One thing about liberals; if they can't convince anyone that their version of history is correct, they'll continue saying it regardless. Sort of like the 9/11 Truthers.
Take this post which attempts to show Republican = bad, Democrat = good. More attempts to show Ronald Reagan as evil, stupid, senile, or all of the above.
Take this portion of the argument:
Economic growth during the Reagan presidency was 3.4 percent, the same as it was during the Jimmy Carter administration. Bill Clinton? Why, he raised taxes. On the rich. And the economic growth during his two terms in office was 3.6 percent. The economic growth rate now, after George W. Bush’s tax cuts and deregulation, is 2.2 percent.
This argument looks good only if you don't bother checking facts or history. For example, Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's "misery index"-ridden economy, which actually contracted in 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter's administration. The fact that Reagan inherited a terrible economy and managed to turn it into a 3.4% growth rate is phenomenal. Reagan achieved this growth by cutting income taxes for everyone and deregulating various industries.
And let's look at Bill Clinton. It's simply a lie to say Clinton raised taxes only on "the rich." Clinton raised taxes on everyone, including the poor. Clinton raised the federal gasoline tax, which disproportionately affects the less fortunate (who tend to drive less fuel efficient vehicles). Clinton activated retroactive taxes, which hit small businesses and investors among others.
And there were other, unintended consequences of Clinton's tax hikes. The tax on executive salaries over $1 million led to the practice of giving stock options as part of a compensation package. Part of the economic troubles in 2002, under President George Bush, were a result of executives dumping the options and getting their cash out.
But another inconvenient fact for the author regarding Bill Clinton's economic "success" was that his spending was largely curtailed once Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 1994. More than anything, it was the reduction in spending which caused the deficit to disappear.
And then there's economic growth under George W. Bush. Author News Writer conveniently leaves out inconvenient facts such as the attack on our country on 9/11, or economic problems caused by Democrat economic policies. It's easy to blast your political opponent when you don't tell the truth.
The rest of the post is more of the usual liberal drivel about how Ronald Reagan wasn't responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, or that, with hindsight, we can nitpick through Reagan's presidency and accuse him of not doing enough in one area or another. Funny, I never see liberals apply this hindsight to, say, Carter's appeasement of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran or Clinton's legalistic approach to terrorism. No, evidently, only Republicans in general, and Ronald Reagan in particular, are subjected to that sort of scrutiny. Which is just more proof of why liberals never learn.
|