Mama always said "quisling is as quisling does"
Posted on 02/11/2006 12:49:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
Brent Bozell knows it as well as anyone.
Why does he mince words?
Not only is it part of history, its an important part of any Presidency. Its not normal when the US enters a period of serious economic downturn. In the last 100 years only two President have faced serious economic conditions. FDR during the 1933-1940 Great Depression Era and Reagan during the serious recessionary economic conditions of 1981-1983. The difference was, FDR never solved the problems of the Great Depression. Reagan got the US economy back on track after four years of Jimmy Carter's total incompetence. Double digit inflation and interest rates, unemployment rates hitting close to 10%. Once Reagan's supply side tax cuts and economic recovery plan kicked in and took effect, inflation, interest rates and unemployment all came tumbling down. While spending, savings and investment took off on a 17 year economic growth boom.
>>>>Dubya had a recession, mounting entitlement spending, and a dilapidated military in times of international tension just like Reagan. Just like Reagan, Dubya signed budgets that increased spending, restored the military, and produced good economic effects.
Not exactly. When Bush took office in 2001 he faced a mild recession, that was later exacerbated by the attacks of 9-11. But as Bush and Cheney pointed out at the time, the overall economy was solid. Bush didn't face the same challenges that Reagan faced. Inflation and interest rates were at historic lows when Bush took office and while unemployment did tick up a bit, the Bush supply side tax cuts offset those increases, bringing unemployment backdown.
Bush`s runaway welfare and entitlement spending has been his own fault. Reagan actually reduced welfare and entitlement spending, as a percentage of the overall budget.
As part of the savings from the Cold War ending, Bush was handed a downsized military. I think Clinton and the GOP Congress, went to far in cutting defense spending in the 90`s. Bush responded with increased funding for the military and I applaud him for that. Carter left Reagan with a military underfunded, in serious moral decay and totally void of leadership. Reagan spent a lot of taxpayer funds to rebuild the military. As a percentage of the overall budget, Reagan spent significantly more then Bush has on rebuilding the military.
>>>>Of course Dubya also had 2 wars and the destruction of the nation's financial center to contend with during that recession. Dubya has also had to contend with some wicked natural disasters.
And Bush has done a remarkable job prosecuting both wars. I think NYCity handled the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks in the true spirit of America. The Feds help was very important in accomplishing that goal. The Big Apple rebounded strongly. All Presidents have to contend with natural disasters. Katrina was unusal, in that it was one of the biggest natural disasters of all time. However, Bush promising to spend whatever it took to rebuild New Orleans may have been a smart political decision, but it was a bad policy decision. Fiscally irresponsible.
>>>>I'm sorry I have read it twice and I still don't see the analogy between Reagan's bold tax cut and Dubya's not bold tax cuts.
I never made that analogy. I was discussing Reagan's bold leadership of the 1980`s and how well that leadership would translate into todays Presidency.
>>>>What was the bold economic leadership Reagan implemented that Dubya didn't during his bad economy?
At the center of Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, was an across the board 25% cut in individual marginal income tax rates. A bold initative that brought the top tax rate down from 70% to 50%. [NOTE: The Tax Reform Act of 1986 dropped it to 28%.] The biggest tax cuts in a generation. Other reforms included Internal Revenue Code indexation of tax rates, ending bracket creep, improved tax treatment for depreciation and lease payments, reformed tax treatment of overseas income, and the start up of the first IRA`s. Reagan also went on a huge deregualtion effort that was quite significant in the structural changes it brought about for US businesses.
Bush did cut taxes three times and the impact on the economy was significant. The Reagan tax reform package of 1981 reduced the tax burden, as a percentage of the annual budget, on Americans by 5.3%. The Bush tax cuts reduced the taxes by 3.8%, 2.5%, 2.7%. Total, 8.1%. Not quite as big as the Kennedy tax cut (8.8%) of 1964, but combined, larger then Reagan's.
Here's the analysis by the Tax Foundation. Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts
In hindsight, however, its quite obvious the amnesty provision of the 86IRCA was a big mistake.
>>>>How so?
You answered your own question. Put simply. It didn't end illegal immigration, because the 86IRCA provision for prosecution and punishment of employers was never enforced.
>>>>On what basis do you assume Reagan would agree that 86IRCA was a mistake?
Without advancing the enforcement aspects of Reagan's own plan, we had a string of liberal immigration policy from Bush41, to Clinton, to Bush43. We went from the frying pan to the fire, so to speak, with illegals flooding over the borders. Something most of us conservatives fully understand. Conservative Reagan was no exception to the rule.
>>>>Is it because your posting name is Reagan Man and you believe 816IRCA was a mistake?
I chose my handle in honor of a great American President. Reagan is a man many people admire and consider a hero of American history. My personal hero. I'm not the only one who sees the 86IRCA as a mistake. Its a common position that many people agree on. I happen to think Reagan was a forward looking leader and he would have seen the error of his ways by concluding the 86IRCA was a mistake.
>>>>Give me something besides personal venom please. I'm perfectly willing to entertain your response without a obligatory recital of how little you think of me. Your continued replies disclose a respect and a desire to challenge, as mine do the same.
Venom? I've been very civil with you. I just think your historical knowledge base needs some serious updating. Nothing personal. Challenge me all you want. I'll challenge you right back.
Thank you kindly. Your post was highly informative and clarified many points of this debate. I enjoyed reading it. Many people quickly forget the lessons of history, while some people just never knew any history. The US educational system has failed many students over the last 30-35 years.
>>>>I think Bush has done a creditable job. I think his Supreme Court picks have been great, and he has done OK on most aspects of the war on terror, although I would have fought it a lot differently. He has had to face the most hostile press in history.
Agreed. Bush deserves a lot of credit for his prosecution of the WOT. His steadfast leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan is quite commendable. His tax cuts, judicial picks and pro-life position are his strong points. However, his liberal spending habits, expansion of the federal bureaucracy and opposition to immigration reform are definitely his weak points. At least from this conservatives viewpoint.
By 2009, many Americans maybe missing GWBush, especially once they see who got elected. My hope is the American people will stick with the GOP. But nothing is certain in politics.
"What would conservatives like Bush to do?"
For starters, he can try to limit himself to the same gvt growth of Slick Willie. Even that would be an improvement.
I think he's doing the best he can. Aren't a lot of people already mad that he has cut this budget?
Again.
Thank you for your reply. It helped clarify your previous post for me, and as always, I agree that Reagan was a great President who faced difficult challenges. Clearly I am less willing to excuse Reagan's fault and more willing to excuse Dubya's faults than you, but we agree on much more than we disagree.
The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
There may be some fraud, but the cause of Ricky's problems is none other than Ricky himself.
He is not the principled conservative that he would have you believe him to be. He votes for a lot of really crap like an increase in the minimum wage, a hike in the SS tax base, for mandatory gun locks, against more border security, and for the LOST Treaty.
His support of Specter over conservative Pat Toomey was merely the tip of the iceberg that revealed what was hidden beneath the surface. He puts himself and the party before any principle that he has ever espoused. He is not to be trusted and has lost my vote forever as well as those of many others here in PA who know him.
Roger that and thanks, Badray!
One of Thomas Jefferson's best! :)
So true, but the discussion of it -- or even the very sentiment itself -- is avoided by most people.
Be Ever Vigilant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.