Ray, he is just answering the question posted by a poster to his blog, which is to answer questions on various conervative isses ;-}. just saying you should address that to "Shripathi"he asked it, not Bryan ;-}.

Ray, I believe your analogy is inaccurate. Some ideals are timeless. I would change your analogy to, "Is it a good idea to run with scissors?" because the answer is no, whether it's 1720 or 2012.

There are two main reasons that President Reagan is still brought up so much and his record distorted. 1. Opponents of the Conservative ideology want to either hijack or trash a much celebrated Conservative President. 2. People don't understand the separation of powers, that Congress (namely the House) is who sets both taxes and spending and that Reagan had to do a lot of wheeling and dealing to get what he wanted. Like I discussed in the blog, he even agreed to one tax increase in 1982 because Tip O'Neil promised that for every dollar in taxes raised, they would cut three from the budget. O'Neil and his party immediately reneged on that deal and passed a supplemental spending bill that Reagan couldn't stop.

Reagan set the lowest tax rates (both income and others) in the past 100 years. If you care to look (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth) our GDP grew more over that time than ever before. Imagine if we had a fiscally conservative congress at that time to control spending? That $186 billion (in today's dollars) a year deficit that we had would probably have been turned into, at worst, a balanced budget.

That is still as applicable today as it was 30 years ago.

Bryan

The point is, what is considered conservative, or progressive changes over time. Judging an individual from one time in another time period is just going to be inaccurate. Your change to my analogy doesn't hold up, the likelihood of injury from running with a sharp implement is relatively fixed, while the practical uses for a pile of hay varies over time, location and need.

Ray, I agree with what you wrote about the labels and how it changes over time. That's absolutely correct. However, if you look above at Reagan's 1984 platform, you can see that what is considered "Conservative" and "Liberal" over the past 30 years has remained pretty static. In 20 years... or at some point anyway, in the future that's sure to change and I may be writing, "Ask a Moderate" but for the time being that's not the case.

Also, the principles that Reagan and conservatives follow today, are relatively fixed as to what effect they have on our economy (as shown by my citation). Whether those principles are called moderate, liberal, or something else in the future could change but their practical application and effect won't. Just like if we started called scissors, "shears", it still wouldn't be wise to run with them in hand.

Come on Bryan, "Shears" are not scissors, Guess you never "Sheared Sheep" lol

Kidding ;-}

Larry, if you read the blog you'd actually see that Reagan was very much a conservative minus one issue (Immigration). Are you saying I'm not a Conservative because I am for same-sex marriage?

Reagan was a RINO, or perhaps worse - a class warrior socialistic job-creator hater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1rhgjG0zyc&feature=player_embedded
Was Reagan engaging in Class Warfare when he asked those students if a wealthy person should pay less in taxes than a bus driver or was he simply stating facts on the ground? If not, then how can President Obama now be described as engaging in Class Warfare if President Reagan was not, since they have both advocated a similar tax policy and for the same reasons?

Wow Larry, it's as if you didn't even read the blog.

I'll just cut and paste for you.

"Because the tax rate fell so quickly, Reagan advocated a closing of loopholes. Shri compared it to Obama's call and stated it showed "Class Warfare." The difference between the two are astronomical. While Obama wants to not only raise taxes and close the loopholes, Reagan would only close certain loopholes after the tax rate fell dramatically, since some of them were unnecessary once that occurred."

At the time he wanted to close the loopholes he had coaxed Congress into lowing the tax rate for the upper bracket down to 28%. By comparison, the Bush tax cuts (I'll be writing an answer to your question on that tomorrow) lower the upper bracket to around 35%.

Next time, read the whole thing.

So that's it, Larry? You think one side is taking something out of context in regards to your side... so then it's okay for you to do the same about a subject totally unrelated?

Sure...

Nice attempt a a dodge. You accused me of distorting St. Ronald's own words, which I provided in video form so as not to distort them at all, and you did so unconvincingly, btw. So you made the discussion about distortion, not me. You didn't answer my question, which is to be expected, because what RR said back then is history, but the consequences of your Party's lies is current events. Man Up! Admit you agree with the obvious distortions or disown them. (Do I hear crickets? Will you dodge the question again?)

Larry, you can't delete a comment I responded to. That's poor form!

I didn't distort anything Reagan said, I merely stated in the blog the differences behind why Reagan was for closing the loopholes and why Obama is.

When you go from a 50% tax rate down to a 28% rate, some of the tax incentives (known as loopholes) are unnecessary and does make it, in some cases, possible for a millionaire to pay 0% while a bus driver pays 10%. Where as in the past, it would have dropped that millionaire's rate from 50 to 30%. That's just common sense.

There is a huge difference between that and what the President is calling for since he wants to raise taxes PLUS close those tax incentives.

If you can't or are unwilling to understand the difference between the two. I can't make you or help you. Though it was telling when you said in your deleted post, "People are distorting "They didn't build that" so I have to take my medicine and live with you distorting Reagan's... which tells me that it's more the "unwilling" side of things.

Also, this is the SECOND time I'm answering your question. If you still are unwilling to understand, let me know and I'll do it in crayon.

Bryan, chill. I didn't delete anything. I did notice that all my comments and yours are not showing in all the Patch locations which are tracking your very popular thread. Probably a database glitch. That having been said, please reiterate your disgust with the FOX News/ Romney lies about President Obama's statement which they are lying about 24/7. I seem to have missed that retraction on your part.

Damn Larry, I wrote a big ol' response and when I hit submit, it took me to the log in screen and when I got back here it was gone.

I'll rewrite it just shorter.

As far as the President's speech. I think that the RNC's latest ad sums up what a lot of conservatives feel about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwWW2DQS_DU

We've all had great teachers (I've had a few, Mr. Annarummo being my favorite. Those who went to BHS in the 80s and earlier will remember him), we've all used the roads, we've all gotten loans. Obama seems to think that because of that, those that start and run businesses aren't special, that they wouldn't have gotten there without all that "help". Since it's true about all of us using the above, how come there aren't 300 million businesses? Also, how come prior to all that neat stuff above (say in the 18th century when only a small percentage of people "had a teacher" or used a government built road) did we still have businesses since they didn't receive "all that help"? Obama's point, was that without those services, business wouldn't exist and because of them... they somehow owe more than everyone else.

Sorry, I don't agree with that.

As far as Fox News, everyone acknowledges that it is biased to the right. Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, ect. are biased to the left. That's just how our media is now and that's why I don't use them for sources. Though what they talk about does lead me to research certain things.

You asked: "how come prior to all that neat stuff above (say in the 18th century when only a small percentage of people "had a teacher" or used a government built road) did we still have businesses since they didn't receive "all that help"? "

Seriously? Help, as in "the help'? Now don't go blaming Obama for me bringing up the fact that until 150 years ago, the ancestors of many of the ultra-wealthy in America (whose forebears were granted lands by the King prior to the Revolution, for instance), built their small businesses, railroads, oil companies, manufacturing companies first on the backs of slaves and and later on the backs of immigrants. All that after committing genocide on the aboriginal people of the New World. I said it, not Barack Obama, so jump my case for pointing it out.

Bryan, also don't forget that up until less than 100 yrs ago we were primarily an agrarian society. 90% of the time was spent on the farm. Special trips were made to gather supples, and not done daily. A trip to Providence (which I make daily) was a special event, and probably lasted all day!!!

I think that the greater point that the President was trying to make is that it takes the whole country to make the country tick..............PAVED roads that allow us to go where we want 99% of the time as opposed to dirt roads that could be unpassable for days after heavy rains........organized police and fire as opposed to bucket brigades and posses.........employees to make the things that inventors and entrepeneurs design, and easier access to credit to get things started.

John and Larry, It does take a nation to build the roads, that's why the government was entrusted with that responsibility and of course, businessmen 150 years ago employed people (they still do, you know) to work for them. They get paid for it, paid for it out of the pockets of the business owner.

Our point (my point specifically here) is that we ALL have access to those roads, that fire department, that education system. If that's what "Built businesses" then there would be 185 million businesses, but there isn't. Someone had to come up with the idea, someone had to take out loans, refinance their home, come up with the plan, get all the unnecessary licenses and zoning and on and on and on. Then that person had to run the business, make sure he hired the right people, make sure they spent their money wisely, paid back the loans, and on and on and on.

Those business owners, in the past and now, built those businesses. They took the risk, they either end up going bankrupt or they get rich. They don't owe us, or anyone but whomever loaned or invested capital so they could get started or keep going... they don't owe the government anymore than anyone else because, like I said... we ALL use that stuff.

Yes Larry, we all know liberals hate the nation and think we exploited everyone. We exploited them so much that we have a Black President and past(and recent) immigrant families are successful now. Evil land of opportunity and all that.

Bryan, I don't hold Republicans responsible for the past, but I do hold them responsible for ignoring real history and inventing their own. Your tea-party version is completely made up, and the proof is that you snap whenever the real history is presented. You and I are wheere we are because our parents stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the necks of aboriginal Americans. You aren't responsible for those sins any more than I am, but you are guilty of denying the truth of our history.

You didn't get my point, which is my fault because I didn't make it clear enough. Though I'd like you to point out where I denied any of it or where the Tea Party or any other group has denied any of that.

I'm not denying anything in history. I know we had slavery, I know we defeated the Native Americans. I know we treated some groups of immigrants badly from the Irish, to the Chinese.

Yet, with all your "America is BAD!" stuff, you're ignoring that those slaves, those Irish, Italians, Native Americans ALL own businesses of their own then and now. So, what is your point?

The fact is, that because you can't defend your stance on "without the government all is doomed" that you even brought this up to begin with. There is no point to it. Did my poor Italian grandfather have to work for one of these business owners after WW2? Yes, and that doesn't change any of the facts mentioned above.

Business from big to small existed whether there was a road (or as you linked, the business was the road) or not. Whether there was a school system or not. Paul Revere owned his own business, he was an immigrant, he wasn't rich... and didn't have one slave or kill anyone to have one.

Yeah Jack, Congress tricked Reagan a few times. The 1982 tax increase was the worst though. It's funny that liberals put Reagan's name on Tip O'Neil's (a very liberal man) legislation so they can discredit him. It's like they forget (like Larry below) that we have this new invention called the internet and we can't look up (or in some cases remember) what actually happened. Though I have to admit it's tough with all the political websites from each side trying to spin things this way and that.

As far as your Amnesty opinion. I believe it's a break from Conservative ideology because we are very strong believers in the rule of law. Those 3 million people broke the law, the borders should have been more secured regardless and those 3 million people should have been booted out.

I'd say that amnesty only intensified the problem because illegals immigrants then thought they'd never really pay a penalty.

I agree with your first paragraph. But I think you are forgeting again why Reagan did it. The cost of rounding up those people back then, far exceeded the cost of amnesty and registration of all of them, which would have been a political and logistical nightmare at the time. Now it has become impossible to do that or amnesty which I totally disagree with today. The numbers are too large and are destroying the social system that is in place in this Country to the point where illegals have more rights then citizens in many states.

I believe had the original plan worked, we would not have the problem as it stands now, which is just about unsolvable with out some very draconion mesures, which by the way I support and there is no choice in my opinion. Had the congress at the time lived up to Reagan's agreement with tip, this would not be the problem it is today as far as I am concerned anyway.

You don't have to round up all 3 million (or 12 million now). You round up as many as you can, double that with really enforcing the law in regards to businesses and their hiring of illegals, and many will head home just out of fear of getting caught.

Ok wasnt sure on that ;-}.

Bryan you may have seen some of my post and profile pictures disappear, as I was using various accounts in helping patch support, and had them now delete those accounts so many of my post from yesturday and today vanished for that reason in cluding reply's on them. Sorry for confusion those that got deleted I cannot bring them back. Sorry -}.

There it is!

The difference however John is this as stated by Bryan.

"Reagan had an average of $186 billion a year, while the current administration has had an average of $1.3 trillion a year."

Well deficit spending is wrong by any administration, the facts are that this administration is on par per year to backruptcy very shortly, all though technicly we are there or at least in chapter 11 territory ;-}.

The difference also being revenue in Reagans time increased enormously, well it is dropping like a stone now and the spending has not recided at all.

True enough (as I said, I won't belittle the actual dollar amount). But the economy also boomed from '83 ish to early '90 (just after the '89 market crash).

Personally, I'm not against some more Defense spending, it's just that I would eliminate the dept of Homeland Security, and allow our Military to do the airport and train station security. Maybe even re-institute the draft as a means to populate the AF's so they could do it, as well as alleviate the stress placed on our volunteers in the service and Guards.

I agree with you on Homeland Security. The military couldn't do it though, Posse comitatus(horrible spelling there) doesn't allow it. I wouldn't support a draft either, as a leader in the army I would hate to have to deal with people who didn't want to be in. Right now, everyone(ish) works hard and tries their best because everyone wanted to be in.

The DoD could definitely stand to lose a few hundred billion dollars in bull crap spending though. The problem with government institutions, including the military, is that it isn't their money so they don't care.

Joe, you should read the blog. As I explained Reagan had a liberal House to deal with. They controlled the spending, he could only influence them as much as possible. Same for GHWB, and Clinton had a GOP Congress for his second term. GWB, had a liberal congress his second term... notice how it doubled?

I like how you left out Obama, with his first two years (both with a liberal congress), he had a $3.6 Trillion increase. By his third year, because the Senate never took up the house's budget (it means it reverts to the last budget, which is the one passed by the liberal congress and Obama), it increased over $5.8 Trillion. Which is more than Clinton and GWB's 16 years COMBINED.

It's funny how I also know history, also don't deny it, nor do I deny that we benefited from the hard work of our ancestors. So I'll ask again, and?

Actually you are have concisely defined Liberal political theory yourself. If you lose an argument... then make up something that the conservative didn't say (Please point out where I called the President a communist, or that pointing out we all benefit from our infrastructure made him a communist. I dare you. ). Or even better, bring something up that has nothing to do with the conversation (which you have done twice so far). Those are both typical debating tactics for a liberal. Make up something that isn't factual about conservative and then attack that... if that doesn't work then bring up race and America's mistakes.

My suggestion to you is to stick to the topic, and even if the conversation goes off on a tangent (sometimes it just happens), don't put words into other people's mouths. It would improve the conversation greatly.

Also... If, based I how I responded, I didn't get your point... just explain it again or spell it out more clearly. There's no need to resort to the Liberal debating tactics, just stay focused.

Local, I wrote a blog answering your first question and I'm just waiting for the editor to approve and post it.

The other two are both really good questions, I'll consider them for this weekend.

Oh, because I wrote a detailed answer already for #1. I'll just say now that Yes, they are... because right after voting down the Senate proposal, they not only voted for keeping the middle class tax cuts, but voted to keep the whole of the tax cuts.

Meaning that the 52.6 million Americans employed by small businesses that weren't covered by the Senate plan, won't have to worry about getting laid off like they would if the Senate plan was passed by the House.

Unfortunately, the Senate is unlikely to pass it. I wonder though, Local, when they don't (they probably won't even vote on it) pass it... if you'll be asking the same question to yourself about the Democrats?

Finally, the Senate bill was unconstitutional. See Article II, section 7. "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

I would add Bryan, that there has not been a budget passed since Obama took office, even when they had control of both houses also. The GOP huse has put forth I believe no less that 16 budget Bills now sent to the Senate and not one has been allowed to go to the Floor to be debated by the head of the Senate, Harry Reid!

Also, whose side would “Harry Reid or DEMS” in general be on if a Union in Contract Negotiations, sent their counter proposals on the contract they are negotiating to management and were thrown into the shredder and ignored, with out discussing the proposals? Like me I suspect on the side of the Union and filing an unfair Labor Practice for management not bargaining in good faith which the Union would win in court, with out a problem.

Jack! I missed this. The last budget passed was in May of 2009. May 16th to be exact.

Local, you have to look at the whole picture. They are not the one's rejecting tax cuts for anyone. They just voted to keep the tax rates low(ish) for not only myself but everyone.

The fact is, and I go over this in the future blog with citations, that over 52 million middle class people are employed by small businesses that are either sole proprietors or S-Type Corporations. Many of those 52 million "middle class" (like myself, yes) will lose their jobs because those small businesses will be forced to make changes in order to stay afloat... never mind that it would, at the minimum, effect the growth of these businesses and stop them from future expansion (and creating more jobs).

So by wanting to keep the current tax rates for everyone, I am in fact, voting for a group that wants to keep the tax cuts that benefit me directly. How does keeping just my personal taxes low help me if I get laid off or can't find a job? You have to have an income for income tax rates to matter.