Eric Cantor, Republicans in General, still in denial over Reagan raising taxes

[Atreus21]

Most of the GOP in congress signed a pledge never to raise taxes in any circumstance. They also treat Ronald Reagan as a god and praise everything he did.

How does that square?

Not well, I admit.

 

[Steeplerot]

Not well, I admit.

Fwiw it is refreshing to see a conservative show some balls to admit glaring discrepancy. I take back my Godwin last post.

Now if only Congress and Senate could man up enough to find common ground to work together for a minutes they might get something done besides talk rhetoric while the ship sinks. This is asking a lot I fear.

 

[First]

Okay, we'll concede the point when you guys concede that the Clinton surpluses had nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with Newt Gingrich.

rofl.

 

[Craig234]

First, I saw Atreus quoted in your post, saying:

"Okay, we'll concede the point when you guys concede that the Clinton surpluses had nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with Newt Gingrich."

Once again we have false equivalency, people so determined to make the parties equal they make up and lie about facts to back up the claim.

Fact: The Clinton deficit reductions began from his first year in office, with a Democratic Congress before Republicans took the House under Gingrich.

Fact: The Clinton deficit reductions were remarkably consistent during his eight years in office. They were just as large those first two years as after Republicans took Congress.

Fact: Clinton passed an anti-deficit policy, which included raising taxes on the top 1.2% (and lowering them for some others stimulating the economy).

Republicans universally opposed the Clinton policies - IIRC he did not get one Republican vote - and Republicans made claims of economic disaster, proven wrong.

The Wall Street Journal said 'most' of the deficit reduction could be credited to Clinton's anti-deficit policies.

So Atreus is asking for a lie to be admitted.

The facts actually suggest it was *Gingrich* who had nothing to do with the deficit reductions - since they did not increase when Gingrch took office compared to under Dems.

Not surprsing, sadly, but hey, isn't he non-partisan for insisting on the lie? That's more important than getting the facts right and perhaps admitting the sides aren't the same.

 

[soulcougher73]

 

[Atreus21]

First, I saw Atreus quoted in your post, saying:

"Okay, we'll concede the point when you guys concede that the Clinton surpluses had nothing to do with Clinton, and everything to do with Newt Gingrich."

Once again we have false equivalency, people so determined to make the parties equal they make up and lie about facts to back up the claim.

Fact: The Clinton deficit reductions began from his first year in office, with a Democratic Congress before Republicans took the House under Gingrich.

Fact: The Clinton deficit reductions were remarkably consistent during his eight years in office. They were just as large those first two years as after Republicans took Congress.

Fact: Clinton passed an anti-deficit policy, which included raising taxes on the top 1.2% (and lowering them for some others stimulating the economy).

Republicans universally opposed the Clinton policies - IIRC he did not get one Republican vote - and Republicans made claims of economic disaster, proven wrong.

The Wall Street Journal said 'most' of the deficit reduction could be credited to Clinton's anti-deficit policies.

So Atreus is asking for a lie to be admitted.

The facts actually suggest it was *Gingrich* who had nothing to do with the deficit reductions - since they did not increase when Gingrch took office compared to under Dems.

Not surprsing, sadly, but hey, isn't he non-partisan for insisting on the lie? That's more important than getting the facts right and perhaps admitting the sides aren't the same.

Provide some links.

 

[soulcougher73]

Provide some links.

Shouldnt you be providing links? I mean you did make the initial claim of Gingirsh. Im sure Craig will provide for you though.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

All this fighting over whether to sanctify or vilify Regan glosses over the fact that ultimately the dude was really pragmatic and did not stand on ideology the way many politicians claim to these days.

You don't have to agree with what he did to understand why he did them in context.

 

[Craig234]

Shouldnt you be providing links? I mean you did make the initial claim of Gingirsh. Im sure Craig will provide for you though.

Not for him (who knows why people post to people knowing they're on ignore), but for you and others I'll re-post some info.

Here's a chart showing the basic consistent trend across all Clinton years - in fact, the later years under Republicans had the benefit of the internet bubble as well, making the earlier cuts under an all Democratic government relatively more impressive. Of course, the Republican Congress he claims was the 'entire cause' of the cuts did not do anything to get in the way of the skyrocketing back of the deficit as soon as Bush took office.

I recently posted the Wall Street Journal quote - here it is again, giving more credit to Clinton's anti-deficit policies opposed to strongly by Republicans more than to Gingrich:

Where has the federal deficit gone?

When Bill Clinton was elected president four years ago, the government was hemorrhaging red ink at a rate of almost $300 billion a year, and forecasters saw little improvement in the offing. Today, his budget office estimates the fiscal 1996 deficit at just $117 billion—the lowest in dollar terms since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office.

Measured as a share of the total economy, the U.S. deficit this year will run only about 1.6%—smaller than the deficits of Japan, Germany, Britain or, indeed, any of the world’s advanced nations except Norway.

Clearly, a stronger-than-expected economy has a lot to do with it. The tax increases in the 1993 deficit-reduction package that Mr. Clinton pushed through get credit as well. And, to a lesser extent, so do the spending cuts engineered by the Republican Congress…

For the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, collections now are expected to be $97 billion higher than the $1.356 trillion the Congressional Budget Office projected 3 ½ years ago as Mr. Clinton was taking office. That is about 7% more.

By the CBO’s analysis, just over half of the $97 billion increase beyond projections is due to tax boosts in Mr. Clinton’s 1993 antideficit plan. The rest is due to a variety of factors.

Even noting the 'tax boosts' as being over half of the more than expected increases in revenue, the Clinton policy wasn't only tax increases.

As the Wall Street Journal again reported in 1993 about the policy:

Moreover, except for a small gasoline-tax boost and an increase for the best-off Social Security recipients, the tax increases in last years bill mostly didn’t touch the middle class but hit the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.

GOP candidates also ignore the bill’s tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and nowhere do they describe the plan as a $433 billion, five-year deficit-reduction package.

"It’s the silly season. People are running for office, and people who run for office say silly things," says Carol Cox Wait, a former top GOP aide on the Senate Budget Committee who now heads the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget…

In all but 11 of the 435 House districts, more taxpayers were eligible for an income-tax cut than got a tax boost… Even in those 11 districts… more than three-quarters of the people saw no change at all in income taxes.

 

[Craig234]

All this fighting over whether to sanctify or vilify Regan glosses over the fact that ultimately the dude was really pragmatic and did not stand on ideology the way many politicians claim to these days.

You don't have to agree with what he did to understand why he did them in context.

He wasn't pragmatic. He was a radical for the corporate interests, and paved the way for disaster with politically benefical deficit increases, death squads for foreign policy, beginning the rollback of finance indutry regulation passed by FDR leading to the S&L crisis and later crises, etc.

Bush called Reagan's economics "voodoo economics" because he wasn't pragmatic. He only looks pragmatic because he had some more pragmatism that today's radical ideologues.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Old graph...do you have a current one?

 

[soulcougher73]

Old graph...do you have a current one?

It's at most 3 years old. Why would you need a more current one? The discussion is Reagan and this goes up thru Bush Jr. I don't know what more you could hope to gleam from a more current one that would help the current discussion.

 

[trenchfoot]

Good 'ol Ronnie Reagan.....good for what though, I haven't the slightest idea.*

*Bastardized from Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack.

Yet to this day he remains idolized, lionized and deified by the Repubs (generally speaking). lol...no....LOL

I've never ever thought of him as anything more than an actor who acted out the part of our President for the benefit of spit shining his hollowed-out legacy, making himself adored by the uber-rich class of people he desperately wanted to identify with and all this while putting the peasants in their place. Yay

 

[Bateluer]

It's at most 3 years old. Why would you need a more current one? The discussion is Reagan and this goes up thru Bush Jr. I don't know what more you could hope to gleam from a more current one that would help the current discussion.

Because a current one, through 2011, would show the massive spending of the current administration.

 

[dmcowen674]

Eric Cantor, Republicans in General, still in denial over Reagan raising taxes

This is becoming a farce, Reagan raised taxes 12 times during his presidency.

Everything Republicans believe in is a lie.

It's cute how Republicans are so passionate about defending a lie they'll interrupt an interview shouting and screaming about it.

Batshit crazy frothing at the mouths lunatics you all are.

I would not be surprised if Cantor posts on here.

He sounded just like one of the most rabid Republican posters on here.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Because a current one, through 2011, would show the massive spending of the current administration.

Holy shit Reagan is president? You realize what the thread is about right?

 

[fskimospy]

Holy shit Reagan is president? You realize what the thread is about right?

It's a pretty common tactic. When faced with an argument you can't win, try to change the subject.

 

[Atreus21]

Not for him (who knows why people post to people knowing they're on ignore), but for you and others I'll re-post some info.

Here's a chart showing the basic consistent trend across all Clinton years - in fact, the later years under Republicans had the benefit of the internet bubble as well, making the earlier cuts under an all Democratic government relatively more impressive. Of course, the Republican Congress he claims was the 'entire cause' of the cuts did not do anything to get in the way of the skyrocketing back of the deficit as soon as Bush took office.

I recently posted the Wall Street Journal quote - here it is again, giving more credit to Clinton's anti-deficit policies opposed to strongly by Republicans more than to Gingrich:



Even noting the 'tax boosts' as being over half of the more than expected increases in revenue, the Clinton policy wasn't only tax increases.

As the Wall Street Journal again reported in 1993 about the policy:

If Clinton was running surpluses, how did the national debt go up every year?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is becoming a farce, Franklin Roosevelt appeased the Dixiecrats to get their votes while his Attorney Generals ignored the KKK and all the lynchings. Everything Democrats believe in is a lie. What next, pretending Roosevelt was a civil rights advocate when he orchestrated internment of Japanese citizens?

The stupid games we play.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is becoming a farce, Franklin Roosevelt appeased the Dixiecrats to get their votes while his Attorney Generals ignored the KKK and all the lynchings. Everything Democrats believe in is a lie. What next, pretending Roosevelt was a civil rights advocate when he orchestrated internment of Japanese citizens?

The stupid games we play.

You are the one playing them. Why are you bringing up all these other topics that are not being discussed? Oh right i know. Because what is being discussed hurts your feelings and shows that your idol is fake. So instead youll just bury your head in the sand and pretend it will go away.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You are the one playing them. Why are you bringing up all these other topics that are not being discussed? Oh right i know. Because what is being discussed hurts your feelings and shows that your idol is fake. So instead youll just bury your head in the sand and pretend it will go away.

I'm parroting the OP's horrible logic....sorry if that hurts your feelings.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm parroting the OP's horrible logic....sorry if that hurts your feelings.

I don't think you understood the OP very well then.

 

[cybrsage]

If Clinton was running surpluses, how did the national debt go up every year?

Shush...stop providing facts.

 

[cybrsage]

This is becoming a farce, Franklin Roosevelt appeased the Dixiecrats to get their votes while his Attorney Generals ignored the KKK and all the lynchings. Everything Democrats believe in is a lie. What next, pretending Roosevelt was a civil rights advocate when he orchestrated internment of Japanese citizens?

The stupid games we play.

Why not? Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize while actually increasing the number of troops the US had fighting wars. I heard he will win the Heisman Trophy next year for his potential to be a great ball player.

 

[dank69]

Shush...stop providing facts.

You have a strange definition of facts:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1990_2000USp_13s1li011mcn_H0f_US_Federal_Debt