 77 budgets are
his. For the Nixon/Ford period, most of the spending growth was in
these three of the eight years. Considering that Vietnam began to
wind down in 1971 and ended in 1975, the growth during this period and
especially those three years is all the more shocking.
Kennedy/Johnson came in #2 but they have some excuse. Vietnam was
ramped up during this period. Vietnam spending peaked in 1969 and the
"Great Society" including Medicare and the War on Poverty went into
effect as well. Despite all this, FY 1969 balanced with a Dem
President and a Dem Congress.
Carter gets the #3 spot and we can now see why. Jimmuh followed the
most profligate spenders on the list. He struggled but failed to
control spending in no small part due to the fact that his Dem
Congress had become accustomed to spending lavishly after the
tradition of Gerald Ford.
Our #4 spender, Bush II actually did slightly worse than Carter but
spent twice the time doing it and so has a much lower annual rate.
Governor Swill
Aug 26, 2012, 12:10:03 AM8/26/12
to
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
The list starts on page 32. Have fun!
Here's the Reader's Digest version from another post.
The years are inauguration years positing that year's budget as the
last one of the outgoing President.
1953 Total Outlays 76B Eisenhower baseline
1961 Total Outlays 98B Kennedy baseline
(98B minus 76B equals Eisenhower's budget increase)
1964 TO 119B Johnson succeeds Kennedy.
1969 TO 184B Nixon baseline - Kennedy/Johnson administration ends -
Vietnam spending peaks
1974 TO 269B Nixon leaves office, Ford sworn in.
1975 TO 332B 1975 was Ford's first budget as Nixon left office in
August before FY 1975 budget process began.
1977 TO 409B Carter baseline
1981 TO 768B Reagan baseline
1989 TO 1,143 Bush I baseline
1993 TO 1,409B Clinton baseline
2001 TO 1,863B Bush II baseline
2009 TO 3,518B Obama baseline
2011 TO 3,603 The last year for which there is a spending total.
Here is the list beginning with the number one spending administration
over the past 60 years.
#1 Nixon/Ford spending up 225B, 122.3% increase or 15% avg per year.
This is also the *proof* you requested for my claim that budget
1974 TO 269B Nixon leaves office, Ford sworn in.
1975 TO 332B 1975 was Ford's first budget as Nixon left office in
August before FY 1975 budget process began.
1977 TO 409B Carter baseline
1981 TO 768B Reagan baseline
1989 TO 1,143 Bush I baseline
1993 TO 1,409B Clinton baseline
2001 TO 1,863B Bush II baseline
2009 TO 3,518B Obama baseline
2011 TO 3,603 The last year for which there is a spending total.
Here is the list beginning with the number one spending administration
over the past 60 years.
#1 Nixon/Ford spending up 225B, 122.3% increase or 15% avg per year.
deficits and debt were major issues in the 1976 Presidential campaign.
Nixon/Ford had more than doubled the budget in only eight years.
#2 Kennedy/Johnson spending up 86B, 88% increase or 11% avg per year.
his Great Society. Btw, his last budget for FY 1969 actually returned
a small surplus.
#3 Carter spending up 359B, 88% increase or 22% avg per year
inertia in only four years.
#4 Bush II spending up 1655B, 88.8% increase or 11% avg per year
two wars not only on the credit card but off budget myriad other
spending outlets nearly doubled the federal budget again. This is the
mess Obama inherited. Double digit spending increases every year.
#5 Reagan spending up 375B, 49% increase or 6% avg per year
Carter. It was those huge 1982 tax cuts and the 1982 recession it
took three years to fix (and only then with help from OPEC) that added
to his spending increases to cause a debt growth unequalled by any
other administration. Btw, Reagan spent his second term rescinding
those tax cuts only he called them "revenue enhancements". Reagan's
continual second term tax increases were *why* Poppy uttered his
famous "read my lips" speech at the 1988 convention.
#6 Bush I spending up 266B, 23% increase or 5.8% avg per year
conservatives from both sides of the aisle. His spending was so
horrific that Dems and fiscally conservative Republicans (the existed
then, not sure about now) joined together to force him to renege on
his 'no new taxes' pledge.
#7 Eisenhower's spending up 22B, a 29% increase or 3.6% avg per year.
(note: Eisenhower is ranked below Bush I because although his total
the annual rate) Considering that Ike ended a war that was in full
swing when he took office it's difficult to justify his spending
increases. Maybe it was that nasty 1958 recession? Probably not
worth researching at this late date.
#8 Clinton spending up 454B, 32.2% increase or 4% avg per year
Clinton's total increase and annual rate were both higher than Ike's.
Nobody's perfect and I might as well own up to the error; not that it
matters for the purpose of this discussion. Then again, maybe Clinton
should get a break because HE BALANCED THREE BUDGETS.
And the President with the lowest spending growth since Truman is, not
surprisingly, Barack Obama whose spending rose 85B, a 2.4% increase or
1.2% avg per year
These figures are based on total spending and include off budget
spending. The discussion being about total spending growth, I've
shown the total growth per administration and the average
per year for each administration.
Through all that you'll notice that spending growth doesn't always
shown the total growth per administration and the average
per year for each administration.
equal debt growth. Revenues and borrowing costs come into play and
are unlikely to be the only factors.
>> >By the way, since you've conveniently listed them, you should be able
>> >to point to the year[s] that Reagan's budgets DIDN'T arrive at the
>> >House "DOA."
>>
>> Why would I do that? It's irrelevant. He signed the budgets and
>> agreed to the allocations that tripled the national debt in 8 years.
>> It doesn't matter whether those budgets were his or the Congress's.
>> The signature at the bottom was Ronald Reagan's. And lest you go on
>> some tear about him being forced to sign, I call BS.
>
>You must not have been paying much attention back in those days, but
>surely you've seen the latest chapters in that age old game.
to trot out the old "he signed it so it's his responsibility" whenever
Congress passed a law the libs didn't like. Where do you think I
learned that trick?
>You know, the old "The Government is going to default" ploy. Grandma's
>not going to get her Social Security check in the mail. No more postal
>deliveries. No more scientific discoveries will be made. Thousands of
>bureaucrats laid off. And it will ALL BE YOUR FAULT.
couple of years ago stating that Obama was "threatening" to stop SS
payments and military paychecks. It was bullshit of course. It
creatively referenced a speech he made in prime time stating that the
public needed to write their Congress critters and tell them to extend
the debt ceiling so the government could continue to pay it's bills.
he warned that SS benefit checks, military and other government
paychecks would start bouncing if the cash wasn't in the bank.
See how that works? The president warns the country of a danger and
some partisan stooge recast it as a "threat".
Funny the debt ceiling was raised without debate every year when the
GOP held the Congress and White House. Not until there was a Dem
president and Congress did the GOP start complaining about government
spending.
>Congress spent more, Reagan requested less. And you want me to believe
>that that's Reagan's responsibility, because, you know, the Constitution
>set up the Presidency to be a dictatorship and all.
and their double standards. It's perfectly ok if *my* side does it,
but *your* team isn't allowed to. The President gets the blame for
what Congress *cough* forces him to do.
Get real. Reagan had a reputation for borrowing and spending that
bankrupted California. He couldn't spend fast enough. Especially on
weapons.
>Despite their demagoguery, Reagan knew that not to sign a budget was
>worse than signing un unbalanced one.
whatever his Congress told him to. See, that's why Republicans need
to stop crediting Reagan with the good stuff from the eighties. He
was totally unable to lead and get his own way, therefore all that
stuff must have been due to his all powerful Democratic Congress.
You can't have it both ways. The Cold War was won before Reagan ran
for President the first time. The cycle of inflation fueled
recession/stagnation/unemployment that had plagued the nation since
1971 ended because the Arabs cut oil prices by two thirds more than
for any other reason. The alleged 'Reagan Prosperity' of the eighties
is a myth. It was a time of global prosperity. China and all of
western Europe went into a boom as the USSR continued it's slow
collapse. Even in South America economies stabilized. Brazil, for
example, had begun it's massive investments in ethanol, agriculture
and industry during the hard times seventies. In the eighties the
hard times were over and in another decade Brazil would become a
sparkling jewel of economic growth joining India and others former
third worlders into global economic powerhouses.
My point is that Reagan is credited with too much and blamed for too
little.
>As you can clearly see today, it's far more expensive to the American
>People to run the government without a budget, than to pass and sign a
>bad budget.
The fact that no new budget has been created has held down spending
because it's prevented Congress and the President from finding new
ways to spend.
>> Back in the day when I told friends I was voting for Reagan in 1980 I
>> was admonished by a few who pointed to his heavy borrowing and
>> spending while Governor of California.
>
>Your friends must have been the kind of people who'd run out on the
>track during the Indy 500 to issue a speeding ticket to a single car.
in '72. I only voted for Carter in '76 because I was pissed at Nixon
for being paranoid, Ford for spending the country into bankruptcy and
besides, being a Georgian, Jimmuh was a favorite son and had been a
popular governor. In 1980, 84 and 88 I'd returned to the Republican
fold.
>> That borrowing and spending
>> put the state deeply into the red and led directly to Proposition 13.
>> Too bad I ignored their timely advice.
>
>Logic was removed from the curriculum at your peril.
but it might have mattered if the Dems had had the good sense to
widely publicize Reagan's terrifying fiscal record as Governor of
California. Maybe enough other folks would have voted for Carter to
spare us the destruction of Reaganomics, or as Poppy Bush called it,
"voodoo economics".
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 26, 2012, 12:12:44 AM8/26/12
to
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 01:28:12 -0500, "Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:
>> Same here. Hindsight is 20/20 and the most amazing thing to me is how
>> quickly the social conservative right embraced a divorced Hollywood
>> actor to defeat a Sunday school teacher.
>
>
> A side-effect of 'democracy' is that the bread and
> circuses MUST keep coming - whether they're actually
> affordable or warranted or not.
>
> Reagan got elected because he promised endless bread
> and circuses ... just don't ask where the money came
> from.
>
> This is a systemic problem with "popularity"-based
> political systems. The electorate is always very
> myopic ... and if Leader-A will make tomorrow seem
> better (to HELL with the day AFTER tomorrow) then
> they'll support Leader-A.
Very astute. That's the reason our entitlements are out of control,
half of us make voting decisions based on ten second sound bites and
our "gut feelings" while the other half don't vote at all and why we
have 500+ available TV channels to watch.
Swill
wrote:
>> Same here. Hindsight is 20/20 and the most amazing thing to me is how
>> quickly the social conservative right embraced a divorced Hollywood
>> actor to defeat a Sunday school teacher.
>
>
> A side-effect of 'democracy' is that the bread and
> circuses MUST keep coming - whether they're actually
> affordable or warranted or not.
>
> Reagan got elected because he promised endless bread
> and circuses ... just don't ask where the money came
> from.
>
> This is a systemic problem with "popularity"-based
> political systems. The electorate is always very
> myopic ... and if Leader-A will make tomorrow seem
> better (to HELL with the day AFTER tomorrow) then
> they'll support Leader-A.
half of us make voting decisions based on ten second sound bites and
our "gut feelings" while the other half don't vote at all and why we
have 500+ available TV channels to watch.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 26, 2012, 12:14:51 AM8/26/12
to
the most intelligent foreign policy since Kissinger retired.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 26, 2012, 12:16:02 AM8/26/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:02:00 -0400, ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>> > the mistakes of
>> > George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>> Gawd, I hope so. What I fear is they might repeat all the mistakes of
>> Hussein Obama.
>> snicker
>
>Amazing. Four years later, and they are still running against George
>Bush.
No, after four years they're running against a return to failed
>> > If Republicans are elected, it appears to me they will repeat all of
>> > the mistakes of
>> > George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
>> Gawd, I hope so. What I fear is they might repeat all the mistakes of
>> Hussein Obama.
>> snicker
>
>Amazing. Four years later, and they are still running against George
>Bush.
Republican economic, military and diplomatic policies.
Reagan and the Bushes are cited as examples of the breed.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 26, 2012, 12:30:12 AM8/26/12
to
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:12:17 -0400, Harold Burton
<hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>
>> 1) Your a liar
No he's not. Carter increased the debt from 699B to 998B in four
<hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >The national debt increased every year of the Carter administration.
>>
>> 1) Your a liar
years.
>> 2) Reagan more than tripled the national debt.
tripling it.
Federal Debt
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
>And the Current Resident topped that!
predecessor by only 2.4%.
Clinton's last year spent 1.9T and had a surplus in excess of 100B.
Bush's last year spent 3.5T and had a deficit of over 1T.
Obama's last ytd spent 3.6T with a deficit of over 1T.
Obama has not decreased spending or the deficit, but he has stopped
both dead in their tracks.
Or maybe you think we should go back to borrowing to pay for massive
spending increases like Bush, Bush's daddy, Reagan, Ford and Nixon
did?
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 26, 2012, 2:58:37 AM8/26/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:32:28 GMT, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
<ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote:
>Clinton knows just what a woman who has been raped should do. As he told
>Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back,
>"You better get some ice on that."
Lol!
<ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote:
>Clinton knows just what a woman who has been raped should do. As he told
>Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back,
>"You better get some ice on that."
Swill
Neolibertarian
Aug 26, 2012, 11:15:36 AM8/26/12
to
In article <tuai38573f93dm2gm...@4ax.com>,
I applaud that you stepped up to the plate and conformed to the
universal rule of logical discussion: "He who asserts must prove." I
think you have presented a reasonable rebuttal. However, the following
issues have been conspicuously ignored:
1)
It's an amazing non sequitur to attribute spending after 2009 to the
President (with one major exception we needn't get into).
2)
But even so, we can see that in 2009 he had his fingerprints all over a
much larger increase than you're prepared to acknowledge. This was
Kessler's primary argument, and you haven't addressed it at all:
In February of 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act into law. He had been personally involved in
negotiating this bill, even before he was sworn in. Total spending for
the bill is estimated to be over $800 billion.
Only about $450 billion of this was spent in 2009, but I think you can
see this single bill already blows "$85 billion" (which you gleaned from
the OMB figures) to smithereens.
