Bob Dole Hates America and is Muslim

Bob Dole goes to Fox News and tells the cult exactly what they don't want to hear.

Asked whether he would be welcomed by the Republican Party today, Dole said, “I doubt it. Reagan wouldn’t have made it, certainly Nixon wouldn’t have made it, because he had ideas. We might have made it, but I doubt it.”

No doubt Reagan, who raised taxes 11 times, grew government to enormous levels, supported gun-control, granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, secretly sold arms to Iran (one-third of the Axis of Evil), armed Saddam Hussein (one-third of the Axis of Evil), armed, funded and openly supported al Qeada and bin Laden, and who dared call the neocons the "crazies in the basement," would not be considered for a precinct committeeman's office in today's GOP, much less anything higher.

I find it highly unlikely that Dole, a two-time presidential candidate, would be either.  Insane people like Ted Cruz, and Darryl Issa are what Republican voters want in their candidates.  On the contrary, Bill Clinton is welcomed to the Democratic Party with opened-arms, and by the public in general.  So is his wife who will probably be the next and first female president.  So is Gore, and so is Carter.  Aside from Dukakis, who is still very much a part of Democratic circles, I can't think of any who would be shunned today.  The GOP is all but reserved for crazies, bigots, and entertainers.  The 70s, 80s and 90s Republican Party is long gone.

Republican Wants Budget Deficits to be a Crime Against the Nation

A U.S. House Member from Alabama wants a president who doesn't balance the budget to be able to be impeached by the House and possibly removed from office.

I'm sure this very smart and very fiscally conservative tea bagging Republican knows full well that such a law would have caused Ronald Reagan to be impeached by a Democratically-controlled House and removed from office by a Democratically-controlled Senate.  But of course we all know Reagan ran huge budget deficits and never once balanced the budget because he loved America.  

If, however, running a budget deficit is impeachable, how bad must it be to take the largest surplus in the history of the nation and turn it into a huge hundred billion deficit in a matter of months after taking office like George W. Bush did.  If that's not cause for immediate removal, once the Democrats took over the legislative branch in January 2007, they would have impeached Bush and removed him from office by Spring.  Would have Rep. Mo Brooks supported that?  Not a chance.

But we all have to remember, Reagan and Bush tripled the federal doubt and then doubled it again only because of their Patriotic Reverence for the nation and now that a Democrat is in charge budget deficits are so evil and so detrimental to the nation that the president must be charged with crimes against the nation.  This should be in effect until a Republican takes back the White House.

Sarah Palin isn't gone, she's just waiting for those Reagan Democrats to turn out

Many people are saying that Sarah Palin's exit from Fox News means she's gone forever from American politics and society.  I disagree.  Either her and Fox will rejoin efforts later on; or somewhere someone will give her a platform to spew her stupidity.  Or if by 2016 she isn't getting the attention she thinks she deserves, she'll run for president to get back in the spotlight and to make millions again.  Also, I can see her running for office in 2014 just to get her name back in rotation if need be.  Politics is popularity and it's as addictive as any drug.  Palin is an addict.

Just because it's so easy, her latest delusional rant she gave the right wing America-hating website Breitbart deserves a mention.  Her reflections on Mitt Romney's loss:

Conservatism didn’t lose. A moderate Republican candidate lost after he was perceived to alienate working class Reagan Democrat and Independent voters who didn’t turn out for him as much as they did for the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008," Palin said. "Granted, those same voters also didn’t turn out for Obama as strongly either.

Huh????  So once again, after suffering a huge electoral loss on the national stage, Republicans still didn't lose.  This is insane and it takes someone just as insane to repeat such garbage.

Moreover, she says a "moderate Republican" lost because working class Reagan Democrats and Independents didn't turn out for him as much as they did for her and McCain four years earlier.  This is pure delusion.  Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan got 997,145 more votes than McCain and Palin.  This very easy and very simple math means more people turned out for Romney/Ryan than McCain/Palin.  She's completely senile.  There's no way you can possibly say Reagan Dems (whatever those are) and Independents didn't turn out more for Romney than McCain.

More importantly, if you're still running your electoral fortunes on the term "Reagan Democrats," you've already lost.  That was 32 years ago.  The electorate is no where near the same as it was then.  It's not even the same as it was in 2004. Democrats aren't even the same now.  And neither are Republicans.  Reagan supported gun legislation, raised taxes 11 times, doubled tripled the federal debt, grew government to enormous levels, ran chronic budget deficits every year, and supported amnesty for immigrants.  He could never get elected by today's GOP.

