Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centrist
quote:
quote:
quote:This is where the treads go off the rails… do daa, do daa
They go off the rails as soon as you show up. #notacoincidence
Please give jkeller his due credit, muleman isn't arguing with himself.
__________________________________________________
Credit for what?
Misrepresenting what a Republican thinks?
How would he know so much about any Republican policy; The N.Y.Times editorial pages or The Onion?
Hahahahahah... Now he's arguing with you Perry.
No good deed...
In 2008 and 2012 Obama won easily because the Republicans made their candidates, McCain and Romney flip all of their views on many major issues making them each look like phonies. If they do the same thing again and nominate either one of their far right whackos or make one of their moderate candidate flip his views totally to appear far right they will lose again regardless of opponent.
How do you fix that problem? Hint: Running another moderate won't.
Run a Conservative and he won't have to "flip" his views. If he loses we can live with it. This business about running moderates to attract Democrat voters when your OWN voters won't turn out is a loser. Totally absurd, you have to win your base first. NO, I'd much rather see them give conservatism a chance than run another moderate and lose anyway.
BTW, when's the last time the GOP nominated a "far-Right wacko?"
[Edited on 3/17/2015 by alloak41]
They didn't have to when Romney flipped his views to their side to make himself look like a far right whacko as McCain did the time before that. Neither of them were allowed to be nominated as their true before flipping selves so they flipped to get nominated and were exposed as being phonies. Go ahead and run one of those far right candidates you like and see what happens regardless of opponent. If you can accept that outcome so could I.
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
They flipped most of their main views to the extreme right, that is what they did and if you say they didn't you weren't paying attention at all. Remember the old Romney professing that his Romneycare in Massachusetts would be the perfect model for the entire country. Flip to Republican nomination Romney where Obamacare was good for Mass but somehow bad for everyone else. And that is only one in a myriad of flips. You can easily do a google search and find a huge list. McCain did the same exact thing to get nominated and then doubled down with a far right tea party whacko VP candidate. They both flip flopped their way to the Republican nomination and in the process made themselves out as phonies which lost them the general election. I predicted it and said this both times and it played out both times. I will bet dimes to dollars that if the Republicans nominate a far right wing candidate or force another moderate candidate to flip their views to appear far right to get nominated they will lose another general election regardless of opponent.
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]
Didn't you hear? Google is changing their algorithm and can't be trusted as a source.... 😛 
Didn't you hear? Google is changing their algorithm and can't be trusted as a source.... 😛
Do you think Mule has a clue what an algorithm is? 😛
They flipped most of their main views to the extreme right, that is what they did and if you say they didn't you weren't paying attention at all. Remember the old Romney professing that his Romneycare in Massachusetts would be the perfect model for the entire country. Flip to Republican nomination Romney where Obamacare was good for Mass but somehow bad for everyone else. And that is only one in a myriad of flips. You can easily do a google search and find a huge list. McCain did the same exact thing to get nominated and then doubled down with a far right tea party whacko VP candidate. They both flip flopped their way to the Republican nomination and in the process made themselves out as phonies which lost them the general election. I predicted it and said this both times and it played out both times. I will bet dimes to dollars that if the Republicans nominate a far right wing candidate or force another moderate candidate to flip their views to appear far right to get nominated they will lose another general election regardless of opponent.
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]
Hard to figure out where to start on this one. To open, neither McCain or Romney came off as "extreme" anything. They both handled their campaigns like a game of paddy-cake, and didn't inspire the people that should be out voting for them. I'd say that's what cost them the election. You have to get folks excited and turn out voters, and they both failed.
(That said, the 2008 Election was the Democrats to win. It would have taken a lot to alter that result IMO.)
But as far as "flip flopping" that's exactly what I've been saying. Run a conservative and they won't have to flip flop and look like phonies. Problem solved, so run the genuine article! Right? According to you, that's why McCain and Romney both lost.
I hope the GOP finally wises up and stops thinking that it's more important to attract Democrat voters than it is to win their own base. That's just common sense.
Sure, the conservative might lose but the moderate will definitely lose. I'd take my chances on the former this time around.
You can’t make this stuff up: Bill for First Lady 2016
www.billforfirstlady2016.com
[Edited on 3/19/2015 by Muleman1994]
They flipped most of their main views to the extreme right, that is what they did and if you say they didn't you weren't paying attention at all. Remember the old Romney professing that his Romneycare in Massachusetts would be the perfect model for the entire country. Flip to Republican nomination Romney where Obamacare was good for Mass but somehow bad for everyone else. And that is only one in a myriad of flips. You can easily do a google search and find a huge list. McCain did the same exact thing to get nominated and then doubled down with a far right tea party whacko VP candidate. They both flip flopped their way to the Republican nomination and in the process made themselves out as phonies which lost them the general election. I predicted it and said this both times and it played out both times. I will bet dimes to dollars that if the Republicans nominate a far right wing candidate or force another moderate candidate to flip their views to appear far right to get nominated they will lose another general election regardless of opponent.
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]Hard to figure out where to start on this one. To open, neither McCain or Romney came off as "extreme" anything. They both handled their campaigns like a game of paddy-cake, and didn't inspire the people that should be out voting for them. I'd say that's what cost them the election. You have to get folks excited and turn out voters, and they both failed.
(That said, the 2008 Election was the Democrats to win. It would have taken a lot to alter that result IMO.)
But as far as "flip flopping" that's exactly what I've been saying. Run a conservative and they won't have to flip flop and look like phonies. Problem solved, so run the genuine article! Right? According to you, that's why McCain and Romney both lost.
I hope the GOP finally wises up and stops thinking that it's more important to attract Democrat voters than it is to win their own base. That's just common sense.
Sure, the conservative might lose but the moderate will definitely lose. I'd take my chances on the former this time around.
Well Alloak, you already know my views on this, but the one thing I will say is that if a conservative is going to win the general election, it needs to be the kind of person that can pick up some Democratic votes and most independent votes. Reagan was that kind of person. Reagan was a uniter and not a divider. He was steadfast in his beliefs, but not insulting to half the country at the same time. At the same time I don't remember Reagan supporters being insulting to the opposition. The country was different back then. Maybe you are right that a conservative could win, but I'm not sure I see the type of conservative that could win in the field, and if there was I'm not sure that person could win the nomination. Christie seemed to be that type of person, but I don't see him winning the nomination.
I think oak may have a point here. With the small number of eligible voters in either party that show up to vote, if you could truly excite and inspire your fan base you'd have an excellent chance of victory. These elections are being won by an incredibly small number of eligible voters, and they are fairly close elections percentage wise.
They flipped most of their main views to the extreme right, that is what they did and if you say they didn't you weren't paying attention at all. Remember the old Romney professing that his Romneycare in Massachusetts would be the perfect model for the entire country. Flip to Republican nomination Romney where Obamacare was good for Mass but somehow bad for everyone else. And that is only one in a myriad of flips. You can easily do a google search and find a huge list. McCain did the same exact thing to get nominated and then doubled down with a far right tea party whacko VP candidate. They both flip flopped their way to the Republican nomination and in the process made themselves out as phonies which lost them the general election. I predicted it and said this both times and it played out both times. I will bet dimes to dollars that if the Republicans nominate a far right wing candidate or force another moderate candidate to flip their views to appear far right to get nominated they will lose another general election regardless of opponent.
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]Hard to figure out where to start on this one. To open, neither McCain or Romney came off as "extreme" anything. They both handled their campaigns like a game of paddy-cake, and didn't inspire the people that should be out voting for them. I'd say that's what cost them the election. You have to get folks excited and turn out voters, and they both failed.
(That said, the 2008 Election was the Democrats to win. It would have taken a lot to alter that result IMO.)
But as far as "flip flopping" that's exactly what I've been saying. Run a conservative and they won't have to flip flop and look like phonies. Problem solved, so run the genuine article! Right? According to you, that's why McCain and Romney both lost.
I hope the GOP finally wises up and stops thinking that it's more important to attract Democrat voters than it is to win their own base. That's just common sense.
Sure, the conservative might lose but the moderate will definitely lose. I'd take my chances on the former this time around.