Additionally, he can hardly claim (though he does so constantly, even
today) that he "inherited" the TARP bill of 2008. Not only did Senator
and Presidential Candidate Obama vote for it, he did so to flashing
cameras and saturation publicity. It's amazing that he so cavalierly
counts on mass amnesia when he speaks of inheriting it, and it's even
more amazing that he's been proved justified in doing so.
TARP also blows "$85 billion" to smithereens.
In March he signed the Omnibus Spending bill, which everyone, including
President Obama, publicly stated was weighted down with too much
pointless, excessive spending and "pork." It seemed President Dubya had
left portions of his last budget unpaid for, and it required an Omnibus
to finish it out.
Well, it got paid for, alright; and how!
That said, I realize now that I shouldn't have been flip when I
explained the meaning of "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
You need to at least understand /that/ before any fruitful conversation
can follow.
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in Latin actually means: "after this,
therefore /because/ of this." In other words, A occurs before B,
therefore A is the cause of B.
This would be false reasoning because there is no cause and effect shown.
Let's say you wake up one morning and you can't find your lucky 50 cent
piece. You look all over the house, tearing it apart. You have to cut
short your frantic search in order to get to work on time. When you
arrive at the office, you find a pink slip on your desk. Now, it would
obviously be faulty reasoning to suppose that losing your lucky coin
caused you to be laid off.
That kind of post hoc fallacy is easy to see through, right? But what
about this:
You load Microsoft Office onto your computer. The next day when you
start up your computer, it crashes. It would be false reasoning to
conclude that loading Microsoft Office caused your computer to crash.
Can you see why?
Our line of discussion began when you repeated Nutting's/Carney's
insupportable claim: "Obama's spending growth rate is the lowest of any
administration since WWII." In other, related posts in this thread,
other related issues have been brought up--all involving this post hoc
fallacy. I'm combining all of these related posts here, in what we might
call an Omnibus Post :-)
I realize you've been subject all your life to members of Congress
blatantly dodging their responsibilities and shifting blame. Their guilt
avoidance has been reinforced in the press and by countless political
spokesmen and pundits on all sides of the aisle.
You've bought into it because you've never actually concerned yourself
with the nuts and bolts: and why should you have? You've had a busy
life, and so have I. As long as they didn't dig too deep into our back
pockets, why bother?
Those carefree days are over for you and I, brother.
According to my Constitution, it's exceedingly clear which branch of
government is responsible for all taxing, borrowing and spending:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States..."
That's all.
No where in my Constitution does it mention that any of this
responsibility might reside with the Executive. It's seems obvious the
framers wanted the president to be somewhat of a beggar--that if he
wanted money spent, he would have to convince Congress of the necessity
first.
Veto and signature were his only tools. And a veto can be overridden,
and a lack of a signature can easily be demagogued against him. Not
sighing may only provide a temporary block.
The President was not required to submit a budget proposal to Congress
until Warren Harding's administration. Harding, something of a
technocrat, worked to pass the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. This
consolidated the budget into a single entity which could then move
through Congress as a unified package. It's the BAA that requires the
President to present a budget request to Congress.
In no way is Congress legally or Constitutionally obligated to even
entertain the executive's budget request. However, in the main, a budget
request has already been negotiated with Congress before the President
submits it. Likewise, if the passed budget is different from the
President's, this is usually the result of subsequent negotiations
between the executive and Congress, as well.
The President generally has to sign it for it to become law.
You may have been previously aware of some or all of the above, but
these facts had to be stated clearly so that we can have a fruitful
discussion.
No President since Washington has been responsible for federal spending.
None. The BAA didn't change that, and nothing else since 1921 has ever
changed that. I couldn't care less how many reporters, journalists,
pundits or politicians claim Administration X is "responsible" for the
federal spending which occurred during the years of that administration.
Every pundit and Usenet poster in the world could claim that, day in and
day out, and it /still/ wouldn't make it any less false.
Certainly, some Presidents have influenced spending; some have not.
Still others to varying degrees. But beyond the shadow of a doubt,
responsibility for any particular budget rests with the House of
Representatives, the Senate, and the President of the United States. No
budget has ever become law without all three.
If you insist on a partisan bias to your post hoc fallacy, then you
should at least show the following data for each Congressional Session
for the years in question:
A) Party affiliation of the executive, B) party majority in the House,
and C) party majority in the Senate. Just showing party affiliation for
one of those three entities would make any conclusion you might draw
false and misleading, prima facie.
ignored. You merely repeated Nutting's mistakes.
I've presented strong evidence indicating Kessler's objections are quite
valid.
In order for an assertion to be valid, it must first answer objections,
not ignore them.
>
> The article does not show Obama's spending growth. It shows only the
> amounts and does not provide the previous administration's spending
> for comparison.
> NO WHERE IN THIS PIECE DOES IT EVER SHOW OBAMA'S SPENDING GROWTH. Not
> in real dollars, not in percent, not as percent of GDP.
2010, 2011 and 2012 are unique exceptions in American history. Spending
occurring during those years does not carry the executive's signature.
There is absolutely no shred of evidence suggesting any of that spending
can be attributed to President Obama.
> It gives Obama's spending in dollars and % of GDP but not the growth.
>
> I repeat, though giving the claim three pinocchios, the author doesn't
> give any growth figures for Obama or any other President. This makes
> the article extremely misleading.
Any comparison with other presidents would be misleading, which is
explicitly stated. Kessler merely ran a few of the numbers for Ss & Gs.
That fact alone (that the Obama administration can be considered
responsible for /any/ spending after 2009) earns Carney/Nutting three
pinocchios.
unadjusted dollars. Insidious inflationary monetary practices are a fact
of life.
In lieu of adjusted dollars, the only reliable (incomplete but not
misleading) alternative is to use the percentage of GDP.
But Kessler is not using OMB numbers here. Even so, OMB shows 2009 as
being a record high of 37.1%--surpassing all previous record highs.
administrations. It's never shrunk since the WWII demobilization.
Carney's deceiving again.
metric...unless one is pushing an agenda.
> In any case, as you will see below,
> Carter's spending is third highest for the given period so that part
> of the above is likely incorrect.
We don't need to proceed down that post hoc fallacy any further.
Party affiliation, and configuration of party configuration don't even
have the correlation you've been claiming (when you examined only the
executive branch). But the correlation isn't cause, anyway.
universal rule of logical discussion: "He who asserts must prove." I
think you have presented a reasonable rebuttal. However, the following
issues have been conspicuously ignored:
1)
It's an amazing non sequitur to attribute spending after 2009 to the
President (with one major exception we needn't get into).
2)
But even so, we can see that in 2009 he had his fingerprints all over a
much larger increase than you're prepared to acknowledge. This was
Kessler's primary argument, and you haven't addressed it at all:
In February of 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act into law. He had been personally involved in
negotiating this bill, even before he was sworn in. Total spending for
the bill is estimated to be over $800 billion.
Only about $450 billion of this was spent in 2009, but I think you can
see this single bill already blows "$85 billion" (which you gleaned from
the OMB figures) to smithereens.
