Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: surfbaron who wrote (8131)	10/15/2002 11:40:00 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

surf, First, you have to come to grips with the fact that most left wingers are equally liberal with facts & reality as their political beliefs. They buy into left wing propaganda & create their own altered reality..... regardless of the truth or facts. You might as well debate an accomplished pathological liar....... sadly, you often are doing just that. "The pork from the White House was never before seen..... " Heck, look at the BS about Regan pork spending. As President, he can only sign legislation into law or veto it. Congress writes the legislation & inserts unnecessary spending on projects that are usually hidden within the legislation that Congress writes, then passes into law. Pork spending is completely unrelated to the legislation it is inserted into. The President has no direct influence on the proposed legislation & has ZERO influence on unrelated pork spending projects within any legislation. Just ask former KKK Kleagle (paid recruiter) Senator Robert Byrd, the undisputed King of Pork spending. Regan had the same choice every President has...... veto every single piece of legislation or live with the pork that Congress insists upon to get some of the initiatives the President believes are important. ............The only effective things Democrats can do is pass the Bush plan and then immediately trash him for it not working. Three months after they passed Bush's plan the media would have 60 percent of the population believing that Bush's plan was a failure. Look at the 1982 polls on Reaganomics. It cost the Republicans in the 1982 election. The "His plan is a failure" argument is very persuasive. We passed Bush's plan and it did not work is what they could scream. They could say the economy is Bush's fault and lots of people would believe them in 2002. That is what Tip O'Neil did in 1982 and it worked. The Democrats did well in 1982. Their Reaganomics trashing plan worked. The problem for them was Reaganomics worked in 1983 and really worked in 1984. Thus when it became apparent Reaganomics worked the Democrats were in trouble. The Democrats don't want to do that again. So this time they are trying a different tact. They are going back to the failed strategy used by the Republicans against FDR in the 30's. Thus they are blocking Bush's plan while trashing him for the economy. What they fail to understand is, that produced the kind of Democratic landslides that kept the Democrats in power for most of 50 years. While the Tip O'Neil plan had short term benefits, it had long term effects that were bad for Democrats. But the plan the Democrats are following has both short term and long term bad effects for Democrats......... bulldogbulletin.lhhosting.com

To: surfbaron who wrote (8131)	10/15/2002 12:23:22 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

convinced Reagan was the big social spender Reagan was a big spender. I never said he limited his spending to social programs. He spent more on everything, and it was his own proposals too, he wasn't dragged by Tip ONeil into that briar patch. In fact, over the eight years of his presidency, Reagan asked Congress for $18.1 billion more in spending than was finally passed into law. sccs.swarthmore.edu There was one important part of Reagan's economic policy which was not as widely celebrated in public by the President and his economic advisors. The fall in tax revenue combined with massive defense outlays and spending cuts, which were totally insufficient to keep the budget in balance, created massive government deficits, the like of which our country had never seen in peacetime. Between 1980 and 1992, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush economic policy, the national debt nearly quadrupled to $3.5 trillion. Without the debt interest accumulated during the Reagan and Bush presidencies, the federal government would presently be running a surplus.