Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/3/2010 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 10/3/2010 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 10/2/2010 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/2/2010 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 10/2/2010 2:25:00 PM (view original):
but swamp the point that you seem to be missing is that the debt sky rocketed during your reagen years and the GOP controlled both the house and the white house for 6 of those 8 years!!!! How is it that you skip right over that fact and continue to argue that the republicans are responsible spenders? Holy partisan hack batman!

The Dems controlled the House for 40+ years. They didnt have to stand up and announce what they were doing. They could add in a little at a time slowly. It is the main reason that the role of Government is so very different now than it was in the 50s.

The Debt started almost as soon as Reagan got in. How could this be his agenda?

you are right the debt started when a repub was in office and the repubs controlled the house for 6 of 8 years. We finally got Swamp to admit that his side are the heavy spenders! I never thought that I'd see the day! Wow...

is the sky falling? Lol

This is the Reagen arguement that I referred to Swamp.  How is it that the repubs were fully in charge for 6 of Reagens 8 years in office and yet that was precisely when the debt started to sky rocket?  You always say its the dems that spend but that graph earlier pretty clearly shows the dems are responsible spenders and it was reagen and the bushes that spent so much.

The 6 of 8 argument is based on the Bush White House, not Reagan. Reagan had to deal with a HUGE Democreatic lead in the house all 8 years.

Again no one has ever controlled one part of the government as long as the dems controlled the house. Reagan for 8, Clinton for 8, Bush for 8. No real pattern. The Dems controlled the house, and controlled it in a dominating way. They were able to set the direction that America was in with no pause or viable opposition.

Ok, so the debt rose at the precise moment that Reagen took power, and yet the dems had control of the house fully 25 years before Reagen.  Why is it that the debt spiralled up so much precisely when Reagen took office?  And the Repubs had the house from 95 to 2006.  That is certainly more then a pause that is a very significant period of time in which the debt was rising quite a bit.

Obviously, the Dems waited until a Republican was in the White House before spending like drunken sailors so they'd have a fall guy. Duh. Reagan was just their helpless patsy, and had no control over government spending whatsoever during his presidency.

Which kind of makes you wonder why people like swamp revere Reagan so much, if he was so useless.

I haven't looked closely at the number that everyone is throwing around, but isn't it possible that these spending trends don't prove that republicans or democrats are responsible spenders?  Seems to me that what we are seeing is that when EITHER party is essentially unchecked by virtue of having control of the white house and legislature at the same time,  that spending runs rampant.  In short, without an effective dissenting minority, you can't trust any political party. 

I'm interested to know what you guys think about this idea.

Regardless of what conservatives may preach, liberals are not interested in having our govt spend money for the sake of spending money, or so that they can control or take care of us.  We want to see money spent on programs that we see as worthy of spending taxpayer money on.  The Tea Party folk feel the same way.  Let's look at the major areas the feds spend the most money on; defense, Soc Security, Medicare.  If the Tea Party really wanted to limit govt spending, they'd start with those three, but there's no way that they'd advocate for a cut in defense spending, and no Tea Party candidate in his/her right mind would commit to cutting Medicare or SS.

Now to jastrial's point, I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I've given the impression that I believe that all Dem spending is justified, then you misinterpreted my argument.  I'm just shooting down Swamp's ridiculous argument that the Reagan deficit was the Dems's fault.  As Anton sarcastically, and justifiably so, points out, the Dems didn't suddenly lose their minds and start spending out of control because Reagan came into office.  They were not solely responsible for the Reagan deficits. In fact, the GOP had more control over the deficit during that period than the Dems did.  But even so, it wasn't just that the GOP had control of the govt during that period that started the increase in the deficit.  It was the change in economic philosophy that happened at that time, switching from a demand-side economy to a supply-side economy.  That's when deficits rose, wages fell stagnant, and personal debt skyrocketed.

Anyway, just my three sheets to the wind, two cents worth.

1 No one ever accused liberals of wanting to just spend money for no reason. I do believe there is a fundemental difference in what we think the government should do.

2 I have never heard the Tea Party take any spending cuts off the table. It isnt an issue of stoping SS and MC, but how do we prevent them from collapsing under their own weight. We must privatize SS.

3 You call it the Reagan Deficit. They had been raising taxes and spending for 40+ years, When Reagan needed to increase Defense spending to counter the Societ threat and destroy our greatest enemy it raised the deficit. The big problem was all of the things that the government was already doing. I aknowledge of course that Reagan was part of the problem. His failure to stand up to Congress and fight them on spending could have prevented the debt. He was too worried about his buddy Tip Oneil not losing face.

4 Keynesian economic policies failed. The 70s proved that they couldnt work. Reagan and Clinton proved that supply side propels America.

" When Reagan needed to increase Defense spending to counter the Societ threat and destroy our greatest enemy it raised the deficit."

Even if a shred of what you wrote is true, sure makes a lot of sense for Reagan to sign off on creating mountains of debt just to blow up a Soviet economy that was headed that way without any "help" from us.  The destruction on the Soviet Union came from within, without any help from us.

"We must privatize SS."

Why?  We don't need those hopped up on coke and Red Bull drinking traders on Wall Street ruining SS too.

"Reagan and Clinton proved that supply side propels America."

So why did Reagan / Bush i & II rack up enormous debt and Clinton didn't? 

Posted by jiml60 on 10/4/2010 3:14:00 PM (view original):
" When Reagan needed to increase Defense spending to counter the Societ threat and destroy our greatest enemy it raised the deficit."

Even if a shred of what you wrote is true, sure makes a lot of sense for Reagan to sign off on creating mountains of debt just to blow up a Soviet economy that was headed that way without any "help" from us.  The destruction on the Soviet Union came from within, without any help from us.

Again the mountin of debt was mostly from social programs. He increased debt to destroy the Soviets, like we increased debt to destroy the Nazis. The vast Welfare state created by the Democrats prevented the economy from just absorbing the increase.

How much do we need to rewrite history to not give credit for collapse of the Soviet Union to Reagan?

Posted by jiml60 on 10/4/2010 3:17:00 PM (view original):
"Reagan and Clinton proved that supply side propels America."

So why did Reagan / Bush i & II rack up enormous debt and Clinton didn't? 

Clinton was able to ride the peace dividend that Reagan paid for. Bush needed to pay for a war against a mortal enemy.

"How much do we need to rewrite history to not give credit for collapse of the Soviet Union to Reagan?"

When we give credit to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is rewriting history.

The Soviet Union lasted for over 60 years.

It was the Soviet response to the aggresive tactics by Reagan that lead to their collapse.

Posted by jiml60 on 10/4/2010 4:10:00 PM (view original):
"How much do we need to rewrite history to not give credit for collapse of the Soviet Union to Reagan?"

When we give credit to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is rewriting history.

He deserves a share of the credit - not 100%, but I'd give him some.

But no one can argue that the Dems are responsible for Reagan's debt/deficit and also say that Reagan gets credit for his brilliant plan to speed up the Soviet Union's collapse through defense spending.

Not unless they are a lying, hypocriticial fucktard, that is.

Either the debt and deficit ballooned under Reagan as part of his master stroke against the Soviets, or they ballooned because the Constitution prevented him from slowing down the House's profligate spending. You simply can't have it both ways.

Strong.

I have admited that Reagan should have stood up to the Dems and get spending cuts so he could Defend America as needed.