Additionally, he can hardly claim (though he does so constantly, even
today) that he "inherited" the TARP bill of 2008. Not only did Senator
and Presidential Candidate Obama vote for it, he did so to flashing
cameras and saturation publicity. It's amazing that he so cavalierly
counts on mass amnesia when he speaks of inheriting it, and it's even
more amazing that he's been proved justified in doing so.
TARP also blows "$85 billion" to smithereens.
In March he signed the Omnibus Spending bill, which everyone, including
President Obama, publicly stated was weighted down with too much
pointless, excessive spending and "pork." It seemed President Dubya had
left portions of his last budget unpaid for, and it required an Omnibus
to finish it out.
Well, it got paid for, alright; and how!
That said, I realize now that I shouldn't have been flip when I
explained the meaning of "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
You need to at least understand /that/ before any fruitful conversation
can follow.
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in Latin actually means: "after this,
therefore /because/ of this." In other words, A occurs before B,
therefore A is the cause of B.
This would be false reasoning because there is no cause and effect shown.
Let's say you wake up one morning and you can't find your lucky 50 cent
piece. You look all over the house, tearing it apart. You have to cut
short your frantic search in order to get to work on time. When you
arrive at the office, you find a pink slip on your desk. Now, it would
obviously be faulty reasoning to suppose that losing your lucky coin
caused you to be laid off.
That kind of post hoc fallacy is easy to see through, right? But what
about this:
You load Microsoft Office onto your computer. The next day when you
start up your computer, it crashes. It would be false reasoning to
conclude that loading Microsoft Office caused your computer to crash.
Can you see why?
Our line of discussion began when you repeated Nutting's/Carney's
insupportable claim: "Obama's spending growth rate is the lowest of any
administration since WWII." In other, related posts in this thread,
other related issues have been brought up--all involving this post hoc
fallacy. I'm combining all of these related posts here, in what we might
call an Omnibus Post :-)
I realize you've been subject all your life to members of Congress
blatantly dodging their responsibilities and shifting blame. Their guilt
avoidance has been reinforced in the press and by countless political
spokesmen and pundits on all sides of the aisle.
You've bought into it because you've never actually concerned yourself
with the nuts and bolts: and why should you have? You've had a busy
life, and so have I. As long as they didn't dig too deep into our back
pockets, why bother?
Those carefree days are over for you and I, brother.
According to my Constitution, it's exceedingly clear which branch of
government is responsible for all taxing, borrowing and spending:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States..."
That's all.
No where in my Constitution does it mention that any of this
responsibility might reside with the Executive. It's seems obvious the
framers wanted the president to be somewhat of a beggar--that if he
wanted money spent, he would have to convince Congress of the necessity
first.
Veto and signature were his only tools. And a veto can be overridden,
and a lack of a signature can easily be demagogued against him. Not
sighing may only provide a temporary block.
The President was not required to submit a budget proposal to Congress
until Warren Harding's administration. Harding, something of a
technocrat, worked to pass the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. This
consolidated the budget into a single entity which could then move
through Congress as a unified package. It's the BAA that requires the
President to present a budget request to Congress.
In no way is Congress legally or Constitutionally obligated to even
entertain the executive's budget request. However, in the main, a budget
request has already been negotiated with Congress before the President
submits it. Likewise, if the passed budget is different from the
President's, this is usually the result of subsequent negotiations
between the executive and Congress, as well.
The President generally has to sign it for it to become law.
You may have been previously aware of some or all of the above, but
these facts had to be stated clearly so that we can have a fruitful
discussion.
No President since Washington has been responsible for federal spending.
None. The BAA didn't change that, and nothing else since 1921 has ever
changed that. I couldn't care less how many reporters, journalists,
pundits or politicians claim Administration X is "responsible" for the
federal spending which occurred during the years of that administration.
Every pundit and Usenet poster in the world could claim that, day in and
day out, and it /still/ wouldn't make it any less false.
Certainly, some Presidents have influenced spending; some have not.
Still others to varying degrees. But beyond the shadow of a doubt,
responsibility for any particular budget rests with the House of
Representatives, the Senate, and the President of the United States. No
budget has ever become law without all three.
If you insist on a partisan bias to your post hoc fallacy, then you
should at least show the following data for each Congressional Session
for the years in question:
A) Party affiliation of the executive, B) party majority in the House,
and C) party majority in the Senate. Just showing party affiliation for
one of those three entities would make any conclusion you might draw
false and misleading, prima facie.
>
> >It's okay, it happens. Shake it off.
> >
> >> No
> >> comparison is given. So, list the Presidents whose spending growth
> >> was lower than Obama's. To start with, you'll eliminate every
> >> Republican except, perhaps, Eisenhower.
> >
> >I know you're completely unaware of it, but the rule is: he who asserts
> >must prove.
> >
> >This is entirely your assertion.
>
> It is not my assertion except in this forum.
Completely non sequitur.
> >It's okay, it happens. Shake it off.
> >
> >> No
> >> comparison is given. So, list the Presidents whose spending growth
> >> was lower than Obama's. To start with, you'll eliminate every
> >> Republican except, perhaps, Eisenhower.
> >
> >I know you're completely unaware of it, but the rule is: he who asserts
> >must prove.
> >
> >This is entirely your assertion.
>
> It is not my assertion except in this forum.
>
> Your source did NOT PROVIDE PROOF that Obama's spending is the lowest
> of any president since Eisenhower. I invite everyone to view the
> article you cite at:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-grow
> th-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
It provided objections to Nutting's methods and data points, which you
> Your source did NOT PROVIDE PROOF that Obama's spending is the lowest
> of any president since Eisenhower. I invite everyone to view the
> article you cite at:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-grow
> th-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
ignored. You merely repeated Nutting's mistakes.
I've presented strong evidence indicating Kessler's objections are quite
valid.
In order for an assertion to be valid, it must first answer objections,
not ignore them.
>
> The article does not show Obama's spending growth. It shows only the
> amounts and does not provide the previous administration's spending
> for comparison.
> NO WHERE IN THIS PIECE DOES IT EVER SHOW OBAMA'S SPENDING GROWTH. Not
> in real dollars, not in percent, not as percent of GDP.
occurring during those years does not carry the executive's signature.
There is absolutely no shred of evidence suggesting any of that spending
can be attributed to President Obama.
> It gives Obama's spending in dollars and % of GDP but not the growth.
>
> I repeat, though giving the claim three pinocchios, the author doesn't
> give any growth figures for Obama or any other President. This makes
> the article extremely misleading.
explicitly stated. Kessler merely ran a few of the numbers for Ss & Gs.
That fact alone (that the Obama administration can be considered
responsible for /any/ spending after 2009) earns Carney/Nutting three
pinocchios.
>
> Even worse, the Post article engages in a bald faced lie. To wit:
> " In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S.
> economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of
> percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the
> end of World War II � completely the opposite of the point asserted by
> Carney."
