The Left Starts to Rethink Reagan »
Posted by: Stephen Johnson 2 months, 2 weeks ago258 CommentsReflectReport this Story
It's no secret that intellectuals, generally being liberals, didn't think much of Ronald Reagan at the time..But I think that now they can no longer ignore him. His impact on the world and country, whether you like it or not, was so important that to ignore him is to ignore an entirety of American politics.
Read Full Story at newsweek.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 258
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Stephen Johnson
May 4, 2008, 12:55 p.m.FTA:
What Reagan did was something differentâ;;it was to lead with the same spirit and optimism and forward-looking hope that liberals had projected, but in the name of policies that were frankly conservative. And he managed to do that in a way that no previous president, and certainly no conservative president, had managed to do before.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
libsRfunny
May 4, 2008, 2:06 p.m."WILENTZ: It's interesting. It's no secret that intellectuals, generally being liberals..."
He already starts off spouting arrogant, hubris-laden BS. LOL
Willentz: "People had to overcome their own passions, their own dislikes. Some people had to grow up."
Now he'd getting accurate. Lefties always are about emotional arguments and appeals.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
libsRfunny
May 4, 2008, 2:08 p.m."WILL: Let me make [a couple of] points about what Sean just said. First, an intellectual is not a synonym for liberal. In fact, one of the differences Ronald Reagan made, and one of the differences that made Ronald Reagan, was there had emerged, particularly in the 1970s, a conservative intellectual movementâ;;the think tanks and journals and all the rest."
Ohhh ... SNAP!!! George Will and I are in perfect agreement. Great minds think alike ;)
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
JohnQPublic
May 5, 2008, 11:30 a.m.Conservative intellectual??????? Isn't that an oxymoron?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Dionys
May 5, 2008, 12:23 p.m." intellectual is not a synonym for liberal."
Very true. It's not a synonym. It's just a label that's much more often accurate for liberals over conservatives. Liberals tend to actually think, consider situations from different angles and have a greater grasp of history and the bigger picture as opposed to conservatives who shout dogma over the words of others.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 12:33 p.m.A couple of elitists aren't you. You think that taking every bodies money and giving them everything from the government is what should happen, at least according to the candidates you have today.
Europe is going away from that model these days because it costs too much. But liberals here can't seem to understand that. So much for your vaunted intelligence.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 1:27 p.m.>>A couple of elitists aren't you. You think that taking every bodies money and giving them everything from the government is what should happen, at least according to the candidates you have today.
So you think taking everyone's money & giving it to the richest individuals & corporations is better?
And, btw, our candidates do NOT want to take everyone's money & give them everything from the gov't. They just believe that giving little things, like policemen, firemen, hospital & emergency care, clean water & air, safe food, safe roads, & levy systems that actually work, is better than giving tax breaks to oil companies who are raking in the largest profits in world history, or the richest 1% who take that money & send jobs overseas.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:41 p.m.I suggest that you look at their web sites. They both want the government to be the universal health care giver. That alone will be a huge tax increase. Great Brittian has a problem keeping up with the money. Arthritics and people with heart problems are now supposed to self medicate.
There are many programs that they want to put in place as well. Not enough money in the US to pay for Clintons and Obama want to do even more.
How old are you anyway. I remember going to Lancaster, CA and driving from LA to there. I would come up out of the brown smog and go into the clean air over the mountains. At times from there you could see the brown gunk spilling over the mountains. That does not exist today. Lake Erie was considered a dead lake that would take hundreds of years to clean up. Lots of fish are there now and people go swimming in it. The Mississippi River was called the colon of the US. That has been turned around.
etc.
Where have you been or did you do a memory flush.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 2:07 p.m.>>They both want the government to be the universal health care giver
Again, would you rather give your money to the richest in this country?
On Universal Health Care: my company pays about $18,000/year PER EMPLOYEE for LIMITED health care & ever-increasing co-pays & prescription drug prices, to a company whose sole purpose is to make money. I think I could handle getting that $18k in income & having the gov't take even up to $10k of that for Universal Health Care, whose sole purpose IS TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE.
