“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

Tea Party Republicans call a vote to raise the debt ceiling a threat to their very existence; Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling during his presidency.

Tea Party Republicans say they would sooner default on the national debt than raise taxes; Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.

Tea Party Republicans, in “cut, cap and balance” legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product; under Reagan, spending was as high as 23.5 percent and never below 21.3 percent of GDP.

But while Reagan nostalgia endures, a number of Republicans have begun to admit the obvious: The Gipper would no longer be welcome on the GOP team. Most recently, Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (Calif.) called Reagan a “moderate former liberal . . . who would never be elected today in my opinion.” This spring, Mike Huckabee judged that “Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.”

Young Hispanics Say Cut Spending, Liberate Business
Generation Opportunity recently commissioned a poll of young Hispanics (ages 18-29). The survey was conducted in April and has a margin of error +/- 4%. The results are striking: young Hispanics, like young Americans generally, want opportunity and understand that opportunity comes from the private sector:

* By nearly a 3:1 ratio, Hispanic young adults prefer “reducing federal spending” (69%) to “raising taxes on individuals” (27%) in order to balance the federal budget.

* 70% of Hispanic young adults would decrease federal spending if given the chance to set America’s fiscal priorities.

* A 57%-majority of Hispanics agree that “if taxes on business profits were reduced, companies would be more likely to hire.”

* In a separate question, a 56%-majority concurred “the economy grows best when individuals are allowed to create businesses without government interference.”

* 61% indicated their agreement with “American Exceptionalism” – described as an ideal of freedom and democracy exclusive and unique to the United States.

These results are heartening, but they probably shouldn’t be surprising, given how many Hispanic Americans are engaged in small business. They suggest that the GOP’s message on spending and debt will find a receptive audience among young people generally.

Sure TGT, then the xenophobes in your party get all racist and hateful and spoil it.

By nearly a 3:1 ratio, Hispanic young adults prefer “reducing federal spending” (69%) to “raising taxes on individuals” (27%) in order to balance the federal budget.

The question is meaningless. It implies that THE choice is cut spending or everyone pays more taxes.

He forgots to mention, the only reason JFK lowered taxes was because he was closing massive loopholes that the rich were using to pay a lower tax. The Rich actually paid More under JFK's plan, since they had to pay the new fixed rate. So JFK did Not lower taxes on the rich, he raised them.

It is certain that despotisim ruins individuals by preventing them from producing wealth much more than depriving them of what they have already produced; it dries up the source of riches, while it usually respects acquired property. Freedom, on the on the contrary, produces far more goods than it destroys; and the nations which are favored by free institutions invariably find that their resources increase even more rapidly than their taxes

It is certain that despotisim ruins individuals by preventing them from producing wealth much more than depriving them of what they have already produced; it dries up the source of riches, while it usually respects acquired property.