All the GOP needs to do to win the 2012 election is to run an ad like this, that just asks this simple question. But they won't, of course. That would be INTELLIGENT advertising on their part, and they're not so good at that lately.
Interesting story here from TheHill com. Look at the headline: "Poll: GOP Gains Big with White Voters -- Democrats' advantage over Republicans in partisan affiliation is way down from 2008 as white voters have turned against them, according to a poll released Friday by the Pew Research Center. While minority voters continue to support Democrats in large numbers, what was just a two-point Republican edge among whites in 2008 has grown to a 13-point advantage today.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Haha! Funny enough, presidential candidates have used the same lines through the years! - Are u better off today than you were 4 years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? That was 1980 and of course America was respected. It just seems that at any given period, the feeling of not being respected flows into Americans. 20 years later, however, they look back in nostalgia at the "respect" they had. Same would happen in 20 years about today.
They say taxes are a patriotic duty. So why did Geithner and Daschle have trouble paying them? During the presidential campaign, Joe Biden insisted that paying your taxes is a patriotic duty. No, scratch that. He said that supporting a tax hike was the American thing to do. "It's time to be patriotic," he told America's putative tax slackers.
It took you minutes to respond to my post to someone else's comments. My rebuttal came just as fast. You have no idea what you are talking about. Somehow, you think that government hand outs have always been the domain of the Republicans. That is where you got it backwards. Government, with the exception of the military, has always been the tool of Democrats. DUH!!!!!
As I stated, Reagan revived the economy. You must not be old enough to remember the 70's. The inflection point in our economy relative to Europe and Japan can be seen in 1982 on interest rates, inflation and unemployment.
Our economy was heading into a sinkhole, the same as today, except we got Reagan instead of Obama. Goverment corruption (by big business and the moneyed interests) is the problem. A vote for Obama or mainstream GOP is a vote for corruption.
I am going to tell you your fundamental fallacy. There is no doubt that big business and the powerful elite will fuck you. But they will use government to do it. Government is the ultimate power, not big business. Your government leaders are wannabees. They are easy to control. Obama is in Wall Street's back pocket. Investment Bankers, like Lawyers and Unions, are Democrats. Why? They are not capitalists. Time to wake up.
Robert Rubin, Clinton's ex-Goldman Sachs Secretary of Treausury, went to work for Citi Group, which was the primary beneficiary and supporter of GLB. He made $150 million and left Citi near collapse because of their gambling. Rubin, Summers and Greenspan made sure derivatives were not regulated under Clinton. Clinton signed GLB in exchange for stronger penalties under the CRA that virtually created sub-prime.
You are an angry man armed with no facts or marketable skills.
@666sigma no shit,there are plenty of "blue dog" demorats,you haven't told me anything I don't know.It was Phil Gramm(R) who pushed for the COMMODITIES FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT and the repeal of Glass-Steagal .
The CFMA was proposed by Clinton's administration with Summers and Greenspan leading the charge. There is no doubt that Phil Gramm is as dirty and should be jailed as a traitor. In fact, Phil was negotiationing directly with Larry Summers (head of Treasury) to iron on the details on CFMA to get it passed.
GLB had nothing to do with the crisis. The CFMA is the cause of crash. Wall Street has become a bunch of Hedge Funds attached to Investment Banks.
Bill Clinton fucked this country hard and we are paying for it. Bush inherited a mess and made it worse. Obama inherited a bigger mess and has made it much worse.
You can look at historical data and see the unemployment, inflation and interest rates peaked in 1982 and went almost straight down for almost 2 decades. I guess that was just luck. Try to refute that, my friend. I will tear you a new asshole with the facts. That's a promise. Go ahead, make my day.
You are dead wrong. The vast majority of Americans would have said "yes" in 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000. In 2005, it would be "iffy" and in 2010, we would have come full circle. There is no doubt that Dubya was a horrible President. He ranks up there with Carter as the worst in my lifetime. Unfortunately, most Americans don't realize that the answer that they gave in 2000 was the wrong one. This is not solely Clinton's fault, but he sowed the seeds for 2008. That is fact!!!
You must have been born in 1974. You were 8 in 1982 so you have no clue what the economy looked like in your first 8 years. I do. It looked like the last 4. I graduated from college in 1982. My older brother graduated in 1980. Fortunately, we got real degrees and real jobs when many did not. The economy today looks like the 70's to me. America hit an inflection point in 1982-83 relative to the rest of the world economically. That changed in 1995.
Mr. Nerdywhitepeople, in case you hadn't noticed, those combinations of tax brackets were for lower income people and they all were consolidated in to lower rates. In addition, when one SMALL demographic is carrying the VAST MAJORITY of the burden, it SHOULD be fair to ask others to carry their share, but if there is a criticism of Ryan's plan it SHOULD be that he did NOT ask the poor and middle class to pay their fair share.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel set the tone in November 2008. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” he said. “And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Liberals have long dreamed of putting the government in charge of America’s health insurance industry. Each time they tried, the American people have stood up and rejected a government takeover of health care.