Well Alloak, you already know my views on this, but the one thing I will say is that if a conservative is going to win the general election, it needs to be the kind of person that can pick up some Democratic votes and most independent votes. Reagan was that kind of person. Reagan was a uniter and not a divider. He was steadfast in his beliefs, but not insulting to half the country at the same time. At the same time I don't remember Reagan supporters being insulting to the opposition. The country was different back then. Maybe you are right that a conservative could win, but I'm not sure I see the type of conservative that could win in the field, and if there was I'm not sure that person could win the nomination. Christie seemed to be that type of person, but I don't see him winning the nomination.
Well said 2112. The Republican party has been hijacked by the extreme right tea party so it is very difficult for a moderate conservative candidate to get nominated without compromising his/her principals to appease them. All you need to do is take a look at Romney's constant flip flopping to see this in action. Even Glenn Beck has run away from the party of "NO"
http://www.teaparty.org/glenn-beck-im-done-with-not-good-gop-89672/
Old time Republican politicians see the change and wonder if Reagan could even get the nomination these days as he would not be conservative enough.
Regarding Christie JMO but I doubt he could win even if nominated as he cannot deal with criticism and anyone who disagrees with him. He loses his temper and turns into parody of a Tony Soprano tough guy when he is challenged. I also think may be too much of a stereotype NY/NJ personality to appeal to some. While his local personality and accent appeals to the voters of NJ I am not sure it would to some parts of the country in a National election. I have no proof of this just a gut feeling as I am a native New Yorker who reads the NY papers every day so I get to see how he handles pressure situations.
Glen Beck is running away from the Republican Party because they don’t do what they said they would do, to fight against the illegal immigration and Obamacare. “They’re torpedoing the constitution and they’re knowingly doing it. They’re taking on people like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and they are torpedoing them knowingly,” and these guys are standing for the constitution.” He is not running away from the “tea party”, that stands for the constitution and smaller government. That is exactly what Reagan stood for. Glen Beck like a lot of us is running from the establishment republicans. That is exactly what we have been saying here -nominate a True conservative with conviction in his values just like Reagan. We don’t want a “moderate conservative”. I get a kick out of “the extreme right tea party”, I got news for you Obama is a radical leftist. But like I said anything right of the communist manifesto to you is extreme right wing wacky.
Glen Beck is running away from the Republican Party because they don’t do what they said they would do, to fight against the illegal immigration and Obamacare. “They’re torpedoing the constitution and they’re knowingly doing it. They’re taking on people like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and they are torpedoing them knowingly,” and these guys are standing for the constitution.” He is not running away from the “tea party”, that stands for the constitution and smaller government. That is exactly what Reagan stood for. Glen Beck like a lot of us is running from the establishment republicans. That is exactly what we have been saying here -nominate a True conservative with conviction in his values just like Reagan. We don’t want a “moderate conservative”. I get a kick out of “the extreme right tea party”, I got news for you Obama is a radical leftist. But like I said anything right of the communist manifesto to you is extreme right wing wacky.
If you think Reagan has anything in common with the modern tea party you don't know your history and nothing about Reagan. He raised taxes and increased the size of the government as well as increasing the debt spending. I think he was a decent President but hardly the saint conservatives like to preach.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/would-reagan-have-survived-the-tea-party
I am far from a "communist" my friend as I actually thought McCain and Romney were decent moderate candidates for the GOP until they kept flip flopping to pander to the extreme right in the party which ultimately doomed them.
Instead of hurling insults at liberals you should do a better job researching your rants to try to support your views.
Old time Republican politicians see the change and wonder if Reagan could even get the nomination these days as he would not be conservative enough.
Substitute Bob Dole for Reagan and you might have a point. If McCain and Romney could
win the nomination, I feel pretty sure Reagan could.
But don't let me stop the nonstop crusade trying to convince people that Reagan wasn't
a Conservative.
But of course it is that "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
NATIONAL ARCHIVES WANTS ANSWERS FROM HILLARY
Politico: “The National Archives has formally asked the State Department to explain how Hillary Clinton’s emails as secretary of state ended up on her private email server rather than a government system. In a letter sent earlier this month and obtained Wednesday by POLITICO, National Archives and Records Administration official Paul Wester asked State to report on whether federal records had been ‘alienated’ and what steps the agency is taking to address the situation. ‘NARA is concerned that Federal records may have been alienated from the Department of State’s official recordkeeping systems,’ Wester wrote to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Margaret Grafeld.”
[WashEx: “Add the Keystone XL oil pipeline to Benghazi and Clinton Foundation fundraising as subject lines being sought in legal cases against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her missing emails. The liberal Friends of the Earth Wednesday filed a Freedom of Information Act demand for emails that they say Clinton never produced under an earlier request.”]
Double standard - Daily Caller: “Failure to sign a formal separation agreement can have dire consequences for rank-and-file State Department employees, an agency whistle-blower told The Daily Caller. That is in stark contrast to what happens to top-level officials such as former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton if they refuse to sign the separation form, OF-109. Ramifications for lower-level State Department employees include the withholding of retirement benefits and possible investigations conducted by the agency into why employees declined to sign the form, whistle-blower Richard Higbie says. By signing OF-109, agency employees affirm that they have turned over all records - classified or unclassified; emails or physical documents - pertaining to official government business. Whether or not Clinton - who used a private email account hosted on a private server to conduct official business - signed the document when she left office in Feb. 2013 was finally answered on Tuesday by State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.”
If you think Reagan has anything in common with the modern tea party you don't know your history and nothing about Reagan. He raised taxes and increased the size of the government as well as increasing the debt spending. I think he was a decent President but hardly the saint conservatives like to preach.
That is laughable. I like the revisionist that want to paint Regan as anything but a true conservative. Why don't you do some research and look at who controlled both houses in the 80's. And unlike Obama who acts like a king, Reagan followed the constitution and actually got things done with a democrat congress. And he did it by communicated directly and honestly with the American people not trying to lecture and lying to them like this narcissist that is president now.
Ask any body who aligns with Tea party values and ask what they think of Reagan. It is the Democrat party that has been hijacked. By the Far left. The liberals are the ones who throw insults at conservatives Belittling the Tea party with your lies such labeling them extreme while supporting the most extreme leftist administration in this country's history. I tell you what Reagan had nothing in common with it is the progressive political establishment and that includes your so called "moderate Conservatives"
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15."
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much."
Ronald Reagan
Yes you are right , he would have nothing in common with the Tea party
You just keep going to places like MSNBC and learn your history
If you think Reagan has anything in common with the modern tea party you don't know your history and nothing about Reagan. He raised taxes and increased the size of the government as well as increasing the debt spending. I think he was a decent President but hardly the saint conservatives like to preach.
That is laughable. I like the revisionist that want to paint Regan as anything but a true conservative. Why don't you do some research and look at who controlled both houses in the 80's. And unlike Obama who acts like a king, Reagan followed the constitution and actually got things done with a democrat congress. And he did it by communicated directly and honestly with the American people not trying to lecture and lying to them like this narcissist that is president now.
Ask any body who aligns with Tea party values and ask what they think of Reagan. It is the Democrat party that has been hijacked. By the Far left. The liberals are the ones who throw insults at conservatives Belittling the Tea party with your lies such labeling them extreme while supporting the most extreme leftist administration in this country's history. I tell you what Reagan had nothing in common with it is the progressive political establishment and that includes your so called "moderate Conservatives""The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15."
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much."
Ronald ReaganYes you are right , he would have nothing in common with the Tea party
You just keep going to places like MSNBC and learn your history
Instead of realizing that all MSNBC did was point out historical facts you dismisss them because you feel they are a commie leftist news source.
Again Google is your friend all you have to do is Google "Reagan and the Tea Party" and you will see there are numerous sources all saying the same thing. Reagan did not follow Tea Party doctrine and they most likely would not endorse him if he ran today because he is not conservative enough for them. During his 2 terms he enacted many of the things, like higher taxes, bigger government, deficit spending, that they are so staunchly against.
Even old time Republicans are horrified at what has happened to their party. Sorry to burst your bubble.
And unlike Obama who acts like a king, Reagan followed the constitution and actually got things done with a democrat congress. And he did it by communicated directly and honestly with the American people not trying to lecture and lying to them like this narcissist that is president now.
That doesn't seem to jive with the facts. Reagan signed 381 Executive Orders. Obama has signed only 203.
If you maintain that Obama is not following the Constitution by signing these orders, how can you maintain that Reagan did?
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centrist
They do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
In 2008 and 2012 Obama won easily because the Republicans made their candidates, McCain and Romney flip all of their views on many major issues making them each look like phonies. If they do the same thing again and nominate either one of their far right whackos or make one of their moderate candidate flip his views totally to appear far right they will lose again regardless of opponent.
How do you fix that problem? Hint: Running another moderate won't.
Run a Conservative and he won't have to "flip" his views. If he loses we can live with it. This business about running moderates to attract Democrat voters when your OWN voters won't turn out is a loser. Totally absurd, you have to win your base first. NO, I'd much rather see them give conservatism a chance than run another moderate and lose anyway.
BTW, when's the last time the GOP nominated a "far-Right wacko?"
[Edited on 3/17/2015 by alloak41]
They didn't have to when Romney flipped his views to their side to make himself look like a far right whacko as McCain did the time before that. Neither of them were allowed to be nominated as their true before flipping selves so they flipped to get nominated and were exposed as being phonies. Go ahead and run one of those far right candidates you like and see what happens regardless of opponent. If you can accept that outcome so could I.
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
They flipped most of their main views to the extreme right, that is what they did and if you say they didn't you weren't paying attention at all. Remember the old Romney professing that his Romneycare in Massachusetts would be the perfect model for the entire country. Flip to Republican nomination Romney where Obamacare was good for Mass but somehow bad for everyone else. And that is only one in a myriad of flips. You can easily do a google search and find a huge list. McCain did the same exact thing to get nominated and then doubled down with a far right tea party whacko VP candidate. They both flip flopped their way to the Republican nomination and in the process made themselves out as phonies which lost them the general election. I predicted it and said this both times and it played out both times. I will bet dimes to dollars that if the Republicans nominate a far right wing candidate or force another moderate candidate to flip their views to appear far right to get nominated they will lose another general election regardless of opponent.
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]
[Edited on 3/18/2015 by sixty8]
Ok you keep using the term "far right whacko" I have enough respect for you that I want you to describe what positions (even if he flip flopped to them) you regard as "far right whacko." You failed to do so in that entire paragraph.
And unlike Obama who acts like a king, Reagan followed the constitution and actually got things done with a democrat congress. And he did it by communicated directly and honestly with the American people not trying to lecture and lying to them like this narcissist that is president now.
That doesn't seem to jive with the facts. Reagan signed 381 Executive Orders. Obama has signed only 203.
If you maintain that Obama is not following the Constitution by signing these orders, how can you maintain that Reagan did?
Reagan understood the need to work with Congress, even if it was totally opposed to him which it was. He signed major important legislation passed on a bi-partisan basis such as the 1986 tax reform act.
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
Obama is well to the Right of me... but, I'm an anti-war Progressive. I can't think of many politicians to the Left of me.
That's just me. 😉
Obama is well to the Right of me... but, I'm an anti-war Progressive. I can't think of many politicians to the Left of me.
That's just me. 😉
Sure but would you consider him a conservative? a centrist maybe but conservative?
Obama is well to the Right of me... but, I'm an anti-war Progressive. I can't think of many politicians to the Left of me.
That's just me. 😉
Sure but would you consider him a conservative? a centrist maybe but conservative?
__________________________________________________________________________
Obama is a social justice, anti-Semite neo-socialist.
I also find it hilarious that the liberals here feel they know all about The Tea Party but I’d bet you they could not articulate The Tea Party’s positions.
lets compare 1980 to 1989 income tax rate. How is this raising taxes?This is adjusted for inflation:
1980:
Single
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0% $- $6,409
14% $6,409 $9,474
16% $9,474 $12,260
18% $12,260 $18,111
19% $18,111 $23,684
21% $23,684 $30,092
24% $30,092 $35,944
26% $35,944 $41,795
30% $41,795 $50,711
34% $50,711 $65,479
39% $65,479 $80,246
44% $80,246 $95,014
49% $95,014 $115,633
55% $115,633 $154,084
63% $154,084 $227,922
68% $227,922 $301,760
70% $301,760 -
1989
Single
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
15% $- $34,347
28% $34,347 -
And Reagan revitalized the conservative movement. His spending increases were in the military and look at the results. What happened to the soviet Union? And all the liberals protested thinking he was going to start a Nuclear War
Tax reform, Simplified tax code, deregulation. domestic spending Restraint and let's not forget the way he stood up against federal union (PATCO)
He had to work with a Democrat controlled congress
You don't think that he would have done more if it was a republican controlled congress?
Now where does that differ from the tea party?
Sure but would you consider him a conservative? a centrist maybe but conservative?
No. I don't think anyone can based on the conservatives that actually exist.
lets compare 1980 to 1989 income tax rate. How is this raising taxes?This is adjusted for inflation:
1980:
Single
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0% $- $6,409
14% $6,409 $9,474
16% $9,474 $12,260
18% $12,260 $18,111
19% $18,111 $23,684
21% $23,684 $30,092
24% $30,092 $35,944
26% $35,944 $41,795
30% $41,795 $50,711
34% $50,711 $65,479
39% $65,479 $80,246
44% $80,246 $95,014
49% $95,014 $115,633
55% $115,633 $154,084
63% $154,084 $227,922
68% $227,922 $301,760
70% $301,760 -1989
Single
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
15% $- $34,347
28% $34,347 -And Reagan revitalized the conservative movement. His spending increases were in the military and look at the results. What happened to the soviet Union? And all the liberals protested thinking he was going to start a Nuclear War
Tax reform, Simplified tax code, deregulation. domestic spending Restraint and let's not forget the way he stood up against federal union (PATCO)He had to work with a Democrat controlled congress
You don't think that he would have done more if it was a republican controlled congress?
Now where does that differ from the tea party?
He did indeed lower the individual tax rates but guess what? the actual amount ofd taxes collected stayed pretty much static because of his "tax reform" changes.
Tax reform is just a smokescreen for raising taxes. He changed the tax laws to reduce the number of deductions and loop holes. In other words he raised taxes.
You act like increasing military spending should be ignored when discussing budget deficits. No matter what he spent it on he still drastically increased spending and the budget deficit which he realized required raising taxes in other areas.
He also increased the size of the government not decreased it.
I do not believe the above are Tea Party values and his taxing the rich seems like a very liberal strategy to me. 😉
lets compare 1980 to 1989 income tax rate. How is this raising taxes?This is adjusted for inflation:
1980:
Single
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0% $- $6,409
14% $6,409 $9,474
16% $9,474 $12,260
18% $12,260 $18,111
19% $18,111 $23,684
21% $23,684 $30,092
24% $30,092 $35,944
26% $35,944 $41,795
30% $41,795 $50,711
34% $50,711 $65,479
39% $65,479 $80,246
44% $80,246 $95,014
49% $95,014 $115,633
55% $115,633 $154,084
63% $154,084 $227,922
68% $227,922 $301,760
70% $301,760 -1989
Single
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
15% $- $34,347
28% $34,347 -And Reagan revitalized the conservative movement. His spending increases were in the military and look at the results. What happened to the soviet Union? And all the liberals protested thinking he was going to start a Nuclear War
Tax reform, Simplified tax code, deregulation. domestic spending Restraint and let's not forget the way he stood up against federal union (PATCO)He had to work with a Democrat controlled congress
You don't think that he would have done more if it was a republican controlled congress?
Now where does that differ from the tea party?He did indeed lower the individual tax rates but guess what? the actual amount ofd taxes collected stayed pretty much static because of his "tax reform" changes.
Tax reform is just a smokescreen for raising taxes. He changed the tax laws to reduce the number of deductions and loop holes. In other words he raised taxes.
You act like increasing military spending should be ignored when discussing budget deficits. No matter what he spent it on he still drastically increased spending and the budget deficit which he realized required raising taxes in other areas.
He also increased the size of the government not decreased it.
I do not believe the above are Tea Party values and his taxing the rich seems like a very liberal strategy to me. 😉
________________________________________________________________
President Reagan's economic polities got us out the the Carter/Democrats recession and far faster the Obama's anemic policies.
Can you even state The Tea Parties' Platform?
The Clinton’s are all about the money. Their words have no creditability.
Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors
By Jonathan Allen - NEW YORK Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:15pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-donations-idUSKBN0MF2FQ20150319
Clinton charity failed to disclose donors, as pledged
(Reuters) - In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family's globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.
At the outset, the Clinton Foundation did indeed publish what they said was a complete list of the names of more than 200,000 donors and has continued to update it. But in a breach of the pledge, the charity's flagship health program, which spends more than all of the other foundation initiatives put together, stopped making the annual disclosure in 2010, Reuters has found.
In response to questions from Reuters, officials at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and the foundation confirmed no complete list of donors to the Clintons' charities has been published since 2010. CHAI was spun off as a separate legal entity that year, but the officials acknowledged it still remains subject to the same disclosure agreement as the foundation.
The finding could renew scrutiny of Clinton's promises of transparency as she prepares to launch her widely expected bid for the White House in the coming weeks. Political opponents and transparency groups have criticized her in recent weeks for her decision first to use a private email address while she was secretary of state and then to delete thousands of emails she labeled private.
CHAI, which is best known for helping to reduce the cost of drugs for people with HIV in the developing world, published a partial donor list for the first time only this year.
CHAI should have published the names during 2010-2013, when Clinton was in office, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley acknowledged this week. "Not doing so was an oversight which we made up for this year," she told Reuters in an email when asked why it had not published any donor lists until a few weeks ago.
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment. Former President Bill Clinton, who also signed on to the agreement with the Obama administration, was traveling and could not be reached for comment, his spokesman said.
STATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Reuters inquiries also raised questions about a second assurance Hillary Clinton made to the Obama administration: that the State Department would be able to review any new or increased contributions to CHAI by foreign governments while she served as the nation's top diplomat. The Clintons said the pledge was intended to defuse accusations that foreign governments might use such donations to earn favors.
By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars (Graphic: reut.rs/1Lvua8z) in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley.
The State Department said it was unable to cite any instances of its officials reviewing or approving new money from any foreign governments. Daley confirmed that none of the seven government donations had been submitted to the State Department for review.
One instance was an admitted oversight, Daley said: CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland's Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.
Hillary Clinton told the Senate during her confirmation hearing in January, 2009, that the disclosures she and her husband agreed to were "very unprecedented."
At that time, she did not dispute the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's concerns that utter transparency was necessary to protect the integrity of the United States' diplomacy and foreign policy.
BRITAIN, AUSTRALIA BOOSTED DONATIONS Since it was published in 2008, the foundation's online donor list has been updated annually, naming everyone from individuals giving a few dollars to governments awarding eight-figure grants, the foundation said. It has been pored over by interest groups, the Clintons' political opponents, and the media.
The foundation list has not included those who donated just to CHAI since the initiative was spun off in 2010, foundation spokesman Craig Minassian said. Minassian said the foundation believed CHAI continued to be bound by the agreement with the Obama administration.
He did not elaborate on why CHAI did not honor it and referred inquiries to Daley.
In the donor list that CHAI published this year, for the first time since its spin-off from the Clinton Foundation, not all donors were identified. Many were grouped together as "Individual Donations", which cumulatively came to less than $1 million. Those donations were small and so "did not warrant posting," said Daley.
In 2008, the Clintons agreed that existing government contributors that wanted to "materially increase" their commitments during Hillary Clinton's tenure would be reviewed by State. Australia almost doubled its support between 2009-2012, to $12.2 million, while the United Kingdom nearly tripled its support, to $11.2 million.
CHAI did not report these increases to the State Department because the new money was for "expansions of existing programs," Daley said.
Daley also provided a number of explanations for why other governments that appeared on a donor list provided to Reuters did not need to be reviewed by the State Department.
Swaziland and Papua New Guinea, which gave small grants for AIDS programs, were not submitted for review because the money they gave originated from other sources, including existing donor Australia and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, she said.
In the case of Sweden, its International Development Cooperation Agency has given CHAI $7.2 million since 2012 to train health workers in Zambia, but nothing in at least the previous three years. This did not need State review because Sweden had given to the foundation prior to 2009, Daley said.
Rwanda, which CHAI listed as a donor, gave the charity $200,000 in 2012. CHAI considered this a fee for medical work it did in the country, not a grant or donation, and so did not tell the State Department about it, Daley said.
Money from all of these governments amounted to about 1 percent of CHAI's total budget, she said.
The White House declined to answer questions about whether the Obama administration was aware of CHAI not disclosing its donors or submitting new donations from foreign governments. White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman noted, however, that the agreement the Clintons entered into "went above and beyond standard ethics requirements."
