The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
May 7, 2011 by B. Daniel Blatt
May 8, 2011 at 2:41 am - May 8, 2011
Do we have to fear for the future “as just another repetition of past failures”?
Wish I’d been old enough to vote for him.
“I miss voting for that man,” – Hank Rutherford Hill
May 8, 2011 at 2:53 am - May 8, 2011
Now how in the HELL did the Big Goober win?
American Elephant says
May 8, 2011 at 3:34 am - May 8, 2011
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that one before. I like his second to last point best: an orderly transfer of powers, and the corresponding tax collections back to the states.
May 8, 2011 at 3:59 am - May 8, 2011
I’m not gay but this site is awesome!!!!!
May 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm - May 8, 2011
“The key to restoring the health of the economy lies is cutting taxes” – He got that wrong, unfortunately. The key is to cut spending; as Milton Friedman said, the level of spending is the true measure of government’s burden on the economy. If the government doesn’t finance the spending by taxes, then it will only finance it by borrowing (which means future taxes) or by printing money (which is a hidden tax AND destroys the currency).
Roger Sherman says
May 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm - May 8, 2011
It’s really a shame that no plausible Republican candidate has the gonads to make such a speech today.
God truly blessed America with Pres Reagan.
May 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm - May 8, 2011
Roger, I think part of the problem is that if there *is* a “plausible Republican candidate [who] has the gonads to make such a speech”, the media lies about them in a frenzy of slander until it has made them (and in order to make them) seem implausible. Exhibit A: Sarah Palin.
Sebastian Shaw says
May 8, 2011 at 7:24 pm - May 8, 2011
Someone will rise from obscurity to take on the little Communist who thinks he’s a dictator; for every action, there’s an equal & opposite reaction. The MSM will be drowned out by the Tea Party & the other people revolting against Obamanomics with the rising inflation, unemployment, & Obama’s never-ending spending.
May 8, 2011 at 8:34 pm - May 8, 2011
ILC – Agree. I happen to admire Sarah Palin and think she would be a great president. But, I’m afraid that too many Republicans have jumped off her ship. Again, no gonads.
And now the Republicans in the House are running away from Paul Ryan’s plan because the Senate won’t go along. WTF? Stand up for what you believe and remember who elected you and why.
The establishment Republicans and RINOs are really beginning to anger me. If they continue this behavior, they will be the reason for the transformation of the Tea Party from a grass roots advocacy organization to a legitimate 3rd party. And IMNSHO, that will fracture the conservative movement.
May 8, 2011 at 9:47 pm - May 8, 2011
May 9, 2011 at 11:49 am - May 9, 2011
Did you miss where in the same breath, Reagan calls out “controlling wasteful spending”, right after he says we must lower taxes ????
North Dallas Thirty says
May 9, 2011 at 1:42 pm - May 9, 2011
Maybe. But I think what is more likely is the sort of reverse-purge that happened in the Obama Party when the Pelosi-Reid leftist wing got rid of the Blue Dogs. There really are no sane Obama Party legislators left; they’re all racist socialists who want to see business punished and destroyed and who are whining about OBL’s killing being a stain on our country.
Even the RINO Queen Susan Collins has figured out that Obama is a power-hungry little despot who will say or do anything to keep his position. There may still be hope.
May 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm - May 9, 2011
Did you miss where in the same breath, Reagan calls out “controlling wasteful spending”
No Spartann, I didn’t miss it. Rather, I thought it was insufficient.
It’s a question of emphasis. Reagan unfortunately thought that cutting taxes was the key, and cutting spending was also-nice and something that cutting taxes would help enable. In retrospect, it’s the reverse: cutting spending is the key, and cutting taxes is also-nice and something that cutting spending will help enable.
May 9, 2011 at 2:51 pm - May 9, 2011
(continued) Again, spending is what tells you the total level of taxation – combining explicit taxes, government borrowing (future taxes) and money printing (the hidden tax of inflation).
May 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm - May 9, 2011
The amount of government debt going into a recession, correlates to the damage done by the recession and the difficulty of recovering from the recession: http://hotair.com/economy-debt-spending/2011/05/09/aggregate-debt-drove-economic-damage-in-great-recesssion/
So, over time, deficits do matter.
May 10, 2011 at 2:39 am - May 10, 2011
ILoveCapitalism, it’s complicated. We had a balance of payments crisis (usually, a currency crisis + banking crisis, but our reserve currency status spared us the first part). When foreign investors flood a country with speculative capital, it is extremely important for the government to start running a budget surplus–if it runs deficits instead, it will suck in more foreign capital and float a credit bubble (this has happened to literally dozens of countries over the past few decades).
Debt isn’t such a problem when it’s at a relatively low level, relative to GDP. This is why Reagan did the “fiscal twist” of anchoring global demand amidst global disinflation by running large fiscal deficits. It made a great deal of sense in the 80s (an ingenious solution to a tough problem, especially the way he raised productivity with defense spending).
May 10, 2011 at 2:43 am - May 10, 2011
Ah, of course fiscal deficits don’t make a lot of sense now. Not unless we want the dollar to crash.
May 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm - May 10, 2011
Debt isn’t such a problem when it’s at a relatively low level, relative to GDP.
I think that is one lesson of the link I posted at #15.
Now, how do you think debt gets from low levels to high levels? By magic? No, by a pattern of deficit spending.
The Reagan-era deficits (note that Democrats share the blame, as they insisted on spending increases after Reagan’s initial round of spending cuts) were *not* a good thing. Deficits don’t add to wealth. The economy improved in spite of the Reagan-era, not because of them.
May 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm - May 10, 2011
Sorry, dumb typo – “… improved in spite of the Reagan-era *deficits*, not because of them.”
The Reagan economy improved because of other Reagan-Volcker policies, that were helpful. Yes, the tax cuts (decreasing marginal rates to improve incentives) were among them. Deregulation and high interest rates (the latter making the currency sound and encouraging sound use of capital) also helped.
But because Reagan did not, in the end, address spending and deficits adequately… because the Bush 43 administration then took the view that “deficits don’t matter” (Cheney quote)… because President Bambi then decided to out-spend and out-deficit all of them… because of all those things together, here we are now, inches from the fiscal cliff and possibly too late to apply the brakes.
Eric in Chicago says
May 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm - May 10, 2011
I won’t discuss where I was or what I was doing when this man made this speech, but I will say that shortly after I heard it, I ceased focusing on that which kept me down, and began making my own way in this country.
Being recognized by whom chose to sleep with became ever less important than what I was able to achieve in my work.
Apparently, to the left, the former is the only gauge by which I may be judged a success.
In simpler terms, f*ck them.
May 12, 2011 at 11:20 pm - May 12, 2011
seriously, are y’all trying to deify this guy?