Waiting for those "Reagan Democrats" to turn out is actually right where I want the GOP to be.  Losing.

*Editor's Note:

The original publication of this stated Ronald Reagan had "doubled" the federal debt.  This is no where near correct.  Reagan TRIPLED the federal debt.  We apologize for the error.

Reinventing Reagan No. 1832

This is how you deal with your Sainted Leader of all things American when reality doesn't fit your narrative.

Asked about Reagan’s position during an appearance on MSNBC shortly after Obama’s remarks, Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America, suggested that Reagan only supported greater restrictions because he was senile:

ANDREA MITCHELL (HOST): What’s the problem with registering a gun? If you have a bushmaster, first of all, why would you have one?
PRATT: President Reagan owned an AR-15.
MITCHELL: And he supported gun control. He advocated…
PRATT: In his later years. We have to keep that in account.MITCHELL: In his later years he was almost killed by John Hinckley.
PRATT: But all through his presidency he opposed gun control, that’s my point.

If only supporting gun legislation "in his later years" constitutes 1986 and the prime of his presidency Pratt would be right.  Since it doesn't, Pratt is wrong as anyone has ever been.

As Think Progress noted, Reagan in 1986 signed a law prohibiting the ownership of automatic rifles that were not already subsequently registered prior to that year. Also, as governor, Reagan routinely supported gun legislation including one that mandated a 15-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.  Both of those pieces of legislation are way more stringent to gun owners than anything President Obama signed today.  And none of it happened "in his later years."  To state, "all through his presidency he opposed gun control," is insanely stupid and completely inaccurate.

Quick History of Tax Hikes

You might have to click on the image to see it better.  However, this graph is rather pointless because the Bush Tax Cuts were extended permanently for about 99.3% of the population.  So the last three red lines never happened.  It's just a snapshot of what would have happened had Congress not passed the bill they did last night.

Also, as you'll notice, the tax increases included in Obamacare are the smallest tax increases since at least 1940 (as far back as the graph goes).  This didn't stop Republicans from calling it the largest tax increase in the history of the world, however.  Never mind the simple fact they were probably the smallest in history.

My point, however, is it strikes me odd that there are 5 rather moderate-sized tax increases throughout Reagan's tenure.  You mean to tell me that Ronald Reagan raised taxes to shore up his budget deficits and create revenue?????  Well, yes he did.  In fact, his tax increases added together would be the second largest tax increase since WWII.  Double factoid is that Ronald Reagan instituted the largest peacetime tax increase in the history of this nation.  Triple factoid is in addition to raising taxes, Reagan also instituted numerous fees to help raise revenue as well. Fees are taxes where I come from.

It's curious to note, too, that Reagan raised taxes to increase revenue.  Revenue that he desperately needed to alleviate his budget deficits.  But to Republicans this never happened.  When or if you get a Republican to admit that it did happen, it's in the context that Reagan was tricked by Democrats.  So even then, it all boils down to evil Democrats raising taxes.  It's how they sleep at night.  Again, however, the assertion Reagan was tricked is simply false and earns a maximum lie score on the Fact Checker site.

Pesky facts.  It's just so much easier to pretend it never happened.

Reagan Hits Fox News for Complete Dishonesty

Just like the 2008 election, if President Obama is reelected Republicans will view him as an illegitimate president.  For the current term, it's because ACORN stole the election for him and the Black Panthers stood guard at the polls intimidating whites so they wouldn't vote.  And, of course, because the media stole the election for Obama because they loved the ratings behind the monumental notion of having our first black president.  John McCain just never stood a chance against such an onslaught of voter illegalities.

The next term will again be because of voter fraud.  But it will also be because companies doing the polls have rigged them to show Obama winning thus suppressing Republican morale and votes.  There's just no way Mittens isn't winning over America's hearts.  Something must be awry.  It's always a conspiracy.  Republicans are-- without a doubt-- perpetual victims.

Ronald Reagan Jr. says it best:

The rank and file actually believes some of this nonsense. They believe that evolution didn’t happen, global warming is a hoax, Obama is a Kenyan. But the people like Dick Morris — and Sean Hannity for that matter, who has spread a lot of this kind of propaganda — they know better than this and there is a method to their madness here.”

“They’re not delusional, they’re dishonest. They’re not crazy, they’re craven… What they’re trying to do here and accomplish here is to say in advance, if President Obama wins this election, it’s because the pollsters suppressed the Republican vote, it’s therefore an illegitimate election, he’s not really president. They’re setting the table for that.”

Excellent Point

Spinner makes an excellent point in one of our many comment threads.  This one just so happens to be about tax increases, Reagan and modern polity. 

"I have no idea whether Reagan could get elected today or not. Sometimes I think no, and other times I think force of personality overcomes all barriers. Remember that he was very much opposed by the establishment party in 1976 and that even in 1980 the eastern elite wing supported Bush 1 until Reagan proved so popular with the middle class and swing Democrats in the early primaries. So he overcame the powers that be back then, too."

Very true.  Reagan was, if anything, a master of personality.  Unmatched except for Clinton in my opinion.  

Sorry, I just like to highlight comments that I agree with as well as the ones I think are insane. 

Those Tax and Spend Liberals

For decades there's been a right wing misinformation campaign aimed at portraying Democrats as nothing but tax and spend liberals.  Currently we are seeing this very misinformation campaign in full swing with President Obama and especially his reform of access to health care.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled the Affordable Care Act as Constitutional based on Congress' power to tax, Republicans have resorted to labeling the Act as the largest tax increase in history.  Notice they've moved away from calling it tyranny at the moment.  This is standard Republican ideology.  If it comes from a non-Republican president, it's unconstitutional-- or it's tyranny-- or it socialism-- or it will destroy the country-- or it's the largest tax increase in history.  Textbook Republicanism.

Luckily for those of us in the reality-based community, someone actually measured tax increases on the American people since WWII and ranked them in order from largest to smallest.  Crazy I know.

And looky what we get:

The president's reform isn't even close to being the largest tax increase in history.  Facts, though, are not what Republicans are interested in.  They're interested in the sensation of the slogan that will get repeated millions of times on hate radio and the mainstream media.  They really don't care if what they say is a lie.  Them saying it is all the proof they need to convince themselves that it's true.

But, there's more.  When I look at that graph I don't see a rank of the largest tax increases in history.  No I see 7 of the 15 tax increases coming from Republicans.  Of those 7 tax increases 5 are from REAGAN!!  In fact, Reagan increased taxes as a percent of GDP more than any president since Truman.  His 5 tax increases listed above more than triple all the combined taxes in Obamacare.

Surely 7 of the 15 largest tax increases in modern history is quite the stain on a party that prides itself as the small government fiscal conservative lot.  In a sane world such a history would be enough to squash any hopes of maintaining that label.  But sanity has nothing to do with post-George Bush America.

Perhaps while raising taxes Republicans also, oh I don't know...increased spending as well!! Yes they did!  That's right, in addition to issuing 7 of the 15 largest tax increases in modern American history, they also increased spending far more than any of their Democratic counterparts.  They also added over $10 trillion to the federal debt in the same time span. George W. Bush alone added over $1 trillion of new spending to the budget.  And these are our fiscal conservatives?  Well, only if you ask them that is.

It's laughable to imagine the audacity it would take to really think Republicans care anything about spending, deficits, debt or tax increases.  It's also a stretch of historic proportions to even begin to call the GOP the fiscally responsible party.  Conservative they may be. Fiscally conservative, not a chance.

Reagan Grew Government More Than Obama

Just another part of history Republicans claim never happened.

Budget Facts: Taxes Control Revenue

• Under Bill Clinton federal income tax revenues increased by $528 billion.
• Under George W. Bush federal income tax revenues decreased by $266 billion (the largest drop in revenue ever).
• Under George H. W. Bush federal income tax revenues decreased by $10 billion.
• Under Ronald Reagan federal income tax revenues increased revenues increased by $84 billion.

I wonder what it is that Clinton and Reagan have in common that caused them both to oversee an increase in revenue?  Oh yeah, they both raised taxes.  In Reagan's case numerous times.

Cantor Won't Admit Reagan Raised Taxes

One of the leading factors that presents the modern GOP as a cult is their belief that Ronald Reagan was some sort of slash and burn fiscal conservative that shrunk government and reined in spending.  What makes believing such things cultish is the simple fact that none of it ever happened.  Reagan never cut spending.  He never shrunk government.  He did the exact opposite to be precise.  He tripled the federal debt, ran huge budget deficits and even grew the overall size of government by leaps and bounds.

To hide from their true Reagan legacy, Republicans have invented an alternate history that treats Reagan much like an apostle of "conservative government."  Things like Reagan's 11 tax increases including all kinds of new revenue for infrastructure, his tripling of the federal debt or his huge increase in federal public sector employment simply never happened.  In the instance that you get a Republican to admit that they did happen, it's always in the context that Reagan was forced by the liberals in Congress or that despite his mammoth tax increases his net tax increase is still negative, as if that's supposed to exempt him from raising taxes.

Consider that taxes today under President Obama, thanks to huge payroll tax cuts in 2009 and its current renewal, are lower than they were under Reagan and you get someone like Eric Cantor who refuses to admit Reagan raised taxes becoming increasingly senile.

Quick Budget Facts

• FY 2012 Spending accounts for about 24% of GDP.
• The all time high for federal spending is 44% of GDP set during WWII in 1944.
• During Reagan's massive spending binges, the federal budget reached 23% of GDP. Slightly lower than it is today.  Remember he was a "fiscal conservative" too.
• Social Security spending accounts for 19% of the federal budget.
• Military spending accounts for 19% of the federal budget.
• Medicare spending accounts for 12% of the federal budget.
• Financing the debt run up by the fiscal conservative Reagan accounts for 6% of the total budget, $242 billion in 2012.
• Fiscally conservative Reagan increased federal spending by 21.5% and increased the budget deficit by 89.2% in 8 years.
• Clinton increased federal spending by 12.4% and turned Reagan's deficit into the largest budget surplus in history.
• Fiscally conservative George W. Bush increased federal spending by 32.2%.  He wiped out the budget surplus he inherited and turned it into a whopping $1.5 trillion deficit in 8 years.
• Barack Obama has increased spending by 8% in two years.  The deficit has shrunk from $1.5 trillion when he entered office to $1.2 trillion for FY12.  

Quickies

• When Newt Gingrich-- this week's GOP version of "Not Romney"-- says people should be drug tested before they are allowed to "receive any kind of federal aid," he's not referring to the fat cat bankers that received over $7 trillion of federal aid; or to the rich corporate bosses whose companies receive billions in tax breaks every year, or to the farmers who receive millions in subsidies to not work.  No Gingrich wouldn't dare suggest those people be held to higher standards.  He's only referring to poor people and those who don't vote Republican.

• Fox News' latest fear mongering race baiting lies?  President Obama Plans To Abandon White Working Class.  The president himself is half-white.  His daughters are 1/4 white.  He was raised by an entirely white family, attended the elitist of white schools, was a member of an entirely white U.S. Senate and now occupies the position previously held by 43 all white men.  He's more white than me.  Why in the world this stupid meme entirely created by Fox News is still going around is proof of just how corrupt that network is.

• Glenn Greenwald highlights an interesting point from Gen. Wesley Clark.  It was the intent of the neocons during the Bush administration to attack and destroy 7 Middle Eastern countries: "...we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."  Iraq? Check.  Syria? In the process or regime change.  Lebanon?  Not yet.  Libya?  Check.  Somalia?  In the process of regime change.  Iran?  Proxy fighting is always good.

• Meanwhile in Iraq, that beacon of Bush's Liberation Policy of Freedom, 19 people were blown to smithereens in the street today.

• Remember when it was okay for the president to sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages?  Oh yeah, it's all down the memory hole now.  Well, except this week marks 25 years since President Reagan openly admitted to selling some weapons to Iran but only to arm good mullahs.  Could you imagine if Bill Clinton had secretly sold weapons to Iran?  Or if he had openly funded, aided and armed bin Laden's holy war in Afghanistan?  Or if he had openly supported, funded and sold weapons to Saddam Hussein the field day the right wing would be having.  Could you imagine it?  Reagan did all three things.  But we are never to mention any of it again.  If we do, we are only to mention it in the context that Reagan did all those things because he loved America and did it to make us stronger.

George Washington, the Black Democratic President

If you read the Bible you'll see that when George Washington was leaving office he had quite a few thoughts to help guide the many white men that would follow in his footsteps.  One of them was in regards to debts and taxes.  Washington knew indebtedness would cause Congress to make wise decisions, some of which would not be popular, to properly deal with debt and taxes.  The solution, knew Washington, when debt posed a problem, was revenue.

George Washington understood that dealing with debts was government's responsibility, but leaders would be unlikely to make unpopular choices in a democracy unless the public was both enlightened and understanding: "The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives," he said -- meaning the members of Congress. "But it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant."

President Reagan completely understood this.  When he faced a revenue crunch and massive budget deficits, he raised taxes numerous times-- 11 to be exact.  Now that we have a Democratic President named Barack Obama it's treasonous, socialist and un-American to do anything that might be "essential" to the payment of debts.

After Six Decades It's Time to Quit Pretend Cutting

I think it's important to take a step back and look at the context of the question Rick Perry flubbed so terribly.  It's a common talking point among Republicans to say something about government must be cut.  For decades they've been talking about cutting the Dept. of Education, Social Security, EPA, PBS, Dept. of Energy, and so on and so on.  Cutting government is a common-core belief held in high regard.

But what have they ever cut?  Honestly, think about it.  Since WWII, Republicans have occupied the White House a total of 33 years.  That's half of the 66 years since 1945.  And during those 33 years of GOP rule, what have they ever cut from government?

They've done the opposite of cut government.

• Eisenhower pushed through the largest public works project in the history of America with the interstate highway system.  It would be unthinkable to hear a Republican say they were going to do the same today.  He cut not one single department.
• Nixon began the first affirmative action policy in America.  He also removed us from the gold standard-- a move of extreme treason if a Democrat had done such.  He cut not one single department.
• Ford, did Ford do anything?  
• Reagan enormously grew government.  He increased spending every year.  He raised taxes 11 times.  Despite saying he would cut the Dept. of Education (sound familiar?) he more than doubled its budget.  He also almost single-handily saved Social Security and increased its spending by $90 billion.  He doubled Medicare spending and quadrupled total entitlements spending.  
• George H.W. Bush, well I know he sure didn't cut anything.  He did raise taxes and he did increase spending.
• George W. Bush, do I really need to go through his list of huge government expansion?  No president since FDR spent more or grew government larger.

The point of all this is why even ask Perry or any Republican candidate what they are going to cut?  Why even bother with the nonsense of hearing their answer.  Even if elected, they would never cut any department, or any spending.  The GOP has no track record of ever doing anything it claims to be a core principle.  If you think Ron Paul or Rick Perry are the first candidates to ever say they were going to cut government, you must just be waking up from a 60 year coma.

Instead of the media catering to their "I'll shrink government and return us to Freedom" bull crap why not just call them on it.  Why can't the media just say: "Given that no Republican administration has ever cut any government department despite 6 decades of saying they will, what 3 programs do you want to 'pretend cut' but won't?"

Doing that would certainly be much more factual and help get us over this hump of make-believe Republican small government conservatism.

The real irony in all this is not that Rick Perry can't remember what government departments he wants to "pretend cut."  It's that the media still take the GOP seriously when talking about shrinking government forcing us all to live in a world where people who have done nothing but grow government and increase spending get to be small government fiscal conservatives.

Quickies

• Sarah Palin won't run.  Shocker.  Yawn.

• Michelle Bachmann, yet another female right wing lunatic in the mold of Palin, lied today by saying her presidential campaign had over 250,000 donors.  She's crazy.

• Ron Paul called the Occupy Wall St. protest a "legitimate effort." 

• Turns out Sean Hannity's claim that Obama was hanging out with Black Panthers in 2007 is a total lie.  Yeah, real shocker.  

• Fox News' Steve Doocy, once again, distorts the facts about Reagan's presidency.  Doocy claimed that Obama's policies won't work and he should instead look at Reagan's "permanent tax cuts" to get the economy on the right track.  As County Fair notes, Reagan's tax cuts in '81 and '86 were offset by his 11 tax increases.  One of those 11 increases was the largest tax increase during peacetime in history.  Never mind any of that though.  As always though, we aren't talking about Real Reagan here.  Republicans are simply talking about Fantasy World Reagan.

That Reagan Boom

Talking with a friend on Facebook over the weekend led me wanting to learn more about a phenom he kept referring to as the Reagan Boom.  I was in infancy and elementary school in the 80s so I don't recall much about how great things were economically back then.  I know my dad had a good job and we never went without but other than that I don't remember much.

With a little spare time today I dug into this great era known as the Reagan Boom that my friend said was filled with economic growth never seen before.

Here's US GDP from the last 80 years or so.

If the Reagan Boom was an era of unprecedented growth due mainly to his policies surely GDP during that time would reflect that right?  Well, as you can see from the graph GDP has been rising since 1942 and it looks no different in the 80s than it did in the 60s, 70s, 90s or 2000s.  In fact the sharpest growths come in the 90s after Reagan was out of office and during the 2003 to 2007 after Reagan was dead.  So dang it, even though GDP grew during the Reagan Boom it's not unprecedented or even in "never seen before" territory. Just normal growth like we've seen for 80 years.

Besides GDP, another great measuring stick to test out good economic times is wages.  Obviously when wages go up, people spend more and the economy grows.  So surely the Reagan Boom had never before seen wage increases.  You know, normal every day Americans making more money-- that's what a boom is all about.

Alright, well, the Reagan Boom for sure saw wage increases but not like what we saw in the 50s and 60s when Reagan was still acting like he was a war hero.  What we do see is that wages had a much better time in the 90s after Reagan left office than during the Reagan Boom.  Now don't get me wrong, wages increased but not into unprecedented territory.  And certainly not greater than they did in the immediate post-war years or during the 90s when Clinton was in office.

So with two of the leading economic indicators there is no boom. There's growth no doubt about that.  But no boom or nothing that suggests there was unprecedented, never before seen growth.  The 90s saw much sharper GDP growth.  And most certainly the 50s, 60s and 90s saw much greater wage growth.  The Reagan Boom looks awful ordinary doesn't it?

Okay, okay, how about productivity?  Surely Reagan oversaw an era of great increases in production.  There's no way Republicans are going around calling the 80s a "boom" when there's no economic evidence to back it up, right?   Well, actually...

Productivity sucked!

What the heck is going on here.  I'm not seeing a boom at all.  It has to be found in the notion that Reagan cut taxes and paid for all his spending.  Has to be...

Well no, that didn't happen either.  Reagan didn't pay for anything. He ended a post-war budget practice of paying for most stuff (that's what the long sloping downward line is starting about 1946 and continuing until 1981).

Nothing is appearing unprecedented or never before seen.  Is it possible the Reagan Boom is simply code for "if we say it enough people will start believing it"?

If someone finds some data in support of the Reagan Boom let me know.  I would really like to learn more about it.

*Update:

Got an email from a friend, a very Republican friend, telling me that Reagan's Boom was more to do with rescuing the nation from a very deep recession, one similar if not worse than today, than it is about having actual data to back it up.

Just one thing wrong with that.  It's not true.

As you can see in the graph below, which I blew up from one above and made the start date 1979 instead of 1947, the loss in GDP in 1979 and then again in 1981 is no where near as severe as in 2008-2009.  In other words, the economy Reagan inherited was stronger than the one Obama inherited. 

There's a huge drop in GDP in 2008-2009.  Barely a smidgen of a drop in the year preceding Reagan and only a slight one after his inauguration.  The drops we recently went through haven't been seen since the 1930s.

Reagan Aide on Rick Perry

“Rick Perry is an idiot and I don’t think anybody would disagree with that.”

Facebook Discussion Enters Blog

Occasionally I like to bring my Facebook page to the blog. This is one of those occasions.

A friend left a comment which I hope to address here. I'll post it below and then my reply thereafter.

Ad FB Comment

My reply after the fold...

Congress Raised the Debt Ceiling 18 Times For Reagan, 19 Times For Bush

It's hard to imagine Ronald Reagan being told that raising the debt ceiling was because of his socialist, America destroying policies isn't it?  After all, the ceiling only has to be raised because of the president right?  That's what the modern GOP wants everyone to believe at least.

Truth is Congress raised the debt ceiling 18 different times for Reagan because he tripled the national debt.  And then raised it another 19 times for George Bush because he doubled the national debt.  Those two Republican presidents added nearly $11 trillion to today's federal debt and account for the debt ceiling being raised at least 37 times. Seventy-five percent of the federal debt comes from fiscally conservative Republicans.

None of this matters today because the White House is being run by a Democrat.  And Democrats aren't offered the same legitimacy as Republican presidents.  It's only now that a Democrat is in charge does the debt ceiling being raised equate to a socialist overtaken of America.

*Update:

Where oh where could Republicans possibly be getting the idea that this decision to raise the debt ceiling is strictly because of this president's policies?

Yesterday on Fox News, Sean Hannity:  "We're going to lose our AAA bond rating because he spent us into oblivion."

No president spent more money than George W. Bush.  To date, no president added more to the national debt than George W. Bush.  Not one time did Hannity ever complain about Congress having to raise the debt ceiling for George Bush's spending, which they did 19 times. The only thing different now than then is Obama is a Democrat. Because of that, Hannity and his Republicans are suddenly concerned about the country's fiscal matters.