What public services did Reagan slash? Your ignorance is showing. By the way if people keep more of what they need what public services do they really need that aren't being funded by use taxesRegicollis;1058692084]I never claimed that there was not an economic decline. Reagan just used it as an excuse to slash public services.
think it is the role of govt. to regulate wages? Most of the so called wage decline was reversed from 1984 on but then again you ignore that. Plus people kept more of what they earned.Told by the evil communists at the Labour Statistics Bureau?
Unemployment was rising when Reagan took office and he reversed it. Keep ignoring the election of 1984. What did the majority know that your history books arent telling you.Unemployment was lower during the Carter years.
The fallback strategy that you claim I use was actual history, you know, the subject you never took.Next time, couldn't you use a less common fallback strategy than blaming the predecessor?
The rich pay most of the taxes so why shouldn' they? You know, I really don't care how much you make so why do you care how much the rich make, they didn't take it from you.The rich got most out of the tax cuts. We all know that.
Yet Reagan won in a landslide and so did GHW Bush. Wonder why?A lot of middle class tax payers ended up paying more taxes because the AMT removed many deductions.
People vote their pocket books and Reagan policies proved to be sound. FDR played on people's fears and won based upon those fears. His economic policies prolonged the depression.So because Reagan was re-elected his policies were sound? Does that mean that you consider the New Deal to be sound because the American people re-elected FDR three times?
Those so called links reference bea.gov, bls.gov so if you have a better site for non partisan data, please provide it.Then it is good that I have you to provide me with the truth fresh out of the best neo-conservative think thanks.
You obviously don't read very well, try again. The role of the American Govt as defined in that Constitution.I have actually read a fair deal of constitutions, including the American. But I fail to see what that has to do with anything. We are having a political argument, not a legal one.
Using the cap lock highlights the words PROVIDE and PROMOTE. Do you know the difference?Your statements of opinion does not become more convincing because you are using the Caps Lock key
the will of the people? Almost 50% of the people in this country paid no Federal Income taxes last year. It is the will of those that do not pay to tax those that do more. Those are people just like you that don't know the Constitution or the role of govt.Interesting opinion. But tell my why that is what is "intended". Who intended it? Government should be organised according to the will of the people, not as a museum of legal history. Times change, and so should government.
Glenn Beck has a new book out Arguing with Idiots. That describes debate in this forumWhy do you participate in a debate forum if debate is not what you want?
Half-truth, lie.and it shows that all republicans give us debt and grow thew government more than the democrats do.
All Dems give is debt.
Every Dem grew government more than his GOP predecessor.
half-truthEvery republicans gave us debt, every republican gives us bigger government, every republican gives us inflation, deficits...
Same can be said for every Dem.
Lie, half-truthand a need for another financial bale out of fat cats by the government
Not ever GOP predeisent had a 'bail-out of the a the fat cats'
Dems President have 'bailed out the fat-cats'.
This is either a lie or factual error rooted in ignorance -either way, it cannot be proven true.Republicans cause the country it's financial problems.
At this point, The Obama has given us more debt that RWR, and debt exceeding exceeded the total deficts under GWB.Obama will be a pypical democrat and give us less debt than a republican would.
So, This is either a lie or a factual error rooted in ignorance -either way, it cannot be proven true.
And so, my original response stands.
Not that you will admit.
In fact, see below...
See? What did I just say?ooops, wrong. all you have proven (once again) is your inability to recognize the data from that previously posted chart showing that republican presidents are consistently more likely to spend much more than the government takes in
None of that half-truth disproves -anything- I said, whereas everything I said illustrates a factual error, a half-truth, or a lie.
And so, my original response stands.
Last edited by Goobieman; 04-16-10 at 12:55 PM.