View Full Version : 10 Lessons for Tea Baggers:

04-28-2010, 01:36 AM
Ten lessons for Teabaggers (http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001617.htm#three)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>First Reagan Tripled the National Debt</span>...

<u>For Tea Baggers supposedly concerned that "deficit spending is out of hand," history apparently began only on January 20, 2009. </u>Because while President Obama rightly resorted to massive deficit spending to rescue the American economy from calamity, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>it was Ronald Reagan who ushered in the now-standard Republican practice of "spending our children's inheritance."</span>

As Steve Benen rightly noted, it was not Reagan but President Obama whose stimulus plan delivered the largest two-year tax cut in history. And as it turns out, what Saint Ronnie giveth, he also taketh away.

As predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>but record-settings deficits. Ultimately, Reagan was forced to raise taxes twice </span>to avert financial catastrophe (a fact John McCain learned the hard way from Tom Brokaw last October). <u>By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history</u>.

4. ...<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Then Bush Doubled It Again</span>

Following in Reagan's footsteps, <u>George W. Bush buried the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>myth</span> of Republican fiscal discipline.</u>

Inheriting a federal budget in the black and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, President George W. Bush quickly set about dismantling the progress made under Bill Clinton. Bush's $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced.

Like Reagan and Stockman before him, Bush resorted to the rosy scenario to claim he would halve the budget deficit by 2009. Before the financial system meltdown last fall, Bush's deficit already reached $490 billion. (And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a staggering 71% jump.) By this January, the mind-numbing deficit figure reached $1.2 trillion, forcing President Bush to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.</span>

<u>Tea Baggers take note: the Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. And the staggering $2 trillion price tag for Bush's giveaway to the richest needing it least dwarfs the estimated $900 billion cost over 10 years of President Obama's health care proposals.</u> </div></div>

Go Ronnie.

Q. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

04-28-2010, 06:31 AM
And here I though it was a sex thread.

Here is some a lesson for you.

1. Never put your balls in the mouth of a woman who happens to be an epileptic.

04-28-2010, 06:34 AM
Its convenient that you forget that revenues tripled under Regan.

Unfortunately the congress then as now was on a drunken spending spree.

More reasons to pass a balanced budget amendment and repeal the 16th amendment.

04-28-2010, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its convenient that you forget that revenues tripled under Regan.

Unfortunately the congress then as now was on a drunken spending spree.

More reasons to pass a balanced budget amendment and repeal the 16th amendment. </div></div>


Reagan's 2 greatest faults were:

1 - He lacked the will to shut then government ala Gingrich to force spending cuts.

2 - He became sucked into the belief that a seditious opposition party could be appeased.

What the revisionists also ignore is the ability of congress to trump a veto by the POTUS.

Let's review the history of that

Obama - 0%

GW Bush - 33% ... 7 of his 12 vetoes came after the demokooks took congress, and all 4 of the vetoes. That works out to 57.1% ... or the highest veto rate of any POTUS in history. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Where were our leftist brethren and sistren to protest a congresss thwarting the will of a POTUS elected by the people?</span>

Clinton - 5%

GHW Bush - 2%

Reagan - 12%

Carter - 6%

Ford - 18%

Nixon - 16%

Johnson - 0%

Kennedy - 0%

The last 5 demokooks to hold the office have had their veto overridden a total of 4 out of 120 times for a whopping 3.3% One was in Clinton's second term and two were late in Carter's term but once he had become politically radioactive. This fact alone shows that when a demokook POTUS vetoes a bill, it is done solely to give his party political cover ... IOW they can vote FOR something they oppose knowing it will never become law.

OTOH the last 5 republichickens were overridden 33 out of 243 times for a 13.6% ratio.

Put another way, republichickens have had the stones to veto congress over twice as many times ... yet congresshas overridden the veto at an astonishing 833.3% as many times.

To put that in perspective ... GW Bush was vetoed more times than the entire first 13 presidents combined and dealt with the most hostile congress since Andrew Johnson!

Reagan/Ford ... the last 2 fairly conservative officeholders ...vetoed 144 bills combined, or 72 per. Obama/Bush II/Clinton/Bush I/Carter/LBJ ... leftists all ... vetoed 155 bills, or 31 per; or less than half per.

Obama has vetoed <u>ONE</u> bill ... and that is a stretch:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, a stopgap spending bill that never had to take effect. The bill was a temporary appropriations bill that lawmakers passed in case a winter storm in mid-December prevented them from approving a final measure to fund the Pentagon for 2010. Since the blizzard did not keep them away from the Capitol, they were able to approve the $626 billion defense spending bill on December 19, 2009, before the previous budget expired at the end of the year. Instead of vetoing it, Obama sent it back to an adjourned Congress on December 30, without his signature, asserting his "pocket veto" powers.
Despite this officially being a "pocket veto" the House of Representatives nonetheless held a vote to sustain the veto on account that the "Congress hates pocket vetoes, considering them an affront to its constitutional authority. Before adjourning, the House specifically designated a clerk to be available to receive messages from the White House. Since someone was home, the House insists, there can be no 'pocket veto'."[33] Thereby, treating it as a regular veto the House of Representatives voted to sustain the veto. </div></div>
&gt;&gt;&gt;REALITY&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes)