Politics

[connor_in]

It's not really the point that Reagan worked with the Dems, it is that the Dems worked with Reagan. They didn't act like a bunch of spoiled children ... they got on with the business of the country and they got things done. Compromise wasn't a dirty word and common sense wasn't a occasional proposition. A group of representatives in the lower house of Congress are today strongarming their own party into taking drastic measures to get their way. Many of the GOP believe they are going too far. They are right. How would the GOP react if the Dems threatened to tank the economy over raising the minimum wage? They would refuse to negotiate because doing so would mean that minimum wage was on the table for negotiation and they are fundamentally opposed to raising the minimum wage. Obama and the Senate are rightly saying no to the suggestion that this law is up for negotiation (just as the GOP would do). Introducing a conversation that Obama had with Iran's new leader is just dumb. They are making overatures to get rid of their nuclear program. For him not to talk to them would be irresponsible, and you and your party would be the first to point that out.

I'm not comparing ACA and Bush tax cuts. I'm comparing tactics used by an administration to get their way when the political deck was stacked in their favor ... but you already knew that and are trying to change the subject.

It was Reagan who signed the law that required any hospital who accepts Medicare funds to treat every person who came to an emergency room for treatment. It is often referred to as the Reagan mandate and it meant that hospitals could no longer send people away without treatment to avoid being stuck with the bill. That means that every person in the country was entitled to healthcare. That is universal healthcare -- albeit in its most inefficient form. With that law, Reagan paved the way to where we are today, on the cusp of enacting the ACA.

Here is an article on the latest Reuters poll of helthcare providers on universal healthcare: Doctors support universal health care: survey | Reuters

Tip O'Niell was in charge of the House during 12 government shutdowns

Tea Party Congressman Makes a Fool of Chris Matthews Over Shutdowns Under Former Boss Tip O'Neill | NewsBusters

Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended

 

[GoIrish41]

the easy answer to that is ...not fvcking right now...I mean seriously...the easiest non-partisan means testing is the 17 Trillion reasons and then add in the "and climbing" part...and we want to "try this out"...fvvvvvvvvvvvvck me.

the easy answer to when might be good...how about when the calculus for supporting entitlements wasn't in a negative trajectory...ie more folks contributing than taking, in conjunction with lockbox legislation on entitlement piggy banks, and debt and deficit under control (as a measure of the economy...not some stooge in DC).

I would argue that we cannot afford not to. We are a million miles behind the rest of the civilized world. Every country that provides universal healthcare to its citizens does so more cost effectively that we do in the US. And, this isn't even universal healthcare. It involves third party insurance companies (can't let their profits get in the way). What kind of country do you want to live in? I don't want to live in winner take all society that leaves those at the bottom in abject poverty and making decisions about whether they should feed their family or get healthcare. I live in America, the greatest country on earth, and I expect that we step up to the responsibiliy of calling ourselves that.

 

[BobD]

I would argue that we cannot afford not to. We are a million miles behind the rest of the civilized world. Every country that provides universal healthcare to its citizens does so more cost effectively that we do in the US. And, this isn't even universal healthcare. It involves third party insurance companies (can't let their profits get in the way). What kind of country do you want to live in? I don't want to live in winner take all society that leaves those at the bottom in abject poverty and making decisions about whether they should feed their family or get healthcare. I live in America, the greatest country on earth, and I expect that we step up to the responsibiliy of calling ourselves that.

Stop making sense, you'll cause some heads to explode.

 

[connor_in]

Yeah, you are right. They voted for it because they think it will be a complete failure and they want that anvil tied around their neck for the rest of their respective political careers.

And yet you and numerous D's seem to keep worrying (aka concern trolling) that the R's are irreparably damaging their own party.

By the way, I do not claim to understand their reasoning and can only guess that they were willing to bargain only in the event of quid pro quo aka the DC two step.

But thanks for the lovely disingenuous sarcasm anyway

 

[potownhero]

You know what is really crazy? He had Democrats who didn't pout because he won and they actually worked with him to make the government work. Regan got a lot done, but he had Tip ONeil to thank for a lot of it. I know you are only 28 and might not remember, but government was not always this disfunctional and ridiculous. It was the Bush administration who sent us down the insanely partycentric road we are traveling on today. You might remember him as the guy who was re-elected by a margain far less than the one you note above and coming on television a day later later like a jacka@@ telling the American people he just earned some political capital and that he intended to spend it. It is a bit ironic that the GOP is so offended by the ACA being passed in by a Democratic majority in both houses and the presidency, when he used the same situation to ram the Bush tax cuts down the throats of the American people while they were funding two wars that he refused to put in his budget so he could pretend he was fiscally responsible. You want someone to blame for the ACA ... blame Bush. He made people so disgusted with his administration that the Dems captured both houses of the Congress. Incidently, Reagan was a proponent of universal healthcare and would likely have supported the legislation.

You are wrong on so many levels.

A. You keep claiming that our healthcare system was terrible yet it provides quality that is the envy of the world

B. You claim that R's offered no alternatives. (HSAs, Tort Reform, Interstate Sales)

C. You claim that Reagan was a proponent of universal healthcare.
Ronald Reagan on Universal Healthcare - YouTube

You're wrong on so many levels, you reminded me of something else that Reagan said:
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

 

[phgreek]

I would argue that we cannot afford not to. We are a million miles behind the rest of the civilized world. Every country that provides universal healthcare to its citizens does so more cost effectively that we do in the US. And, this isn't even universal healthcare. It involves third party insurance companies (can't let their profits get in the way). What kind of country do you want to live in? I don't want to live in winner take all society that leaves those at the bottom in abject poverty and making decisions about whether they should feed their family or get healthcare. I live in America, the greatest country on earth, and I expect that we step up to the responsibiliy of calling ourselves that.

Great speech...but as do most of the speeches I hear these days that end w/ a rousing rally...it presumes pride the folks of the post WWII era earned...they did such a damned good job no one since has had to rise to their example...ironically, our chance is coming largely because of false pride like this.

Your arguments are about what we should be doing based on your sensibilities, and have nothing to do with rather the rest of the nation can absorb it...

Indeed time will tell if the benefit even reaches those it intended to help...but largely what it will accomplish is put MORE people in need of subsidy...create more government waste, drive more deficit spending...and FURTHER complicate an already difficult care system...this makes great sense.

 

[BobD]

CNN Poll: Republicans would bear the brunt of shutdown blame - CNN.com

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

CNN Poll: Republicans would bear the brunt of shutdown blame - CNN.com

Poll: Obamacare remains highly unpopular as implementation looms - First Read

Forty-four percent of respondents call the health-care law a bad idea, while 31 percent believe it's a good idea -- virtually unchanged from July's NBC/WSJ survey.

By a 45 percent to 23 percent margin, Americans say it will have a negative impact on the country's health-care system rather than a positive one.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Here We Go Again!

Here We Go Again!

I find out this morning if I'm considered "essential". If not, I guess I'll be sleeping in tomorrow. I'm so sick of both sides now. They've had months to get their **** together and avoid a shutdown. Instead, all they care about is getting money in their pockets and ensuring their special interest groups are taken care of. I hope they all rot in hell.

 

[BobD]

I find out this morning if I'm considered "essential". If not, I guess I'll be sleeping in tomorrow. I'm so sick of both sides now. They've had months to get their **** together and avoid a shutdown. Instead, all they care about is getting money in their pockets and ensuring their special interest groups are taken care of. I hope they all rot in hell.

Good luck bud, I hope you're "essential".

The next week or so could be frustrating as hell.

 

[GoIrish41]

Poll: Obamacare remains highly unpopular as implementation looms - First Read

Forty-four percent of respondents call the health-care law a bad idea, while 31 percent believe it's a good idea -- virtually unchanged from July's NBC/WSJ survey.

By a 45 percent to 23 percent margin, Americans say it will have a negative impact on the country's health-care system rather than a positive one.

Are you suggesting that we govern by polls? You should be careful what you ask for ...

In U.S., 71% Back Raising Minimum Wage
71 % support raising minimum wage to $9, including 50% of republicans

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?
90% of Americans want expanded background checks on guns

Even Republican young adults want health insurance, poll finds - NBC News.com
63% of young people who identified themselves as republican enrolled in a parent’s health plan in the last 12 months – only 45 percent of those considering Democrats did the same.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ab...majority-support-planned-parenthood-36392.htm
53% of Americans oppose cutting off federal government funding to Planned Parenthood, compared to 43% who wish to cut funding

Poll: Supreme Court decisions in sync with Americans on gay marriage but not Voting Rights
55% of Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid

POLL: Americans Support Obamacare Provisions, Oppose Obamacare | ThinkProgress
People support most of the provisions that make up the ACA by a large margin, yet, somehow oppose the law as a whole

CNN Poll: Republicans would bear the brunt of shutdown blame - CNN.com
60% of Americans will blame the GOP for a government shutdown

I could go on all day. Point is, that your moral high ground falls flat when citing polls that show Americans don't favor it so you think it should be abolished, or defunded, or whatever. The GOP routinely goes against the will of the American people on all manner of topics. Your convenient use of polling data (in the midst of an outrageous mis-information campaign by your party, no less) reaks of irony.

 

[GoIrish41]

I find out this morning if I'm considered "essential". If not, I guess I'll be sleeping in tomorrow. I'm so sick of both sides now. They've had months to get their **** together and avoid a shutdown. Instead, all they care about is getting money in their pockets and ensuring their special interest groups are taken care of. I hope they all rot in hell.

I'm in the same boat NDFan. Hope you are "essential" and your family isn't negatively impacted.

 

[GoIrish41]

Great speech...but as do most of the speeches I hear these days that end w/ a rousing rally...it presumes pride the folks of the post WWII era earned...they did such a damned good job no one since has had to rise to their example...ironically, our chance is coming largely because of false pride like this.

Your arguments are about what we should be doing based on your sensibilities, and have nothing to do with rather the rest of the nation can absorb it...

Indeed time will tell if the benefit even reaches those it intended to help...but largely what it will accomplish is put MORE people in need of subsidy...create more government waste, drive more deficit spending...and FURTHER complicate an already difficult care system...this makes great sense.

Who used to refer to the US as the "Shining City on the Hill?" It isn't my sensibilities that are offended, it is the national sentiment that we are the greatest country the world has every known -- and that sentiment was largely perpetuated by the Conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Was that just political rhetoric? If so, I will say here and now that Reagan was completely full of sh*t!!!! I, personally, don't believe he was. I believe he understood that with that status, there are responsibilities -- not the least of which are to ensure that we take care of the least among ourselves because we are only as strong as the weakest link. THAT is why he made it illegal for hospitals to turn people requiring emergency care away. He came to recognize, despite his previous rhetoric on the topic, that we must take care of our own to be great. You can speculate all you wish about the pending doom that will happen when Obamacare is enacted. You can believe the hype machine that is whipped up by the GOP detractors of the law, but this law will stay on the books and we will all know in the coming months and years what the affect will be. The fight is over, it's time to make it work for the good of the country -- for the good of the greatest country on the face of the earth. That is, unless the "ideals" of the extreme right wing of a single party are more important than the collective good of the country. I'll no doubt be furloughed over this silly fight at midnight tonight, so I'll be made to stay home. In the days and weeks that follow, when the GOP is sufficiently beat down by the backlash of the American people, an agreement that does not defund or delay Obamacare will be reached. Congress will then agree to pay me and the rest of the furloughed workers back pay for the time missed, making this shutdown a giant cost for the American people that left us exactly where we are today -- with the ACA. It is one thing to have a principled debate on a topic, it is quite another thing to go onto a suicide mission. Especially if that suicide mission has no achievable objective.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Good luck bud, I hope you're "essential".

The next week or so could be frustrating as hell.

Thanks Bob. It sucks not knowing what's going to happen.

 

[NDFan4Life]

I'm in the same boat NDFan. Hope you are "essential" and your family isn't negatively impacted.

I hope things work out for you too.

 

[BGIF]

How "essential" can one be to their job when they have the time to research and make a couple thousand posts, on this board alone, during working hours?

 

[GoIrish41]

How "essential" can one be to their job when they have the time to research and make a couple thousand posts, on this board alone, during working hours?

I'm at the airport actually, but thanks for asking.

 

[DSully1995]

Can we get some discolsure notices too? it would surprise me if you support raising the minimum wage if you work in the department of labor. Mostly messing around

 

[irishpat183]

You're so lucky to be on the other side. God what a blessing to be under the umbrella with "legacy" programs like SS, medicare, medicaid, and obamacare. All leftist entitlement programs that will bankrupt and collapse us. Won't happen tomorrow or next year, but one day not so far off.

but we just need more funding......


What a joke. The problem with the left is that it's NEVER enough. That will always be the problem with them. There is no "end game". Just more, more, more...


And when we give more...government just spends the money on bullshit (why SS is broke). Then they ask again, and dupe moronic liberal voters, into thinking that everyone that doesn't think like them, hates the worker.


When in fact, the ****ing worker is getting screwed and is too stupid to figure it out and thinks that anyone promising him "free" stuff is on his side.


Stop spending money and thinking you know what's best for us. That is all. If government does those two things, we'd be alot better off.

 

[Wild Bill]

but we just need more funding......


What a joke. The problem with the left is that it's NEVER enough. That will always be the problem with them. There is no "end game". Just more, more, more...


And when we give more...government just spends the money on bullshit (why SS is broke). Then they ask again, and dupe moronic liberal voters, into thinking that everyone that doesn't think like them, hates the worker.


When in fact, the ****ing worker is getting screwed and is too stupid to figure it out and thinks that anyone promising him "free" stuff is on his side.


Stop spending money and thinking you know what's best for us. That is all. If government does those two things, we'd be alot better off.

My old man has been telling my mother the same thing for years...little to no progress has been made.

 

[phgreek]

Who used to refer to the US as the "Shining City on the Hill?" It isn't my sensibilities that are offended, it is the national sentiment that we are the greatest country the world has every known -- and that sentiment was largely perpetuated by the Conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Was that just political rhetoric? If so, I will say here and now that Reagan was completely full of sh*t!!!! I, personally, don't believe he was. I believe he understood that with that status, there are responsibilities -- not the least of which are to ensure that we take care of the least among ourselves because we are only as strong as the weakest link. THAT is why he made it illegal for hospitals to turn people requiring emergency care away. He came to recognize, despite his previous rhetoric on the topic, that we must take care of our own to be great. You can speculate all you wish about the pending doom that will happen when Obamacare is enacted. You can believe the hype machine that is whipped up by the GOP detractors of the law, but this law will stay on the books and we will all know in the coming months and years what the affect will be. The fight is over, it's time to make it work for the good of the country -- for the good of the greatest country on the face of the earth. That is, unless the "ideals" of the extreme right wing of a single party are more important than the collective good of the country. I'll no doubt be furloughed over this silly fight at midnight tonight, so I'll be made to stay home. In the days and weeks that follow, when the GOP is sufficiently beat down by the backlash of the American people, an agreement that does not defund or delay Obamacare will be reached. Congress will then agree to pay me and the rest of the furloughed workers back pay for the time missed, making this shutdown a giant cost for the American people that left us exactly where we are today -- with the ACA. It is one thing to have a principled debate on a topic, it is quite another thing to go onto a suicide mission. Especially if that suicide mission has no achievable objective.

again...great speech...stirring, rousing. I would call it the oddest Cherry picking speech I've ever seen....Coopting Ronald Reagan's vision...to support this?

...it feels odd discussing Ronald Reagan's words as applied to growing government, and at a time when we've sunk below (by many measures) even the economy he inherited...I think its inappropriate to drag him into this discussion only because the man may rise from his grave and slap the sh!t out of people.

As pertains to his vision...he largely used it to describe us as the world had seen us...THEN. NOW...bwahahaha...not even close. As we see ourselves...I guess a little less than half of us equate ACA with a shining anything unless its the dream of coins we once had. But if you didn't catch why the man even ran for president, it was to prevent a nation in decline specifically due to what ?

Dude...I am honestly sorry you would be impacted by shut downs. Brinksmanship sucks for everyone involved. As of late it seems to be the only thing that drives "negotiation". You can blame tea party folks, and their reps....but when you jam through poorly written, and nebulous legislation of this magnitude, at this time, wherein the sponsors can't even quantify it, much less understand its impacts, and you do it along party lines...you expected what?

I love the banging of the "law of the land" drums...cracks me up. Right now conservatives are trying to use legal means to combat bad legislation...hadn't heard any of them instruct their constituents to ignore laws, nor did I hear W tell his AG to just not enforce laws...If I were a liberal, I'd quit the whole law of the land spiel...seriously.

 

[irishpat183]

again...great speech...stirring, rousing. I would call it the oddest Cherry picking speech I've ever seen....Coopting Ronald Reagan's vision...to support this?

...it feels odd discussing Ronald Reagan's words as applied to growing government, and at a time when we've sunk below (by many measures) even the economy he inherited...I think its inappropriate to drag him into this discussion only because the man may rise from his grave and slap the sh!t out of people.

As pertains to his vision...he largely used it to describe us as the world had seen us...THEN. NOW...bwahahaha...not even close. As we see ourselves...I guess a little less than half of us equate ACA with a shining anything unless its the dream of coins we once had. But if you didn't catch why the man even ran for president, it was to prevent a nation in decline specifically due to what ?

Dude...I am honestly sorry you would be impacted by shut downs. Brinksmanship sucks for everyone involved. As of late it seems to be the only thing that drives "negotiation". You can blame tea party folks, and their reps....but when you jam through poorly written, and nebulous legislation of this magnitude, at this time, wherein the sponsors can't even quantify it, much less understand its impacts, and you do it along party lines...you expected what?
I love the banging of the "law of the land" drums...cracks me up. Right now conservatives are trying to use legal means to combat bad legislation...hadn't heard any of them instruct their constituents to ignore laws, nor did I hear W tell his AG to just not enforce laws...If I were a liberal, I'd quit the whole law of the land spiel...seriously.

You the man!!


They'd rather just submit, like beaten dogs, to the status quo...than admit that the bill was garbage.

People are afraid of the Tea party becuase....wait for it....they're DIFFERENT.

 

[GoIrish41]

again...great speech...stirring, rousing. I would call it the oddest Cherry picking speech I've ever seen....Coopting Ronald Reagan's vision...to support this?

...it feels odd discussing Ronald Reagan's words as applied to growing government, and at a time when we've sunk below (by many measures) even the economy he inherited...I think its inappropriate to drag him into this discussion only because the man may rise from his grave and slap the sh!t out of people.

As pertains to his vision...he largely used it to describe us as the world had seen us...THEN. NOW...bwahahaha...not even close. As we see ourselves...I guess a little less than half of us equate ACA with a shining anything unless its the dream of coins we once had. But if you didn't catch why the man even ran for president, it was to prevent a nation in decline specifically due to what ?

Dude...I am honestly sorry you would be impacted by shut downs. Brinksmanship sucks for everyone involved. As of late it seems to be the only thing that drives "negotiation". You can blame tea party folks, and their reps....but when you jam through poorly written, and nebulous legislation of this magnitude, at this time, wherein the sponsors can't even quantify it, much less understand its impacts, and you do it along party lines...you expected what?

I love the banging of the "law of the land" drums...cracks me up. Right now conservatives are trying to use legal means to combat bad legislation...hadn't heard any of them instruct their constituents to ignore laws, nor did I hear W tell his AG to just not enforce laws...If I were a liberal, I'd quit the whole law of the land spiel...seriously.

Why? Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. He promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

In addition, Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

 

[BobD]

You the man!!


They'd rather just submit, like beaten dogs, to the status quo...than admit that the bill was garbage.

People are afraid of the Tea party becuase....wait for it....they're DIFFERENT.

Nobody's afraid of the tea party, except the republican party. Everyone else just laughs at them.

Nobody is submitting yet, but the republicans will soon.

 

[potownhero]

Why? Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. He promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

In addition, Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

You speak as if all taxes are the same.

The following paragraph proves you wrong...again. It seems like you're wrong more often than correct.

Reagan lowered the top individual tax rate from 70% to 28% and by the end of his term the per capita individual income tax revenue was greater than it was at the start. His policies allowed the economy to grow [more than 20 million new jobs, interest rates cut to less than a third (from 13.5% to 4.1%) and GDP growth of in excess of 25%]. Of course, immediately upon lowering the rate, the revenues taken from the taxpayer was reduced, but because he helped provide an atmosphere conducive to growth of the private sector which by the end of his term more than paid for itself. http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Reagan tax cuts and revenue.jpg

Sure Reagan went along with a temporary highway tax (temp increase tax on gas) and a cigarette tax, but many of your so-called tax increases that you're putting on reagan was to simplify the tax code.

To this point, Reagan thought that the Liberals benefitted the most from the misinformed and confused public (shocker!). In order to further simplify the tax code Reagan agree to eliminate loop-holes and exceptions thereby increasing effective rates.

As an aside, regarding tax code simplification (Income tax went from about 16 brackets to 2), Reagan agreed with the Democrats to readjust the Capital Gains Tax to match the Income tax rate of 28%. This is the only rate I know of which was lowered than raised and it was done to go along with the Democrat's in order to further simplify and make Capital Gains taxed at the same rate as Regular Income. Again, I want to reiterate that this was done to simplify the tax system.

 

[phgreek]

Why? Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. He promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

In addition, Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Look at you, all ready with the handbook, page 27, paragraph 2..."Reagan was a lie".

Tax cuts indeed helped, and he raised taxes after...sure...but here's the thing...why didn't he get skewered? His vision and rhetoric (some call it leadership) lead to reasonable shrinkage in state and local governments as well...Aha!. He got people lathered up about gubment at all levels.

He started a ground swell, so state and local governments shrank, and now look at federal revenues as a share of GDP under Reagan...that's the measure of fed. government size that really matters at any given point in time...remember the thrust of my point...the irresponsibility does not necessarily lie in the idea...but when you strap it on.

I think Reagan was a politician, and master manipulator who got good guidance about what matters when he needed it. The result is, the size of fed. government as relates to GDP shrank...considerably...under Ronny Raygun, even with a ROBUST defense...at the same time he caused a revolution at local and state levels...so the people did his heavy lifting at home.... Pretty smart...or lucky I guess.

My personal contention is, had Reagan not seen the growth in the economy, he'd have squeezed fed gubment...until it made sense.

Now is the time to squeeze all gubment...not grow it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Look at you, all ready with the handbook, page 27, paragraph 2..."Reagan was a lie".

Tax cuts indeed helped, and he raised taxes after...sure...but here's the thing...why didn't he get skewered? His vision and rhetoric (some call it leadership) lead to reasonable shrinkage in state and local governments as well...Aha!. He got people lathered up about gubment at all levels.

He started a ground swell, so state and local governments shrank, and now look at federal revenues as a share of GDP under Reagan...that's the measure of fed. government size that really matters at any given point in time...remember the thrust of my point...the irresponsibility does not necessarily lie in the idea...but when you strap it on.

I think Reagan was a politician, and master manipulator who got good guidance about what matters when he needed it. The result is, the size of fed. government as relates to GDP shrank...considerably...under Ronny Raygun, even with a ROBUST defense...at the same time he caused a revolution at local and state levels...so the people did his heavy lifting at home.... Pretty smart...or lucky I guess.

My personal contention is, had Reagan not seen the growth in the economy, he'd have squeezed fed gubment...until it made sense.

Now is the time to squeeze all gubment...not grow it.

I actually voted for Reagan -- twice. So, I'm not trying to bash him. Simply trying to point out that grew the government at a high rate, yet now that seems to be the worst thing that can happen in the entire world.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm in the same boat NDFan. Hope you are "essential" and your family isn't negatively impacted.

I should've known you worked for the Government. Now all of that garbage from the Reilly thread makes so much sense. As is how you would get into a "hiring position" with your "employer."

I'm sorry but there is a tremendous amount of labor (and other) waste in the Government. Anyone who has done consulting work for them knows this. Veteran Affairs is the worst offender I've seen... usually about 5 people to do the job of 1 person. Most people take 2 hour lunches and half days on Friday. And when you're consulting for them, they expect you to just do their work for them while they sit around and Facebook. Other branches are far better, but there are still bad apples with every agency I've worked with. Friend from IBM told me at the USPS there was an employee who did nothing but plan birthdays. Seriously.

I feel bad for the people who are truly hard workers. There are a lot of them I've run into. Mostly in CBP, DHS, and military agencies. But there are a whole lot of entitled, lazy, and stupid people that would be fired at any respectable private corporation. This is one of the reasons many people support the idea of the ACA and what it stands for while being opposed to the actual law and its implementation... because they don't trust a Government that has something as publicly dysfunctional as Congress, or they've dealt with the bad apples I've mentioned and that has jaded them.

I support the ACA on many levels, but I truly fear a single-payer system run like the Veteran Affairs healthcare system. Having seen that first hand, if a Government healthcare program is run anything remotely like that all this talk about "efficiency" is beyond a joke. And there's no real reason to expect it to be better. When is the last time anything other than the military was run well?

 

[NDFan4Life]

No furlough for me. Apparently, they consider me "essential" to the DHS.

Unfortunately, three of my coworkers will be furloughed starting at 12 noon tomorrow. I hope this doesn't last long.

Both sides must know that this will hurt the economy and the working families. My guess is that they just don't care. I think it's time to impeach them all and start all over again. It couldn't be much worse than what it is now.

 

[Ndaccountant]

No furlough for me. Apparently, they consider me "essential" to the DHS.

Unfortunately, three of my coworkers will be furloughed starting at 12 noon tomorrow. I hope this doesn't last long.

Both sides must know that this will hurt the economy and the working families. My guess is that they just don't care. I think it's time to impeach them all and start all over again. It couldn't be much worse than what it is now.

Sorry, not against you personally (good luck to your coworkers) but that argument is just so phony to me.

For example, the government in this case is hurting the economy because people will not get paid or will be laid off. Compare that to health care, where everyone is clamoring for reductions and the Cleveland Clinic is laying off thousands and people are saying that is what we need. Which is it? Guess it depends which political figurehead is making the cuts. If the economy is propped up by spending that is not sustainable in the end, it really doesn't matter.