Even with that seemingly exorbitant tax increase, I'm still $8,000 ahead - not to mention the co-pays & prescription drug price increases.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 2:50 p.m.What government program has ever been efficient except the armed forces. Every time the government creates a bureaucracy the nightmare begins. Layers on layers of people creating and trying to apply the rules. Who gets what and who doesn't. Who goes where and for what.
Look at Great Brittan. Arthritics and Heart problems are self medicated as of about 3 months ago. You have to wait for months to see a doctor if you are allowed to see one. Sometimes you get in and you are told that they are not allowed to see you for that particular problem and have to go somewhere else. Get in line again.
Really great.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 3:09 p.m.>>What government program has ever been efficient except the armed forces.
If that were the case, exactly why are we using more private contractors (mercenaries) in Iraq than in the history of this country?
And, fyi, Medicare costs only about 3% for overhead. Your typical insurance co. is at about 17%, give or take. THAT is a bit more efficient than the private sector.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 4:37 p.m."why are we using more private contractors (mercenaries) in Iraq than in the history of this country?"
Could it have to do with the fact that Clinton cut the military to the bone. A favorite thing of Democrats.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 10:19 p.m.>>Could it have to do with the fact that Clinton cut the military to the bone. A favorite thing of Democrats.
You forget that the BUSH adminstration recommended the cuts. Also, this admin was planning on attacking Iraq even before 9/11. So why didn't it start building up the military BEFORE it attacked? Could it be that W's trying to enrich a few cronies that actually run private contractors like Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 6, 2008, 12:29 p.m.Why is it for liberals its all about enriching buddies? Is that how you operate? You do it so you know that is how they do it?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 2:14 p.m.>>Not enough money in the US to pay for....
There would be without the Iraq fiasco & tax breaks to the richest & corps.
>>I would come up out of the brown smog and go into the clean air over the mountains.... That has been turned around.
And the Bush admin is trying to reverse that progress with BS progs like Blue Skies, Healthy Forests, increased mercury levels, etc.
I grew up in the "Chemical Center Of The World." The air there was so bad people actually had their lungs burned just by breathing in. The air has been cleaned up & at one time it had the best drinking water in the country. Thanks to Reagan, Bush-1 & Bush-2 policies, pollution levels are increasing, the Feds are forcing local Environmental Offices to allow polluting of streams, & "Free Trade" forced the sale of the drinking water system to a foreign company w/noticeable declines in water quality.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 2:53 p.m.If we quit having an armed forces we still would not have enough money.
What garbage you are spouting. They are trying to have sensible rules that people can live with. Some rules that were passed are not in the realm of obtainable.
Of course that means nothing to the environmental wackos.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 3:05 p.m.>>Of course that means nothing to the environmental wackos.
Wanting to be able to breathe without frying a lung, or drink water without risking mercury contamination, is not exactly in the "wacko" realm.
Just remember - without an ecology, there is no economy. If people can't live, they can't buy stuff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
AtheismIsReality
May 5, 2008, 11:19 a.m.What exactly did Reagan do? Create debt that we have not been able to pay back? And that's "conservative"?
What's funny is Cons will wag the finger at individuals to "live within their means", then blissfully ignore when "conservative" Presidents do not live up to such a mandate when it comes to the country.
It's totally out of balance.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 12:34 p.m.It seems to me I remember a wall falling and an empire dying. Little insignificant things like that.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
AtheismIsReality
May 5, 2008, 1:47 p.m.The Soviet Union would have fallen without all that spending. Get over it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 2:55 p.m.You mean if they had had enough money they would still have fallen? And here I thought it was because they couldn't pay people.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
AtheismIsReality
May 5, 2008, 4:37 p.m.They would have collapsed on themselves and not be able to pay people without all of Reagan's spending.
Get over it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 9:21 p.m.So you say but history says that they were trying to keep up with Reagan.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
AtheismIsReality
May 6, 2008, 3:57 a.m.And here I thought it was from engaging in stupid policy decisions like invading Afghanistan.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Wolfie2007
May 4, 2008, 1:22 p.m.No doubt Ronald Reagan has a place in American history as one of our nations greatest presidents. The absolute best president of the 20th century.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 4, 2008, 1:26 p.m.ROFLMFAO!!!!
Me rethinks he should have been locked up for paying off Iran to hold our hostages until election day.
He is WORSE than Bush because he is the one who invited the religious nut cases into what used to be the Republican Party.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
libsRfunny
May 4, 2008, 2 p.m."He is WORSE than Bush because he is the one who invited the religious nut cases into what used to be the Republican Party."
No, he's the one who focused on traditional family structures and family values, something liberals completely destroyed with their socialist policies of the '60s and '70s.
The religious left: Wright, Sharpton, Jackson - are FAR more destructive than the "religious right."
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
dwemm
May 5, 2008, 8 a.m.Sorry, libs, but the general consensus among commentators on William F. Buckley was that he'd kicked the kooks (the religious right, the John Birchers, etc.) out of the conservative movement. His own son made that claim as being one of his goals.
Reagan let them back in. When asked "are you born again" he replied "Yes, I guess you could say I've had an experience like that." Similar to the Bush instant conversion to win the White House.
Reagan was an actor. Peggy Noonan was his screenwriter and Lee Atwater was his director.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 11:57 a.m.Reagan was also very big on nanny govt...remember "We will be a smoke free society by the year 2000"?
Resulting in all the big brother nanny laws that prevent smoking in your own house.And of course there's the "drug war"...big brother hiding under every rock,Gestapo style raids,billions of wasted tax dollars and overflowing prisons ,gang warfare...oh....and more plentiful and cheaper drugs.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 12:50 p.m.What a bunch of losers. Whoever the Republican president is they are not intelligent. They have people who think for them. In reality they are very intelligent whish is probably why you hate them so much.
Who pushed all the smoking laws all over the country? Seems like liberal Democrats. They are the ones who love the nanny laws. Womb to tomb coverage and law to protect us from ourselves. Who is pushing the attempt to curtail fast food? Who is hugging the trees? Who is for animal rights? The liberals keep trying to shut down anything that just might have anything detrimental to people whether proved or not.
Think about carbon credits. Take money from people here and have people in third world countries take some of the farm land that is used to feed them and plant trees. Smart thinking. Since we are converting a lot of food to ethonal and driving up the price of food we can sell them food at inflated prices. Good liberal thinking.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 12:58 p.m.No,wrong again...Reagan proclaimed we would be "a smoke free society by the year 2000" in 1982,it was a major goal of his administration and another failure.
If you want "smart thinking" tell your hero Bush that American farmers are waiting for him to stop prosecuting people for growing hemp,which produces 20 times more cellulose than corn and low carbon building materials.But NO...Reagan said hemp is marijuana and we must be protected from the evil weed that once was America's largest industry.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:16 p.m.He might have said it but the liberals are trying to do it. He thought education on the subject would work. The problem is it doesn't work on addiction and the "just say no" program that was to keep kids from starting was working for substance abuse was downplayed by Clinton and the problem became worse again.
Who keeps raising the taxes on cigarettes? Liberals. Who are the largest users of cigarettes? Poor. So the liberals like to hit the poor the hardest.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 1:29 p.m.>>the "just say no" program that was to keep kids from starting was working for substance abuse
You actually believe that? No wonder you're still a Bush supporter.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:49 p.m.The statistics showed substance abuse among kids was falling. Then the program was curtailed because Mrs. Clinton didn't like it. The statistics started to rise again. What does that tell you.
Preventative education was working. Remove it and the problem gets worse.
What is hard to understand about that. A cheap program that was working. I guess you think we need to spend billions to accomplish anything.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 1:53 p.m.When the drug war was started,the govt estimated that 100,000 Americans used all illegal drugs combined...today,billions of tax dollars later, the govt estimates that over 20 million use marijuana alone...what does that tell you?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 3:05 p.m.That they needed more programs that worked and not to junk ones that work. The worst drug at the moment is crack. They made laws about that drug harsher than the other drugs because the people living in areas affected were needing help. The courts just overturned that law. They are forcing the sentences of those convicted to be reduces so we are turning out a bunch of crack pushers. Watch the problem get worse.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 3:07 p.m.Now you're getting ridiculous...there has never been any success in the drug war since it began,next you'll be telling us that alcohol prohibition was a success.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 4:46 p.m.I hope you find this as amusing as I do...a DEMOCRAT critcizing BUSH for slashing anti-drug funding LOL!!
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 1:42 p.m.I believe McCain is one of the loudest supporters of raising cigarette taxes...but it's OK,smokers are second class citizens thanks to Ronnie.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:50 p.m.Nope, thanks to all the laws that Liberals passed about where to smoke etc.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 1:55 p.m.Oh I don't disagree that dems are following Reagan's blueprint...one big reason I'm not a dem.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
May 5, 2008, 2:54 p.m.mntn..
you're arguing with a guy who defended RAPISTS.. Bush and Reagan are easy to defend when you have a soul that can do that..
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 2:58 p.m.ROFLMAO
You are a fool to even think that. You can't read or something. I said that if they were guilty they should be put under the jail. That is defending a rapist. Or do you think that someone is a rapist if the accusation is made?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
May 5, 2008, 3:24 p.m.http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/05/01/-ira...
seems you were taking their side.. all the way..
as i said you are a master at defending the indefensible
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
May 5, 2008, 3:27 p.m.and again here....
http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/05/01/-ira...
no not just because of an accusation.. but when the investigation is squashed then .. where there's smoke there might just be fire...
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 9:26 p.m.You mean that you don't find anything wrong with a woman waking up with the man who just raped her. You left out the post that said just that. How many women go to sleep after a man rapes her and wakes up in the room with him. Any woman is traumatized by rape. They are in great fear. The adrenalin starts pumping and they just lay down by the guy and go to sleep. Do you have any brains at all.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 10:23 p.m.Haven't you heard of the date-rape drug? An old friend's daughter was drugged & raped. And, yes, she woke up the next morning, after the drug wore off. And, yes, she WAS raped.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 6, 2008, 10:27 a.m.You are saying that was the case here? They have access to those drugs?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 6, 2008, 10:17 p.m.Yes. They are pretty easy to get.
Don't you listen to the news? There was even the controversy with China using the chemical in children's toys.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 9, 2008, 11:07 p.m.My my. You have knowledge that this particular case is the result of those drugs. Where is your evidence. All I read was the woman woke up beside him. That makes me suspicious and think the case should be looked at carefully. No evidence was talked about of forensic analysis of the blood to verify a drug was used. All I said was that there was a problem there. I like the fact that one of my posts given against me said that people guilty of this crime should be put under the jail but that was ignored.
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
May 6, 2008, 8:42 a.m.it's called drugs.. fool.. many women cannot even remember they were raped...
you are an apologist to the end..
what world do you live in.....
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 6, 2008, 10:34 a.m.LOL
You and wolfie are saying that the people there in Iraq have access to drugs like that.
Check me out here.
She woke up not remembering that she was raped but was angry that the person she woke up by had raped her. Do I have that right?
I am saying that there is something suspicious about that case. But you want to say that ALL cries of rape are true. I guess those Duke boys should have gone to jail and the prosecutor should not have been fired and no lawsuits filed against him and others. Is that correct?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 6, 2008, 10:29 p.m.>>She woke up not remembering that she was raped but was angry that the person she woke up by had raped her. Do I have that right?
When she woke up sore & bleeding in certain places, it was kind of obvious she was raped.
Of course there are false accusations, just like there are false "I am not a criminal"-s
But to dismiss it out of hand just because you can't see how they can get the drugs in Iraq is ludicrous at best.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 9, 2008, 11:18 p.m.Where is the evidence that you are talking about. All that was said was she woke up nest to him. No thing else. Nothing stating how she felt physically. You keep putting things in my mouth I didn't say. I said was fishy with just the evidence given. You people make up what was not in the story. Then you attack my suspicions and say that the rape never happened. Not what I said. Quit twisting what I did say.
Evidence, evidence, and evidence. Real facts not created ones.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 2:59 p.m.You talk the liberal talk but you are not a Democrat. What country do you live in that has a different name for liberals?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 3:09 p.m.To start with...you wouldn't know "liberal" or "conservative" if you fell on one.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
May 5, 2008, 3:28 p.m.judging by most of your comment.. one could assume the name for IDIOT is conservative..
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 9:27 p.m.Typical lib. Calling names instead of losing on the issues.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
May 6, 2008, 8:45 a.m.i didn't call you a name.. unless of course the shoe fits.. which in your case you have already proven so i'll just call'em the way i see em.. YOU ARE AN IDIOT..
who stands up for rapists... then denies doing it.. if you have enough balls to make foolish statements.. you should have enough back bone to stand up proud and SAY YEP I SAID THAT.. you done have enough conviction even for that..
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 6, 2008, 12:32 p.m.First you deny it and then you are proud of it. Can't make up your mind.
I do not stand up for real rapists. You on the other hand believe if a woman says it then it must be true. You obviously want the Duke students in jail because they were accused.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Leemck02
May 5, 2008, 10:31 a.m.Wolfie, short of the Soviet collapse, which is a great accomplishment, what else? Handling WWII is rather significant or bringing the nation back from the Great Depression. Greatest in the 20th century is laying it on a bit thick. Whatever you desire to remember him for if fine, but do not carry his policy forward another day. He is known for needing a national bailout to keep America from also collapsing as did the Soviets. You keep him as a hero, I'll remember him as an actor that played a good part.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
riverat
May 5, 2008, 11:32 a.m.I'd say the Soviet collapse is in question also-as the CIA predicted in the late 70's that the soviet Union would collapse in about 10 years. It did-Maybe Regan pushed it a little.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 11:46 a.m.The CIA watched the collapse of the Soviet Union on CNN along with the rest of the world,Reagan had nothing to do with it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 12:53 p.m.LOL
Rewriting history again. He outspent them on defense. Remember the liberals spoofing it calling it Star Wars? That technology worked and the Soviets knew it would. They collapsed because they spent themselves out of money trying to compete.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 1:30 p.m.>>They collapsed because they spent themselves out of money trying to compete.
They they ran out of money because they got trapped in a quagmire called Afghanistan & couldn't get out. Sound familiar?
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jordan11
May 5, 2008, 10:47 a.m.The absolute best president of the 20th century.>>>>
Well, if you're into throwing vulnerable people into the streets to be homeless, watching people die of a horrible cluster of diseases and not giving a damn, Ignoring all expert opinion and squandering billions on a failed star wars system, raising taxes numerous times cause the squandered billions ate up the treasury....then yeah. Reagan would probably fit the bill for 'greatest president.'
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ranchhand
May 4, 2008, 3:21 p.m.Hum, ?I know I should applaud Reagan, so I will name what I consider his achievements , He made sure that the hostages were brought home, Carter tried so many things which all was a failure, even at the last Iran waited until Reagan took over before releasing them. Fear of what Reagan would do.After Reagan went in he started bringing the economy back which unemployment finally leveled off to 9% the first year.Then continued to get lower. I didn't like the thought of letting grandparents watch the kids and getting rid of babysitting aid. I didn't like the Amnesty that was a disaster which has led up to now with more illegals coming in daily. And now the politicians want to legalize them too. This was caused by liberals who asked a lot so that they would give a little. Why is it that liberals try the same solution to a problem over and over and always expect a different outcome?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
icono1
May 4, 2008, 5:15 p.m."Why is it that liberals try the same solution to a problem over and over and always expect a different outcome?"
Some people say that is a definition of insanity.
But none the less it is a good question.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Leemck02
May 5, 2008, 10:39 a.m.Ranch, liberals aren't blinded by vanity and delusions for power. Conservatives do that no-tax and spend thing, then take from entitlements for the working class, only to fill gaps where the wealthy take and don't give back. The insanity is working people who buy into that ideology taking a false status instead of real help. If you are wealthy, I can see you making this comment but you you are under $100K, you are going to love conservatism in hard times.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 11:48 a.m.Reagan took food out of school kids mouths ...remember? Ketchup is a vegetable. LOL!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:04 p.m.LOL
You libs are reaching. Every time taxes have been cut the revenue has risen. That goes back to Jack Kennedy. One of the best things he did. I remember the republican in congress saying that there was a problem with the school lunch program. Too many teachers kids were getting free lunches. They thought that the requirements for getting them needed to be looked at. The Democrat response - "Starve the kids."
Any time the Conservative want to make the entitlements be realistic the Liberals set up a similar howl. I have ties to the farming community. We pay people there to not grow food on land that they couldn't use anyway. One southern democrat congressman made a lot of money that way. Part of his land was the side of a mountain that was too steep to plant anything and it was in the land bank. He always screamed the loudest when it came time to look at those laws.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 3:57 p.m.>>You libs are reaching. Every time taxes have been cut the revenue has risen. That goes back to Jack Kennedy.
