Reply With Quote
If you like, you can pretend it's a gay bathhouse.
Why don't you go hump a big government sandcastle, gtown?
If you like, you can pretend it's a gay bathhouse.
Likewise. You first about the method, then proceed to do it. I'm glad this kind of debauched posting style gets your more motivated than discussing the actual issues.
What can I say, gtown. You bring it out in people. It's sort of like your minor superpower.
Feel free to make a topical comment, if you have any.
Why do you want to turn this forum into the TMZ forum?
???
Still sore about the Palin post?
Hey bud, merry christmas.. go out there and have a good time.. We will have all of 2010 for me to bring enlightenment and you shame.
I disagree. I would say many politicians hide under that label. We haven't had a conservative in office since Reagan.
I don't know if he was more conservative, but the current congress Clinton had I think help shaped the administration.
President Bush had both his strong points and his faults. I think those of you more liberal here would have heard us conservative complain much more about president Bush if the unwarranted attacks weren't present. With all that going on, I would say none of us wanted to add to the fodder.
In other words, you let other heads prevent you from speaking your mind. I'm not surprised at all by that.
Conveniently, that's hardly distinguishable in function and significance from not having had any objection at all.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-06-2010 at 05:28 AM.
Did Reagan shrink government or decrease the deficit?
A simple yes or no will do...
There is nothing at all conservative (in the sense of smaller government) about vouchers. The notion of the government paying individuals to let their kids get out of public schools was a thinly veiled attempt to get past the state/religion divide by the religious right who wanted their kids to go to a religious school on someone else's dime. How is that conservative? I personally don't even see how it is cons utional, but I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really assess that.
If someone in this country wants their kid to go to a private and/or religious school, that is their prerogative in this great country. But, they can pay for it themselves and not force my tax dollars to support it when I am already contributing tax dollars to the school fund. Forcing others to pay for that is not conservativism in any way shape or form.
No, but that's a front loaded problem.
Have you ever checked out my claims about the double-digit inflation rate and double-digit rates on bonds authorized by congress before he was in office?
Do you understand Compound Interest?
Now I guess he could have spent less on military things, but the debt would have skyrocketed anyway, and the Berlin Wall would probably still be separating families.
What are those claims, and what do they have to do with shrinking government or the deficit?
You admit St. Ronnie didn't deliver on promises to get the government out of our lives and that he wasn't fiscally conservative. Yet you still make excuses for him. Touching.
No such thing as big govt conservatism...since conservatism inherently means small govt.
Conservatives can take over an already big govt. But, unless they can shrink it by 50%...it wont be small govt.
So, you can get conservatives in Big govt...but it isn't big govt "conservatism." It's just a conservative in charge of big govt.
...and its only happened once in the last 60 yrs. With Reagan.
Shrinking govt by 50% will never happen in my lifetime. It will take a complete revolution on the order of the American Revolution to make it happen. Or, the country will go completely bankrupt and will shrink only because the money ran out.
Now, regarding Reagan. Reagan was a fiscal conservative. His first budget had the budget balanced in a few years...it just wasn't passed. As we all know, Democrats owned Congress at that time. So, you can be a fiscal conservative, and still see spending grow ( remember, SS is "mandated by law" to go up every year. Until that is remedied, you will never see a smaller govt. Even if Ron Paul was in charge.)
Yes, Reagan signed the budget bills that did get to his office. So, you can make a case for him not being fiscally conservative because he signed more spending. Politics being the way they were at the time, I can understand Reagans dilemma. Politics being the way they are at this time...it doesn't matter to the debate. "Reagan spent, he's a big spending liberal."
So be it...whatever makes your day.
He's not, and never was.
There is no such thing as "big govt conservatism." Never has been...never will. You can make up words all you like, it's the "in" thing to do anyway.
Even if they don't mean a thing but to try and give yourself a cute talking point.
...and so it goes.
No, this really doesn't hold water. Reagan's doubling of the national debt during his presidency was because he pursued 'supply-side' economics, or as G.H,W,Bush aptly named it, 'voodoo economics'.
You can't just claim that any time a Republican (namely Reagan in this instance) doubled the national debt, 'it was the other guy's fault.' Nonsense.
This is basic arithmetic. He reduced revenues through tax cuts and increased defense spending by boatloads, and the simple fact is that HIS POLICIES of simultaneously decreasing revenues and increasing expenditure (for things he wanted to do) doubled the national debt. That is NOT conservatism.
Reagan succeeded in bankrupting the Soviet Union and bringing the Cold War to a close. Congratulate him for that. But don't pretend that he didn't simultaneously set the stage for the out of control deficits that almost bankrupted this nation at the same time.
WH, I have explained it several times in other threads. You must have your blinders on. I don't feel like explaining it again right now. Maybe if I put a little more Coffee in my Bailey's...
But not now.
Here is what I said the last time I explained the thing with bonds:
WH, EVAY...And you forget about the E-Series bonds. They had a minimum guaranteed interest rate of 4%, or the market based yield, which ever was higher. They were sold at a 75% value for a 5 year maturity, but continued to gain interest for 40 years. When the Carter administration created high inflation, these bonds continue to be worth more and more. People held on to them as long as they could because they were great investments.
The ones good for 40 years were first issued in 1941. Guess what. They no longer gained interest in 1981, so people sold or converted them raising the deficit. These 5/40 year bonds were issued until 1965. However, in July 1980, the Carter administration ed the Reagan administration by approving the EE series bond. This bond guaranteed a 5 year return of double the investment (15.9%) and a guaranteed minimum 6% or 7.5% rate afterward depending on issue date. You can be sure smart investors cashed the E series in for EE series, and the banks held something like 85% of them. You can be certain these 85% were part of the early 80's deficit numbers.
Think about those rates and compound interest, what it did to the deficits and debt while Regan was in office.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 12-27-2009 at 06:19 PM.
Conservative means a lot of different things depending on the audience. Nowadays, the GOP refers to conservative as mainly social conservatism or more bluntly pro WASP (male) agenda. That's pretty much what a GOP politician means (usually when they're emotional) when they claim conservatism, but when you question the content of it they lean towards being a Libertarian, when that is FAR from the case. In conclusion, words don't mean anymore. Nobody is really a conservative or a liberal, fascists, etc... what people are, are bat insane, smart, stupid, clever, prejudiced, rich, racist etc.
You don't have any real budget numbers to back up your made up .
I think the liberal pro-life group considers conservative socially. If you ask a normal person what a conservative is, 40% of them will say they are. Another higher percent would say lower taxes, supply side economics, pro-life, traditional American values (however you want to interpret that) and smaller government. It seems the libs, listening to PMSNBC, believe most people that are conservative are bible thumpers.
Just because there are alot of conservatives who are pro-life christians doesn't mean . Most of the country is that. It is a shame that to be a democrat now you have to avoid patriotic things and anything pertaining to god. To you words aren't anything unless it advances your beliefs.
Last edited by spursncowboys; 12-27-2009 at 06:55 PM.
Did Reagan break USSR's back? Did he do it with appeasement? I wonder how much money Clnton got to utilize with the reduction of our military because of Reagan's ability to win the Cold War?
Since Coolidge. Reagan was no conservative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