>
> Carney made no such assertion in his remarks, transcript here:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/press-gaggle-press-secre
> tary-jay-carney-en-route-colorado-springs-co-523
Well, Carney, like you, have been attempting to mislead by using
> Even worse, the Post article engages in a bald faced lie. To wit:
> " In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S.
> economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of
> percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the
> end of World War II � completely the opposite of the point asserted by
> Carney."
>
> Carney made no such assertion in his remarks, transcript here:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/press-gaggle-press-secre
> tary-jay-carney-en-route-colorado-springs-co-523
unadjusted dollars. Insidious inflationary monetary practices are a fact
of life.
In lieu of adjusted dollars, the only reliable (incomplete but not
misleading) alternative is to use the percentage of GDP.
But Kessler is not using OMB numbers here. Even so, OMB shows 2009 as
being a record high of 37.1%--surpassing all previous record highs.
>
> Btw, the above transcript link is the same one used in the Post Fact
> Checker article.
>
> Carney does not ever in the comments the post referenced mention
> spending as percent of the economy. Never, not even once. I invite
> you to read Carney's remarks and find spending as a percent of GDP.
Are you saying he tried to deceive us by excluding them?
> Btw, the above transcript link is the same one used in the Post Fact
> Checker article.
>
> Carney does not ever in the comments the post referenced mention
> spending as percent of the economy. Never, not even once. I invite
> you to read Carney's remarks and find spending as a percent of GDP.
>
> Here is a statement of great interest. Carney said: "I think it is
> often noted, but not enough, that -- I remember the chart, seeing it,
> that the -- in the postwar era, the only two Presidents under which
> the size of the federal government shrank -- not Reagan, not Nixon,
> not Bush or Bush; Clinton and Carter. How could that be? Well, it�s
> a fact."
"The size of government" didn't shrink during the Carter or Clinton
> Here is a statement of great interest. Carney said: "I think it is
> often noted, but not enough, that -- I remember the chart, seeing it,
> that the -- in the postwar era, the only two Presidents under which
> the size of the federal government shrank -- not Reagan, not Nixon,
> not Bush or Bush; Clinton and Carter. How could that be? Well, it�s
> a fact."
administrations. It's never shrunk since the WWII demobilization.
Carney's deceiving again.
>
> Spending does not always equal growth of the government though it is a
> fairly reliable indicator.
It's not reliable, and it's unnecessary to limit yourself to that single
> Spending does not always equal growth of the government though it is a
> fairly reliable indicator.
metric...unless one is pushing an agenda.
> In any case, as you will see below,
> Carter's spending is third highest for the given period so that part
> of the above is likely incorrect.
Party affiliation, and configuration of party configuration don't even
have the correlation you've been claiming (when you examined only the
executive branch). But the correlation isn't cause, anyway.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
Aug 26, 2012, 12:08:57 PM8/26/12
to
Governor Swill
recount the best of his one liners at
their convention to illustrate to the
constituency what their objectives TRUELY are...
LOOPTRACK FOR THE LIB CONFAB::
If a President of the United States
ever lied to the American people he should resign.
-- William J. Clinton, 1974
The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people"
Clinton'93.
We can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve
the rights of ordinary Americans..."
Arch-traitor Bill Clinton'93
to leave now we would send a message to terrorists and other
potential adversaries around the world that they can change our
policies by killing our people. It would be open season on Americans.
-- Bill Clinton'93, just before he pulled out of Somalia
"The Road to Tyranny begins with the Destruction of the Truth".
-- Bill Clinton'95.
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
-- Bill Clinton'98
� � "I am not a great man,
� � �I am a failure, and you have made me one."
� � � � -- Clinton'01
US pre-eminence won't last
-- Clinton'02
Our Mission in this century is clear.
For Good or ILL we live in an interdependant World...
-- Bill Clinton'04
Q: Which did HE chose?
"Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections
since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997)......
In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds
to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world
I can say that about, certainly not my own.�
-- Bill Clinton'05
"You have to learn to look in the mirror and say,
'What am I honestly good at..."
-- Clinton'05
Palestinians elected Hamas because they promised
to make the buses run on time.
-- Clinton'06
I tried to represent a better America when I was president.
But now I don't have to...
-- Bill Clinton'06
It would be wrong to cut off contact with the terror group just because
they may have killed people "in a way that we hate."
-- Bill Clinton'06
"We'll actually have to work very hard to kill
as many people in the 21st century.
What's the difference?
This time, you think the victim could be you,"
Clinton'07
Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for support
-- Bill Clinton'08
"This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I�ve ever seen."
-- Arch-Traitor BILL CLINTON'08 on OBAMA...
"Next year, you and I and everybody else will be freer
and have more space to say what we believe to be the truth"
-- CLINTON'08, w/emphasis on 'BELIEVE'...
"We have a simpler, clearer path to the future
than we did when I was there"
Bill Clinton'09
"Look at the liars and the propagandists among us"
-- Bill Clinton'09
"I came here, more than anything else, to say 'Thank You.'"
Bill Clinton'09 at OKC memorial.
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton, for being there,
at the Pinnacle of our Civilization to PISS IT ALL AWAY.
"I found Rahm. I created him. I made him what he is today."
-- Bill Clinton'10
"Keep in mind that every dollar we waste today puts a life at risk"
-- Bill Clinton'10 barely containing a Chuckle
"I got into politics because I didn't want to work very hard"
-- Clinton'11
"I have never met a poor Palestinian in the United States."
Clinton'12
LIBs. What PRICE their Vision?
---
THIS Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/117871.gif
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/109562.jpg
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/100294.jpg
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/420.jpg
HIS LEGACY: Something about His Mom, and a Cigar.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1847723,00.html
Putting Bill Clinton On the Couch
Monica Lewinsky represented something very important to Clinton
psychologically. She looked like his mother, Virginia, who had
recently died. Clinton kept saying how much she reminded him of
his mother.
Monica kept saying she felt like she was having a relationship with a
lost little boy. This is the President of the United States. She was an
intern. Yet she felt maternal in her relationship with him.
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:32:28 GMT, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>>Clinton knows just what a woman who has been raped should do. As he told
>>Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back,
>>"You better get some ice on that."
>
> Lol!
All LIBs need to do is have Clinton
>>Juanita Broaddrick in that Little Rock hotel room some years back,
>>"You better get some ice on that."
>
> Lol!
recount the best of his one liners at
their convention to illustrate to the
constituency what their objectives TRUELY are...
LOOPTRACK FOR THE LIB CONFAB::
If a President of the United States
ever lied to the American people he should resign.
-- William J. Clinton, 1974
The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people"
Clinton'93.
We can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve
the rights of ordinary Americans..."
Arch-traitor Bill Clinton'93
to leave now we would send a message to terrorists and other
potential adversaries around the world that they can change our
policies by killing our people. It would be open season on Americans.
-- Bill Clinton'93, just before he pulled out of Somalia
"The Road to Tyranny begins with the Destruction of the Truth".
-- Bill Clinton'95.
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
-- Bill Clinton'98
� � "I am not a great man,
� � �I am a failure, and you have made me one."
� � � � -- Clinton'01
US pre-eminence won't last
-- Clinton'02
Our Mission in this century is clear.
For Good or ILL we live in an interdependant World...
-- Bill Clinton'04
Q: Which did HE chose?
"Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections
since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997)......
In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds
to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world
I can say that about, certainly not my own.�
-- Bill Clinton'05
"You have to learn to look in the mirror and say,
'What am I honestly good at..."
-- Clinton'05
to make the buses run on time.
-- Clinton'06
I tried to represent a better America when I was president.
But now I don't have to...
-- Bill Clinton'06
It would be wrong to cut off contact with the terror group just because
they may have killed people "in a way that we hate."
-- Bill Clinton'06
"We'll actually have to work very hard to kill
as many people in the 21st century.
What's the difference?
This time, you think the victim could be you,"
Clinton'07
Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for support
-- Bill Clinton'08
"This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I�ve ever seen."
-- Arch-Traitor BILL CLINTON'08 on OBAMA...
"Next year, you and I and everybody else will be freer
and have more space to say what we believe to be the truth"
-- CLINTON'08, w/emphasis on 'BELIEVE'...
"We have a simpler, clearer path to the future
than we did when I was there"
Bill Clinton'09
"Look at the liars and the propagandists among us"
-- Bill Clinton'09
"I came here, more than anything else, to say 'Thank You.'"
Bill Clinton'09 at OKC memorial.
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton, for being there,
at the Pinnacle of our Civilization to PISS IT ALL AWAY.
"I found Rahm. I created him. I made him what he is today."
-- Bill Clinton'10
"Keep in mind that every dollar we waste today puts a life at risk"
-- Bill Clinton'10 barely containing a Chuckle
"I got into politics because I didn't want to work very hard"
-- Clinton'11
"I have never met a poor Palestinian in the United States."
Clinton'12
LIBs. What PRICE their Vision?
---
THIS Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/117871.gif
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/109562.jpg
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/100294.jpg
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/420.jpg
HIS LEGACY: Something about His Mom, and a Cigar.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1847723,00.html
Putting Bill Clinton On the Couch
Monica Lewinsky represented something very important to Clinton
psychologically. She looked like his mother, Virginia, who had
recently died. Clinton kept saying how much she reminded him of
his mother.
Monica kept saying she felt like she was having a relationship with a
lost little boy. This is the President of the United States. She was an
intern. Yet she felt maternal in her relationship with him.
Governor Swill
Aug 29, 2012, 11:33:18 PM8/29/12
to
that Obama is spending too much? And isn't the core of my argument
that it's not his spending that's the problem? That his spending has
grown slower than anybody else's? As for spending after or before
2009 is concerned, let's keep a couple of facts in mind.
The stimulus was spent only because of an economic situation Obama
inherited from, it must be said, a Republican administration which had
functioned with Republican Congresses most of the time.
>2)
>But even so, we can see that in 2009 he had his fingerprints all over a
>much larger increase than you're prepared to acknowledge. This was
>Kessler's primary argument, and you haven't addressed it at all:
>
>In February of 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
>Reinvestment Act into law. He had been personally involved in
>negotiating this bill, even before he was sworn in. Total spending for
>the bill is estimated to be over $800 billion.
>
>Only about $450 billion of this was spent in 2009, but I think you can
>see this single bill already blows "$85 billion" (which you gleaned from
>the OMB figures) to smithereens.
to Bush, it still leaves Obama's spending growth at a lower rate than
anybody else's. And as above, that spending would not have happened
had the GOP not spent more than a decade setting up the banking system
for a massive failure.
As a rule, Republicans will destroy the economy given total control in
Washington.
>Additionally, he can hardly claim (though he does so constantly, even
>today) that he "inherited" the TARP bill of 2008. Not only did Senator
>and Presidential Candidate Obama vote for it, he did so to flashing
>cameras and saturation publicity. It's amazing that he so cavalierly
>counts on mass amnesia when he speaks of inheriting it, and it's even
>more amazing that he's been proved justified in doing so.
predecessor? He did inherit TARP. He did not create it or the
situation it was designed to address. In his capacity as a Senator he
voted for it along with Paul Ryan, the GOP nominee for that year, John
McCain and pretty much everybody else on Capitol Hill. Trying to
apportion ANY TARP spending to Obama is imo, a partisan desperation
ploy. How about we call it "McCain's spending" instead?
>TARP also blows "$85 billion" to smithereens.
spending.
>In March he signed the Omnibus Spending bill, which everyone, including
>President Obama, publicly stated was weighted down with too much
>pointless, excessive spending and "pork." It seemed President Dubya had
>left portions of his last budget unpaid for, and it required an Omnibus
>to finish it out.
Congress to work as a team to handle spending issues earlier in the
FY. As a result they end up coming down to the wire forced to throw
everything into one big pot and stir vigorously. Further the omnibus
addresses completing the appropriation of budget funds requested
during the previous administration and therefore is part of Bush's
spending.
>Well, it got paid for, alright; and how!
>That said, I realize now that I shouldn't have been flip when I
>explained the meaning of "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."
>
>You need to at least understand /that/ before any fruitful conversation
>can follow.
>
>"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in Latin actually means: "after this,
>therefore /because/ of this." In other words, A occurs before B,
>therefore A is the cause of B.
resulted in all that excess spending then you're accepting all 2009
spending as Bush's since it wouldn't have been spent had the previous
administration not screwed the economic pooch.
>This would be false reasoning because there is no cause and effect shown.
the later stimulus, TARP or bailout spending?
>Let's say you wake up one morning and you can't find your lucky 50 cent
>piece. You look all over the house, tearing it apart. You have to cut
>short your frantic search in order to get to work on time. When you
>arrive at the office, you find a pink slip on your desk. Now, it would
>obviously be faulty reasoning to suppose that losing your lucky coin
>caused you to be laid off.
>
>That kind of post hoc fallacy is easy to see through, right? But what
>about this:
>
>You load Microsoft Office onto your computer. The next day when you
>start up your computer, it crashes. It would be false reasoning to
>conclude that loading Microsoft Office caused your computer to crash.
>
>Can you see why?
banking system failure and recession so as to keep it from being
linked to failed conservative fiscal and economic policies and the
previous administration.
>Our line of discussion began when you repeated Nutting's/Carney's
>insupportable claim: "Obama's spending growth rate is the lowest of any
>administration since WWII." In other, related posts in this thread,
>other related issues have been brought up--all involving this post hoc
>fallacy. I'm combining all of these related posts here, in what we might
>call an Omnibus Post :-)
starting point then. The stimulus you say was $800B of which 450 you
say got spent in 2009. Now, since that bill would not have been
necessary but for the economic mess caused by the previous
government(s), we can split it between Bush and Obama. That's another
225 on Obama and 225 off Bush. The rest of the stimulus money is
already included in 2010 spending so only the 450 you say was spent in
2009 is at issue.
Even with this adjustment, Obama's spending growth remains the lowest.
>I realize you've been subject all your life to members of Congress
>blatantly dodging their responsibilities and shifting blame. Their guilt
>avoidance has been reinforced in the press and by countless political
>spokesmen and pundits on all sides of the aisle.
