Gay Patriot Header Image

No, Mr. President, Ronald Reagan didn’t campaign on raising taxes

Well, you can’t accuse Barack Obama of originality.  Today, the incumbent President of the United States trotted out that old Democratic talking point that Ronald Reagan “could not get through a Republican primary today.

The Democrat uses that silly notion as he lambastes his partisan rivals for their supposed unwillingness to compromise:

These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise.

. . . .

Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.

If the newspaper editors (with whom he conducted the interview) did their homework, they would find that the party unwilling to brook any compromise sits in the White House, with the president, for example, having walked away from a a debt agreement last summer where Republicans has agreed to an $800 billion increase in “revenue.

Oh yea, and Obama might want to remember that Reagan later regretted signing on the 1982 budget deal as the Democrats got their tax cuts, but the spending cuts never materialized.  Seems this guy just can’t get his facts straight about his predecessors.

Not just that, Reagan never ran for president promising to raise taxes.  Quite the contrary, in fact; in the 1984 campaign, he used his Democratic opponent’s support for such hikes against him.

Amazing, simply amazing that the man who is proposing policies at odds with those the Gipper advocated is attempting to speak for that great man.  Since he’s invoking his successful president’s name, he should also emulate his policies — policies embodied in the Ryan budget he so readily lambastes.  And that budget could muster a majority in the House; his couldn’t even get a single vote.

Share

16 Comments

  1. Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist…

    I never said you were a socialist, you insipid, obtuse twit.

    You’re obviously a Marxist.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — April 3, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - April 3, 2012

  2. Poor Obambi. He has to run against somebody instead running on his record, so he runs against anybody and personalizes and demonizes and rewrites history and blows smoke across the mirrors of his mind. No matter what, he must keep talking and keep running and keep redefining and keep presenting a moving target.

    There is no there there or really anywhere. He is a figment of his own imagination and Captain Mandatory on the Good Ship Agitprop.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 3, 2012 @ 8:06 pm - April 3, 2012

  3. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise.

    Says the jackass who shut down debt ceiling talks when Republicans were willing to give him what he wanted.

    Comment by TGC — April 3, 2012 @ 11:15 pm - April 3, 2012

  4. Whoops! Jumped the gun. Sorry Dan.

    Still, he’s a jackass. Anybody who threatens the Judicial Branch is a thug and ASSerts that it would be “unprecedented” to overturn congress is a jackass of the highest order.

    Seriously, did he get his law credentials out of Rolling Stone?

    Comment by TGC — April 3, 2012 @ 11:17 pm - April 3, 2012

  5. I love Obama’s ability to roll his eyes to his left-wing audience about Those Crazies, Who Crazily Accuse Us Of Being ‘Tax-And-Spend Socialists’ Har Har… while actually being a tax-and-spend socialist in virtually his every policy action.

    In related news: a new short video that explains the Broken Window Fallacy… or why “stimulus” can never work: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-government-stimulus-spending-will-keep-unemployment-rate-high

    Basically, whatever government spends in “stimulus”, it has either first taken away from citizens via taxes, or, it is about to take away from citizens via inflation (debt and money printing). So the government can never stimulate… it can only redistribute. But watch the video.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 3, 2012 @ 11:32 pm - April 3, 2012

  6. for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times.

    And every single time this compromise was made, the tax increases happened and the spending cuts didn’t.

    This is why Republicans are reluctant to compromise; because Democrats have proven that they are negotiating in bad faith.

    Comment by V the K — April 3, 2012 @ 11:32 pm - April 3, 2012

  7. And notice Obama’s argument structure. ‘Reagan compromised with the crazy people in the room, when they were so big that he had no choice. We’re the same crazy people… why won’t the Republicans compromise with us?’

    In effect.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 3, 2012 @ 11:39 pm - April 3, 2012

  8. Oh and finally, by “compromise” Obama means CAVE IN. He means spending cuts in name only, as spending in fact grows at several percent every year, for years to come. ‘Why, oh why, won’t the Republicans cave in to our madness?’

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 3, 2012 @ 11:41 pm - April 3, 2012

  9. Hi Dan,

    Not just that, Reagan never ran for president promising to raise taxes. Quite the contrary, in fact; in the 1984 campaign, he used his Democratic opponent’s support for such hikes against him.

    Hmm, I guess you are trying to turn a negative into a positive, but I can’t help but feel that it proves that Reagan was a politician. It is a consummate politician who will use his opponent’s position against him, and then do as his opponent suggests, after he is elected. Hmm, just like that individual mandate thingy!

    And as for having no choice against a Dem Congress… well, there was a choice–to head-butt Congress, and take them on. But Reagan was a practical kind of guy. I am reminded of the adage: that it is better to get some of what you want, rather than none…

    As for the “no-compromise” budgetary Obama, I think we will agree to disagree on that one, Dan.

    Comment by Cas — April 4, 2012 @ 12:16 am - April 4, 2012

  10. Cas, yes, Reagan was pragmatic, but he also said that, in retrospect, the 1982 deal (where he agreed to tax hikes) was a mistake.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — April 4, 2012 @ 12:34 am - April 4, 2012

  11. Hi Dan,
    Yes, I grant that; but it didn’t stop him from making the deal in the first place. I am sure that GH Bush also realized that raising taxes was a mistake, given the impact it had on his own base, before the 1992 elections. I am sure that our current President will also say that he made some whopper mistakes as well!

    Comment by Cas — April 4, 2012 @ 1:26 am - April 4, 2012

  12. it proves that Reagan was a politician

    I think it proves, rather, that you don’t understand Reagan. Nor do you understand the history of the times. 1984 was Reagan’s re-election; after the tax increase the Democrats forced on him in 1982.

    I am sure that our current President will also say that he made some whopper mistakes as well!

    LOL – somebody get out those Obama quotes where he never seriously admits any mistake, he only gives himself A-pluses.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 4, 2012 @ 1:32 am - April 4, 2012

  13. (or maybe it was A-minuses… whichever)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 4, 2012 @ 1:52 am - April 4, 2012

  14. Perhaps even a B+ or two…

    Comment by Cas — April 4, 2012 @ 2:07 am - April 4, 2012

  15. 1. Why does compromise always have to mean conservatives abandon their principles and let liberals win?

    2. When will liberals propose a compromise that isn’t “immediate tax increases now, spending cuts maybe in ten years.”

    Comment by V the K — April 4, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - April 4, 2012

  16. I’d be happy to go for this compromise: “immediate spending cuts now, tax increases in maybe ten years.”

    As V suggests: It’s the same compromise (with the elements reversed) that lefties have demanded for decades… and that Republicans have caved into, for decades. It’s the liberals turn to show some good faith for once.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 4, 2012 @ 7:19 pm - April 4, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.