And I'm not arguing about 'where the spending went' just that the tax cuts reduced revenue, spending increased, Reagan proposed spending increases, republicans controlled the Senate for much of Reagan's 8 years and the spending levels were a bipartisan thing.
I will agree that if your apologia link is correct, it does more or less capture the GOP position on fiscal matters. What it claims is the following was the fiscal plan of Reagan:
1) Cut taxes on the wealthy
2) Raise taxes on working people with large increases in payroll taxes
3) Ramp up military spending
4) Slash domestic spending, slash entitlements.
So the effect if enacted is a shift in tax burden from the rich to working class Americans, and a shift in spending from the middle class, poor, and seniors to the military industrial complex. I don't dispute that, in big picture terms, that's the roughly typical GOP agenda. I can't imagine why Congress didn't go along with it all.....
Also too, total discretionary domestic spending approved by Congress (this does include military spending) was less than Reagan requested.
Finally, yes, nominal collections went up by 60%, but that doesn't mean the big initial Reagan tax cuts, followed by six years of Reagan tax increases, paid for themselves.
None of those amendments give anyone the right to vote without being legally registered to vote. Valid photo ID just keeps it honest....something democrats don't seem concerned with.I was being sarcastic. I own 7 guns and have nothing at all against gun owners, rednecks or not. And yes, the 2nd protects the Constitutional RIGHT to own a gun and the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th protect the constitutional RIGHT to vote. If you want to claim that voting rules changes have nothing to do with rights, then don't be surprised when you get called on it.
The real issue is the intellectual dishonesty in your approach. You are asking me to buy a given number plus or minus 200K, while at the same touting a alleged count of two cases of impersonation fraud. I really don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe the numbers are that low in any state, much less Texas. Not that it matters. No citizen who is legally entitled to vote is disenfranchised by having to show a valid photo ID.What's odd is you dismiss these millions, then place great importance and weight on the literally less than a handful of cases of documented voter impersonation fraud in Texas over the past DECADE. 10s of millions of votes, TWO cases of impersonation fraud. Similar rates of "voter" fraud at the polls in other states - literally no where is there evidence of a widespread problem that rises above trivial, 10 or less over years, millions of votes kind of trivial. So it's tough to identify the logic of your approach.
Any ID keeps it honest enough so that in Tennessee there have been next to no cases of impersonation fraud in decades. The restricted forms add nothing to the "keeps it honest" efforts.None of those amendments give anyone the right to vote without being legally registered to vote. Valid photo ID just keeps it honest....something democrats don't seem concerned with.