>
>You've bought into it because you've never actually concerned yourself
>with the nuts and bolts: and why should you have? You've had a busy
>life, and so have I. As long as they didn't dig too deep into our back
>pockets, why bother?
running the government. For example, "Obama's stimulus", this is how
the GOP refers to it, Romney doesn't credit the Congress with that
spending, roughly a third of which was in the form of tax breaks in
order to buy Senate GOP votes and is why the stimulus wasn't more
effective. The Dems wanted to directly spend that money to
create/save jobs but those folks who got tax money back just went to
Walmart and spent it on foreign made goods. Thus the GOP in Congress
gutted the stimulus and supported the Chinese economy.
This is also why I don't credit Reagan with being such a great
President. Whatever was accomplished for good or ill during his terms
was accomplished with Democratic Congresses except for the senate in
the 98th. So the Democrats must be given co credit for the eighties
economy, the collapse of oil prices and the end of the Cold War. But
Republicans won't do that. They'd rather give all the credit to the
President.
I've made this spending argument in Presidential terms is because
that's the way it's done. Presidents are blamed/credited with
whatever happens during their terms in office while the actions of
their Congresses are largely ignored even by the history books. That's
how Kessler couched his argument and that's how you've discussed it
too.
>Those carefree days are over for you and I, brother.
>According to my Constitution, it's exceedingly clear which branch of
>government is responsible for all taxing, borrowing and spending:
>
>"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
>and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
>general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
>Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
>
>"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States..."
>
>That's all.
>
>No where in my Constitution does it mention that any of this
>responsibility might reside with the Executive. It's seems obvious the
>framers wanted the president to be somewhat of a beggar--that if he
>wanted money spent, he would have to convince Congress of the necessity
>first.
cannot be held accountable by the nation at large. It's a sad fact
and a little considered flaw in the system. Everybody likes their
congress critter but the dislikes the Congress as a whole. That means
that every Congressman and Senator is busy bringing home the bacon to
keep his constituents happy no matter what effect it might have
nationally.
The voters can only vote for their particular representatives, not for
the entire Congress.
>Veto and signature were his only tools. And a veto can be overridden,
>and a lack of a signature can easily be demagogued against him. Not
>sighing may only provide a temporary block.
>
>The President was not required to submit a budget proposal to Congress
>until Warren Harding's administration. Harding, something of a
>technocrat, worked to pass the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. This
>consolidated the budget into a single entity which could then move
>through Congress as a unified package. It's the BAA that requires the
>President to present a budget request to Congress.
>
>In no way is Congress legally or Constitutionally obligated to even
>entertain the executive's budget request. However, in the main, a budget
>request has already been negotiated with Congress before the President
>submits it. Likewise, if the passed budget is different from the
>President's, this is usually the result of subsequent negotiations
>between the executive and Congress, as well.
>
>The President generally has to sign it for it to become law.
>
>You may have been previously aware of some or all of the above, but
>these facts had to be stated clearly so that we can have a fruitful
>discussion.
focus on a Congress made up of several hundred guys or do anything to
punish them. However, it's very easy to point the finger at the one
guy in the Oval Office. As a result, focus has gone to the president
and taken power with it. I'd be willing to bet that the Executive has
far more power than the founders ever envisioned. In fact, they might
even be terrified because in realistic terms, the modern Congress acts
more as a check on Presidential power than as primary power in
government. In modern America, the President has become an elected
king with term limits but not having absolute power.
>No President since Washington has been responsible for federal spending.
>None. The BAA didn't change that, and nothing else since 1921 has ever
>changed that. I couldn't care less how many reporters, journalists,
>pundits or politicians claim Administration X is "responsible" for the
>federal spending which occurred during the years of that administration.
>Every pundit and Usenet poster in the world could claim that, day in and
>day out, and it /still/ wouldn't make it any less false.
Congresses have grown spending less than any other President's
Congresses. But that's not productive or accurate. Spending growth
has slowed for the same reason it was held down under Clinton; an
adversarial relationship between a Congress that won't let a President
spend and a President who won't let the Congress spend. The
Constitution notwithstanding, Presidents submit budgets as well as
negotiating with both houses during the budget process.
>Certainly, some Presidents have influenced spending; some have not.
>Still others to varying degrees. But beyond the shadow of a doubt,
>responsibility for any particular budget rests with the House of
>Representatives, the Senate, and the President of the United States. No
>budget has ever become law without all three.
Constitutionally incorrect, in practice that's exactly what happens.
I've mentioned before that Clinton and his Congresses had an
adversarial relationship wherein each side continually deprived the
other of opportunities to spend. Clinton was more active in that way
because for political reasons the GOP in his second term tried
mightily to spend away the surplus because they didn't want Clinton to
succeed at balancing the budget. Those GOP Congresses took the brunt
of the public wrath not only because of government shutdowns but
because it was clear that the Congress was trying to spend while
Clinton was trying to reign spending in.
Under Reagan, spending went up because he and his opposition
Congresses *enabled* each other's spending.
>If you insist on a partisan bias to your post hoc fallacy, then you
>should at least show the following data for each Congressional Session
>for the years in question:
>
>A) Party affiliation of the executive, B) party majority in the House,
>and C) party majority in the Senate. Just showing party affiliation for
>one of those three entities would make any conclusion you might draw
>false and misleading, prima facie.
The fact of the matter is that the primary mover and shaker in
spending is the President. Whether authorized to do so by the
Constitution or not, the fact is that the biggest domestic duty the
President exercises is the Budget. If you have issues with that, take
it up with Congress as that august body has over the decades given
away power to the executive for the convenience of being able to blame
him when they go home to campaign in the fall.
>> Your source did NOT PROVIDE PROOF that Obama's spending is the lowest
>> of any president since Eisenhower. I invite everyone to view the
>> article you cite at:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-grow
>> th-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
>
>It provided objections to Nutting's methods and data points, which you
>ignored. You merely repeated Nutting's mistakes.
made many mistakes.
1) He did not compare Obama's spending to anybody else's. It would
seem that if one is going to take the position that President
Soandso's spending is greater or lesser than President Wossname's, it
would behoove the writer to make the comparison.
2) He didn't even bother to show Obama's spending growth in percent,
inflation adjusted dollars or as percent of gdp. He just showed some
real numbers then went off on a tangent trying and failing to make his
numbers look bigger.
3) He attempted to put the entire 2009 deficit onto Obama. As I've
shown above, that is incorrect. 2009 was Bush's budget, the 2009
spending by TARP and for the bailout was all settled before Obama was
sworn in, most of the FY appropriations were done and the stimulus
Obama signed would not have been needed but for the 2008 banking
system failure and the 2007 recession. Therefore all that extra
spending, roughly a trillion of it, was not all Obama's.
4) He did not in any way prove that Obama's spending did not grow
slower than any other modern Presidents. He whined about the claim
and presented a few incomplete figures only some of which were
relevant.
>I've presented strong evidence indicating Kessler's objections are quite
>valid.
evidence at all, you only regurgitated Kessler's flawed article.
>In order for an assertion to be valid, it must first answer objections,
>not ignore them.
claim Obama's spending (here we are back to putting it all on the
President again) is NOT less than other presidents, should he not
include the spending of those presidents as well and make a fair
comparison?
My figures are correct. Obama's spending growth is lower than any
other President since Truman. Even if we split the 2009 spending
between Obama and his predecessor, Obama still comes out with a lower
growth rate than anybody else and just for giggles, I did the
calculations with the spending Kessler claimed Obama requested and
Obama STILL has the SLOWEST SPENDING GROWTH of any President since
Truman.
>> The article does not show Obama's spending growth. It shows only the
>> amounts and does not provide the previous administration's spending
>> for comparison.
>> NO WHERE IN THIS PIECE DOES IT EVER SHOW OBAMA'S SPENDING GROWTH. Not
>> in real dollars, not in percent, not as percent of GDP.
>
>2010, 2011 and 2012 are unique exceptions in American history. Spending
>occurring during those years does not carry the executive's signature.
done during his Presidency was actually spent by Congress? That would
make Obama's spending growth not merely low, but negative. :)
>There is absolutely no shred of evidence suggesting any of that spending
>can be attributed to President Obama.
proof of it. Now you say the entire argument is pointless? Perhaps
you can convince Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan of that so
they'll stop telling their voters that Obama is a spendthrift who's
driving us to bankruptcy.
>> It gives Obama's spending in dollars and % of GDP but not the growth.
>>
>> I repeat, though giving the claim three pinocchios, the author doesn't
>> give any growth figures for Obama or any other President. This makes
>> the article extremely misleading.
>
>Any comparison with other presidents would be misleading, which is
>explicitly stated. Kessler merely ran a few of the numbers for Ss & Gs.
to others! The argument IS a comparison of one President's spending
to others. How can it be misleading to state that "Obama's spending
has gone up x% but President Soandso's spending went up y%"?
I think you're trying now to invalidate the proof you requested since
it shows that the assertion you denied the truth of was quite correct
after all.
Any claim that Obama is a spendthrift and bankrupting the nation is
partisan spin plain and simple. There's not a shred of truth to such
a claim.
>That fact alone (that the Obama administration can be considered
>responsible for /any/ spending after 2009) earns Carney/Nutting three
>pinocchios.
>> Even worse, the Post article engages in a bald faced lie. To wit:
>> " In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S.
>> economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of
>> percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the
>> end of World War II � completely the opposite of the point asserted by
>> Carney."
>>
>> Carney made no such assertion in his remarks, transcript here:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/press-gaggle-press-secre
>> tary-jay-carney-en-route-colorado-springs-co-523
>
>Well, Carney, like you, have been attempting to mislead by using
>unadjusted dollars. Insidious inflationary monetary practices are a fact
>of life.
If you had, you would have seen that he didn't give any dollar figures
at all. He just made a comment in passing without providing any proof
of it. Further, his comment wasn't about spending growth but about
government growth which may or may not be the same thing depending on
how you measure it.
Further, I used percent growth and for the sake of a usenet discussion
am not about to start playing with inflation adjustments. Again
you're throwing a red herring. Adjusting for inflation would simply
reduce Obama's spending growth rate still further.
Do those straws fit your hand?
>In lieu of adjusted dollars, the only reliable (incomplete but not
>misleading) alternative is to use the percentage of GDP.
had adjusted his dollars, it would shrink Obama's spening growth still
further. If you want to make the case that Obama's is growing
spending, the LAST thing you want to do is adjust for inflation
especially since we got a round of steep inflation the last couple of
years Bush was in office which has since gone away.
>But Kessler is not using OMB numbers here. Even so, OMB shows 2009 as
>being a record high of 37.1%--surpassing all previous record highs.
>> Btw, the above transcript link is the same one used in the Post Fact
>> Checker article.
>>
>> Carney does not ever in the comments the post referenced mention
>> spending as percent of the economy. Never, not even once. I invite
>> you to read Carney's remarks and find spending as a percent of GDP.
>
>Are you saying he tried to deceive us by excluding them?
conference, not delivering a complete dissertation on government
spending.
In any case, you're the one who messed up earlier by accusing Carney
of using incorrect numbers when he didn't use any numbers at all. Told
on yourself didn't you?
>"The size of government" didn't shrink during the Carter or Clinton
>administrations. It's never shrunk since the WWII demobilization.
GDP went down under Clinton as did the debt.
>Carney's deceiving again.
He made a statement that was partially correct. Government spending
and debt as a share of the total economy (size of government) did go
down under Clinton and has under Obama as well but did not under
Carter.
If you want a deceptive statement, listen to the GOP candidates claim
that Obama's spending growth is at record levels, that all the deficit
is his fault and that he's bankrupting the country and his policies
are failing. His policies seem to be holding down spending and just
as Ford and Carter had different beliefs about what was more important
economically, so Romney and Obama now have different ideas. Obama
seems more concerned about slowing the accrual of debt until the
economy heals itself and goes into a growth mode that can start
reducing debt. Romney appears to think that debt is irrelevant and
that he can (inevitably in some expensive way) kick start the economy
to get growth up.
I think Romney is wrong. He's making the same argument Reagan made
and wants to apply exactly the same policy. Romney's plan will
rapidly inflate the debt so gar that only massive inflation will
reduce it for us.
>> Spending does not always equal growth of the government though it is a
>> fairly reliable indicator.
>
>It's not reliable, and it's unnecessary to limit yourself to that single
>metric...unless one is pushing an agenda.
that is, private sector size relative to public sector size. Social
Security, Defense and Medicare/Caid are major examples.
One can look at growth of government as in the size of the
bureaucracy. OSHA added a fair number of bureaucrats but is also
cheap. It's a high bang for the buck department because it does a
great deal to keep workers safer and healthier than othewise.
Then there's growth of government influence over the private sector
via regulations. The FDA, FAA, FCC, FTC and EPA are a few government
bureaus that fall into this category.
But the most common concern seems to be government as a share of the
economy and for that, government spending is the primary, perhaps even
only indicator one needs.
>> In any case, as you will see below,
>> Carter's spending is third highest for the given period so that part
>> of the above is likely incorrect.
>
>We don't need to proceed down that post hoc fallacy any further.
>
>Party affiliation, and configuration of party configuration don't even
>have the correlation you've been claiming (when you examined only the
>executive branch). But the correlation isn't cause, anyway.
configuration. I've provided spending growth information by
historical period and identified them by name of President who
presided over that period. I have made some additional notes
including other information and I have drawn two conclusions that I
have proven by the numbers: The Republican claim that they are more
fiscally responsible than the Democrats is blatantly false. The
Democratic claim that Carter balanced budgets or slowed spending is
also blatantly false.
Swill
Governor Swill
Aug 30, 2012, 12:18:03 AM8/30/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:08:57 GMT, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
<ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote:
> If a President of the United States
> ever lied to the American people he should resign.
> -- William J. Clinton, 1974
Wow! Accusing a politician of lying and then proving it!
<ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote:
> If a President of the United States
> ever lied to the American people he should resign.
> -- William J. Clinton, 1974
That's BOLD, man, really BOLD!
Swill
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages