Republican Party is Broken

[Mntneer]

So he rolled back some of the tax cuts and closed loop holes which still resulted in net lowering. It also lead to increased IRaD as well as flexibility in financing startup ventures which paved the way for the DotCom boom of the 90s.

He also consolidated brackets in 86.

 

[Popeer]

And to nobodies surprise you missed the point.
What were the rates when he took office and what were the rates when he left? He cut taxes. Who was the big spender? Reagan actually worked with the congress that was elected with him. He agreed to raise taxes if congress would cut spending. Congress never cut spending.

Reagan never wanted to cut spending. Either you didn't read it because you can't read, or you can't comprehend what you do read?

Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency. And yet, because he insisted on huge increases in defense spending, he went along.

And I love how you throw out labels like libtard and commie when presented with facts that don't fit your world view.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Reagan never wanted to cut spending. Either you didn't read it because you can't read, or you can't comprehend what you do read?

Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration. As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency. And yet, because he insisted on huge increases in defense spending, he went along.

And I love how you throw out labels like libtard and commie when presented with facts that don't fit your world view.

And let's call defense spending what it is. Government manufacturing and middle class jobs. Lots of them.

 

[Keyser76]

And we know that WVU has advanced a real son-of-a=***** in you if they accepted you in school. A stupid son-of-a-***** too, so I really hope it is just another bit of your stupidity to think those of us who did graduate WVU would believe anything you have to offer.

Stupid bastard argued that budget bills can only pass with 60% instead of simple majority. And the ********** even couldn't get over the fact that 51 Senators is a majority. House should not come into question, they have great majority.

Give it up, you lost, try again in December, shutting down the Government before Christmas will surely be blamed on Obama.

 

[mneilmont]

Give it up, you lost, try again in December, shutting down the Government before Christmas will surely be blamed on Obama.

Are you really in agreement with me that the Dec shutdown will be blamed on Obama and a couple dems who had chance to change vote and allow govt to remain open? Did you not intend to put a negative in there somewhere?

 

[dave]

And I love how you throw out labels like libtard and commie when presented with facts that don't fit your world view.

Stop the whining.

I am always amazed at the facts you folks are willing to ignore to make your points. Its as if the President has all the power and that Congress only exists if they need to be blamed in case a democrat president is a failure. Reagan never had full congressional backing (House and Senate) during his two terms.

Here are some facts that don't fit your world view. Sorry.

One of the most persistent claims about the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were responsible for the large budget deficits of that decade and the resultant national debt. In reality, of course, both Congress and the administration share the responsibility. The problem is that the role that Congress played in deficit spending over 1982-93 is usually ignored. Congress often revises or entirely ignores White House budget requests, as with Reagan’s “dead on arrival” budgets. Because of the persistance of this charge, we examine the question: Who was most responsible for the increase in the national debt, Reagan or the Congress? Comparing the Reagan budget requests with the amount of spending Congress actually approved, we conclude:

• Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit. The deficits of the 1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.

• Congress outspent Reagan in every year. Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative $209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.

• Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested. Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements. • Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated. Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs.

• Reagan rescission requests were ignored. Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion, leaving $26.8 billion spent. These frustrations have also plagued almost all recent presidents. Congress spent almost a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending above the requests of presidents from 1976 - 1993.

While the Reagan administration certainly shares the blame for the national debt of the 1980s, having never submitted a true balanced budget, more of the blame rests with Congress. The deficit would have been an average $30 billion lower each year if Reagan’s requests were taken seriously.

 

[Keyser76]

Stop the whining.

I am always amazed at the facts you folks are willing to ignore to make your points. Its as if the President has all the power and that Congress only exists if they need to be blamed in case a democrat president is a failure. Reagan never had full congressional backing (House and Senate) during his two terms.

Here are some facts that don't fit your world view. Sorry.

One of the most persistent claims about the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were responsible for the large budget deficits of that decade and the resultant national debt. In reality, of course, both Congress and the administration share the responsibility. The problem is that the role that Congress played in deficit spending over 1982-93 is usually ignored. Congress often revises or entirely ignores White House budget requests, as with Reagan’s “dead on arrival” budgets. Because of the persistance of this charge, we examine the question: Who was most responsible for the increase in the national debt, Reagan or the Congress? Comparing the Reagan budget requests with the amount of spending Congress actually approved, we conclude:

• Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit. The deficits of the 1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.

• Congress outspent Reagan in every year. Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative $209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.

• Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested. Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements. • Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated. Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs.

• Reagan rescission requests were ignored. Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion, leaving $26.8 billion spent. These frustrations have also plagued almost all recent presidents. Congress spent almost a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending above the requests of presidents from 1976 - 1993.

While the Reagan administration certainly shares the blame for the national debt of the 1980s, having never submitted a true balanced budget, more of the blame rests with Congress. The deficit would have been an average $30 billion lower each year if Reagan’s requests were taken seriously.

 

[Keyser76]

Congress is Obamas problem too, lol.

 

[Popeer]

Stop the whining.

I am always amazed at the facts you folks are willing to ignore to make your points. Its as if the President has all the power and that Congress only exists if they need to be blamed in case a democrat president is a failure. Reagan never had full congressional backing (House and Senate) during his two terms.

Here are some facts that don't fit your world view. Sorry.

One of the most persistent claims about the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were responsible for the large budget deficits of that decade and the resultant national debt. In reality, of course, both Congress and the administration share the responsibility. The problem is that the role that Congress played in deficit spending over 1982-93 is usually ignored. Congress often revises or entirely ignores White House budget requests, as with Reagan’s “dead on arrival” budgets. Because of the persistance of this charge, we examine the question: Who was most responsible for the increase in the national debt, Reagan or the Congress? Comparing the Reagan budget requests with the amount of spending Congress actually approved, we conclude:

• Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit. The deficits of the 1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.

• Congress outspent Reagan in every year. Congress typically savaged Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative $209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.

• Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested. Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements. • Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the levels Congress appropriated. Congress spent about $80 billion less than Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on domestic programs.

• Reagan rescission requests were ignored. Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion, leaving $26.8 billion spent. These frustrations have also plagued almost all recent presidents. Congress spent almost a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending above the requests of presidents from 1976 - 1993.

While the Reagan administration certainly shares the blame for the national debt of the 1980s, having never submitted a true balanced budget, more of the blame rests with Congress. The deficit would have been an average $30 billion lower each year if Reagan’s requests were taken seriously.

How many budgets did Reagan veto? Very few, if any. I wonder why? Even the Heritage Foundation -- hardly a "commie libtard" think tank -- took him to task in a 1985 article for not vetoing spending bills he opposed.

The Reagan White House defends its sparing use of the veto by arguing that the President has been faced with very few bills deserving the veto.

A second White House defense of its veto record is that the Administration has been very adroit in hammering out compromises with key members of Congress, rather than taking an unyielding confrontational approach and then having to veto unacceptable legislation.

The "compromises" obtained by the White House resulted in 1984 federal spending some $80 billion higher than Reagan pledged it would be in 1980. Indeed, government spending under Reagan as a percentage of GNP, has accelerated at a faster pace than under Carter. Programs that the White House has sought to terminate, including Amtrak, Job Corps, the Small Business Administration, and Export-Import Bank direct loans, to name but a few which he chose to sign rather than veto.

And somehow this sounds vaguely familiar, from the article you took your quotes out of:

Congress ... became adept at disarming Reagan’s veto authority by irresponsibly wrapping most and sometimes all the individual appropriations bills into a single eleventh hour half-trillion dollar take-it-or-leave-it continuing resolution.

 

[Mntneer]

How many budgets did Reagan veto? Very few, if any. I wonder why? Even the Heritage Foundation -- hardly a "commie libtard" think tank -- took him to task in a 1985 article for not vetoing spending bills he opposed.

The Reagan White House defends its sparing use of the veto by arguing that the President has been faced with very few bills deserving the veto.

A second White House defense of its veto record is that the Administration has been very adroit in hammering out compromises with key members of Congress, rather than taking an unyielding confrontational approach and then having to veto unacceptable legislation.

The "compromises" obtained by the White House resulted in 1984 federal spending some $80 billion higher than Reagan pledged it would be in 1980. Indeed, government spending under Reagan as a percentage of GNP, has accelerated at a faster pace than under Carter. Programs that the White House has sought to terminate, including Amtrak, Job Corps, the Small Business Administration, and Export-Import Bank direct loans, to name but a few which he chose to sign rather than veto.

And somehow this sounds vaguely familiar, from the article you took your quotes out of:

Congress ... became adept at disarming Reagan’s veto authority by irresponsibly wrapping most and sometimes all the individual appropriations bills into a single eleventh hour half-trillion dollar take-it-or-leave-it continuing resolution.

He also enacted more bi-partisan tax and budget bills than this worthless President ever will.

 

[Keyser76]

Well that is the point of this thread isn't it? Reagan could enact Bi partisan tax and budget bills because there was give and take on both sides. In todays GOP if you try to be bi partisan on anything and work with the Democrats it makes you an apostate with the GOP base. Seems it is all or shutdown rather than working out bi partisan deals.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Well that is the point of this thread isn't it? Reagan could enact Bi partisan tax and budget bills because there was give and take on both sides. In todays GOP if you try to be bi partisan on anything and work with the Democrats it makes you an apostate with the GOP base. Seems it is all or shutdown rather than working out bi partisan deals.

And as has been repeatedly said, the reason is because it's all take and no give on the part of the President. He has given in on nothing and still presides as though he has majority in both houses. He plays the media game along with Reid and Pelosi and it's designed to demonize. I wouldn't work with the sonofbitch either. As the leader, it's his job to lead these individuals and if that costs you giving in on something to them, then so be it. You have to give. In the case of the GOP, Boehner gave a lot and still Obama came for more. It pissed off the base and now we're where we are. He and the DNC are as much to blame as the whacko people on the right.

 

[Popeer]

Well that is the point of this thread isn't it? Reagan could enact Bi partisan tax and budget bills because there was give and take on both sides. In todays GOP if you try to be bi partisan on anything and work with the Democrats it makes you an apostate with the GOP base. Seems it is all or shutdown rather than working out bi partisan deals.

Exactly. How many times did Tip O'Neill go into budget negotiations with "give in to all my demands or I'll shut down the government"? How many times did he threaten to throw the U.S. into default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling?

The stupid Republicans have voted down programs that they historically have favored just because Obama has agreed that they should continue.

 

[wvu2007]

Exactly. How many times did Tip O'Neill go into budget negotiations with "give in to all my demands or I'll shut down the government"? How many times did he threaten to throw the U.S. into default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling?

The stupid Republicans have voted down programs that they historically have favored just because Obama has agreed that they should continue.

Why do you just make stuff up? That is pathetic.

 

[mule_eer]

He also enacted more bi-partisan tax and budget bills than this worthless President ever will.

Bipartisan was an option back then. It doesn't seem like it is any more. That's the culture that has to change.

 

[Popeer]

Why do you just make stuff up? That is pathetic.

What have I made up?

 

[mneilmont]

Somebody help me on the argument Receipts increased slower than GDP Increases? Was that not the purpose of tax reduction? The goal was to stimulate the slow economy. GDP increased as anticipated.

Tax(Revenue to Govt) decrease was offered as the stimulant. Taxes (from public) rose in the stimulated economy, but not as quickly as a percent of growth to the economy(GDP). How is that bad?

Increase in National Debt is not necessarily bad, as long as the growth the growth in GDP can sustain the growth in Debt. Debt growth is bad when the growth in GDP does not maintain the relationship of Debt to GDP

 

[mneilmont]

Congress is Obamas problem too, lol.

Hopefully that is true and they slowed his spending some. He proved his ability to spend with Harry and Nancy sharing power with him. And to a large extent continues when Repubs cannot stop filibuster.

 

[mneilmont]

How many budgets did Reagan veto? Very few, if any. I wonder why? Even the Heritage Foundation -- hardly a "commie libtard" think tank -- took him to task in a 1985 article for not vetoing spending bills he opposed.

The Reagan White House defends its sparing use of the veto by arguing that the President has been faced with very few bills deserving the veto.

A second White House defense of its veto record is that the Administration has been very adroit in hammering out compromises with key members of Congress, rather than taking an unyielding confrontational approach and then having to veto unacceptable legislation.

The "compromises" obtained by the White House resulted in 1984 federal spending some $80 billion higher than Reagan pledged it would be in 1980. Indeed, government spending under Reagan as a percentage of GNP, has accelerated at a faster pace than under Carter. Programs that the White House has sought to terminate, including Amtrak, Job Corps, the Small Business Administration, and Export-Import Bank direct loans, to name but a few which he chose to sign rather than veto.

And somehow this sounds vaguely familiar, from the article you took your quotes out of:

Congress ... became adept at disarming Reagan’s veto authority by irresponsibly wrapping most and sometimes all the individual appropriations bills into a single eleventh hour half-trillion dollar take-it-or-leave-it continuing resolution.

Yes, that has become a practice of congress. Sit on their asses and pass a supersized Omni the last minute with a **** load of hidden spending. They load pork projects and the budget is too big to read. That probably is what gave rise to Nancy one liner. Pass it a then you can try to find out what is in it when they go thru appropriation process. Some struggling congressman back home attempts to blow whistle with, "Damn, I don't remember that big item that was hidden in the budget or added after the budget is passed." Normally, everybody keeps mouth shut with scratch mine and I will scratch yours. Common in Agency budgets and baseline process.

 

[Snow Sled Baby]

From cheering the resignation of Beohner to orchestrating an outage of McConnell now. How out of touch with reality can you get? Wow, just wow.

and the democrats are clean like the fresh fallen snow....take the blinders off

 

[mneilmont]

Bipartisan was an option back then. It doesn't seem like it is any more. That's the culture that has to change.

I offered the correct change 25-30 years back. Buy Watergate and let congressmen live it it like a college dorm. First, cut their salary by the claim that they had to maintain two houses. Send them home every Friday afternoon and return on Sunday evening. Pay them the prevailing wage in hometown + some amount for incidentals (10%). Open up the bar for cocktails and feed them normal meals morning and evening.

Make the Bastards share room in the building, tables at cocktail hour and the dining hall. If they cannot get along like normal humans, let them, at least, establish a pecking order.

 

[Mntneer]

Exactly. How many times did Tip O'Neill go into budget negotiations with "give in to all my demands or I'll shut down the government"? How many times did he threaten to throw the U.S. into default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling?

The stupid Republicans have voted down programs that they historically have favored just because Obama has agreed that they should continue.

Tip O'Neill was no sweetheart to Reagan. Neither was Newt to Clinton. Yet both managed to work together. Where we really saw a line established was when Nancy Pelosi became speaker and nothing went through, that then has carried into Obama's term and the battles lines are well established. You've got a President with the "Screw you guys I'm going to take my ball and go home" mentallity and the GOP leaders asshurt over Pelosi's reign.

The one BIG difference between Tip and Ron and Bill and Newt... is that Ron and Bill WERE LEADERS. Until we get a President that is a leader this **** will just keep on.

 

[mneilmont]

Tip O'Neill was no sweetheart to Reagan. Neither was Newt to Clinton. Yet both managed to work together. Where we really saw a line established was when Nancy Pelosi became speaker and nothing went through, that then has carried into Obama's term and the battles lines are well established. You've got a President with the "Screw you guys I'm going to take my ball and go home" mentallity and the GOP leaders asshurt over Pelosi's reign.

The one BIG difference between Tip and Ron and Bill and Newt... is that Ron and Bill WERE LEADERS. Until we get a President that is a leader this **** will just keep on.

Unlike Obama, Clinton moved center after the Repubs gained control. Therefore, he was still effective leader with his personality and had the ability to talk to the other side. As stated years ago, Obama has no conservative, or center leaning genes. He had strong past of liberalism.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

The one BIG difference between Tip and Ron and Bill and Newt... is that Ron and Bill WERE LEADERS. Until we get a President that is a leader this **** will just keep on.

All of them are leaders. Leaders that we elected. They all need to act like it. The president chief among them, but all of them need to stop acting like children