Every time they're cut FOR THE WORKING CLASS....
Every time they've been cut for the wealthiest 1% & the corporations who send jobs overseas, the revenues fall. That means Reagan & W.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 9:34 p.m.Do you know what the bottom 50% of people pay in taxes. 3%
Who do you think pays for taxes on corporations? Their customers. For corporations tax is part of the cost of doing business. Clinton goes along with cutting the tax on gas for the summer. She wants to tax the oil companies to replace it. That will make the price of gasoline go even higher. The oil companies want profit on all costs of doing business.
Of course Libs never think things like that through. In case you don't get it a tax on a corporation is a hidden tax on their customers. Makes great sense to tax defense industries or other companies that sell to the government. Think that one through.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 5, 2008, 10:37 p.m.The bottom 50% barely pay taxes because they don't make enough to pay.
And who do you think pays for the tax BREAKS the large corps get? The working class. Less revenues, less gov't services, higher costs for everything. That means the working class pays more of its income than the corps. And if Reps are so big on free market, why not let free market dictate the prices rather than giving big corps tax cuts & letting them jack their prices - like oil co's are doing now?
& you say LIBS don't think through? Who is paying more in state & local taxes because of reduced fed monies? Who has fewer police, fire, good roads, good schools, etc., because of reduced fed monies because of tax cuts to the wealthy?
Hint: it's not the wealthy.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 6, 2008, 12:41 p.m.LOL
Half of the people in the country are living in poverty?
Who pays the taxes on businesses? Their customers.
To a company a tax is part of the cost of doing business. They take all of the costs to decide how much to charge and be competitive. Therefore profit is figured on the tax. To a business profit is what is left after ALL expenses have been paid.
I suggest you read the constitution. Look at what the federal government is mandated to do. Then read the clause that says ALL things not expressed in the constitution are states rights. Where does it say that the Federal Government is to pay for what you are talking about. That money for those things always come with strings from the federal government. If you want the money the state has to give up rights they are supposed to have. That is what the liberal congress thought up so they could micromanage the states. Money with strings.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PapaWolf
May 6, 2008, 10:37 p.m.You see? That's part of the problem. These large corps are getting tax breaks that smaller businesses are not getting. They're getting breaks for sending jobs overseas while the small businesses & the working public get stuck with higher taxes, higher fees, & less services.
And, btw, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty...." THAT is the heart of the Constitution, and for that it requires money - ie, taxes.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 9, 2008, 8:59 p.m.Who pays corporate taxes? The customers because the taxes are a cost of doing business. so increasing taxes cause the goods and services to go up. If the company has outsourced things outside the US then there are no taxes on the goods and services so it can be cheaper.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 9, 2008, 11:30 p.m.By the way. You quoted the preamble. There are seven articles of the Constitution enumerating the powers of the Federal Government. Everything else is a state right.
The correct thing is to get rid of all taxes on businesses. They could compete better overseas and the price to consumers would be lower. As it is they are hidden taxes on the consumers. Where I live the overt taxes are not allowed to be stated. The gas stations were putting on the pumps how much of the price was what kind of tax. The state legislature made that illegal.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
nostalgia
May 4, 2008, 5:15 p.m."Why is it that liberals try the same solution to a problem over and over and always expect a different outcome?"
I believe Einstein had the answer to that question:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 12:40 p.m.Very good...now apply that to Reagan's "drug war".
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:07 p.m.Better than doing away with what was working. The "Just say no" program was working but the Clintons didn't like it so they effectively shut it down. And then the the trend that was getting better now became worse. Too simple and not a lot of money being spent I guess.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 1:12 p.m.Oh please!...talk about rewriting history!
"the Just Say No program was working...LMAO!!!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 1:18 p.m.Just say no worked about as well as this...
http://www.druglibrary.org/mags/aapicture/film_...
LOL!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Endoscopy
May 5, 2008, 1:18 p.m.The statistics were proving it was working. After the program was shut down by Clintons the statistics reverted again. Quit changing facts.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mntnman444
May 5, 2008, 1:24 p.m.And tell us...how is Bush's billion dollar anti-drug advertising campaign going since the GAO said it is actually encouraging drug use?
-
-
-
-
-
-