This is different. The stakes are higher and government-run health care advocates are more united than ever before. They believe their political future depended on this bill’s passage.
Obama Care will destroy America. Via Politico, Michele Bachmann and Steve King speaking the truth that progressives and their media helpers don't want people to fully understand. I'd spit on a Democrat before ever voting for one, again, after this. And I began as one before switching to Independent. Makes me sick to think of what that party has become.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ToddAldrich the basic ideas included in the proposal ■Maintain the Bush-era tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2012 and cut the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent
■Consolidate the current six tax brackets into some, unspecified, fewer number of brackets
■Pay for the enormous tax cut for the top by eliminating or curtailing some, unspecified, tax expenditures
by combining the brackets people of extremely different incomes would pay the same dollar amount.
But let's have the conversation. I mean, can I ask you a serious question? When did referring to someone as a socialist become akin to calling somebody a racist name? I mean, I understand the meaning of racist words and the hurt there. But socialism is not that.
That's political ideology defined by discernable characteristics and if somebody points out those characteristics, you're pointing out a political viewpoint or policy.
I want to spend the time with you answering the president's claim that no one has anything to back up calling him a socialist. Why are we in the name game? I want you to know that all of the evidence presented, I wanted to put together a one-sheet for you of everything that you need to know. I want you to pass this around. Make a commitment to pass it around to 10 friends. Let them decide for themselves.
@ToddAldrich UNTILL I REALIZED THAT THE CORE OF CONSERVATISM IS MORONIC UNTILL I REALIZED THAT UNLESS YOU CHANGE YOURSLEF NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE TO PROGRESS THE WORLD NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES,AND AS ME BEING A LIAR THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSEHOOD HOW ABOUT YOU SITE YOUR SOURCES HOW ABOUT YOU LOOK INTO WHAT THE HELL YOUR SAYING.REAGANOMICS HAS FAILED JUST LOOK AT THE SHIT WE ARE IN NOW.ANYONE WHO DOUBTS ME CONSIDER THIS IF EVERY HUMAN WAS CONSERVATIVE NO ONE WOULD STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
NOW, if you want to have a RATIONAL conversation based on ACTUAL facts instead of the literal CRAP you have posted, I am MORE than willing to engage you civily. But your baseless accusations and unfounded charges should be backed up.
@ToddAldrich liberalism asks for a bigger government so that peoples lives will be easier.conservatism asks for more of a drect democracy.conservatism also protects the super rich and makes the average american suffer.the basis of republican is republic and the denifinition is that a few people control the government.a democracy on the other hand is controled by the people for the people.oppression? really?once again demorcats can be jackasses but republicans can be aggressive and slow elephants
@TheNerdywhitepeople That bigger government that liberalism creates is like a drug. It seems harmless and even helpful - until you are hooked. It creates helpless sheep, UTTERLY dependent on government. The Liberals know this and are like drug pushers, giving out "free" samples in order to ensure that the people get hooked and become dependent on them - and to fool them into thinking they are their friends. But instead they are wolves - and the sheep are their victims.
@TheNerdywhitepeople I will admit thought that you liberals ARE VERY good at suckering in the people. Who else could convince a large % of the population that stealing their money and literally depriving them from being millionaires in their golden years, in exchange for votes and a $1,800/mo in "retirement" is a good thing. But you have gotten them hooked and dependent on that paltry sum and they live in abject terror that someone is going to take it away.You exploit that fear for votes.
@TheNerdywhitepeople Look at what your side did with the Ryan Budget plan. You accused that plan ( and Ryan personally) of throwing Grandma off a cliff. Your side LIED and used that fear to win the special election in New York and are still using it to scare the shit out of Seniors all over the nation. You have them SO addicted and dependent on government that they are easily controlled. Like slaves. You go ahead and be proud of that.
@ToddAldrich maybe if ryans plan didnt involve walking on the backs of the mid to lower class and giving the super rich a gigantic tax break(more than what they're getting now) maybe just maybe it would have been passed.
@ToddAldrich the proposed plan stated by increasing the tax on people who make 20,000-40,000 a year to allow america to gain 700 billion dollars in revenue over 10 years.which if tax increases on american based multi billion dollar companies was instatuted would raise the exact same a article by warren buffet (net worth 50 billion) investor in the stock marketamount.
at ny times .com /2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
@TheNerdywhitepeople There you go again. That is a flat out lie and it IS a lie because you tried to hide it. You made a statement, then pulled a bait-and switch with your Warren Buffet article.
The Ryan plan does NO SUCH THING.
Point out to me the tax increase in the Ryan plan you are talking about.
@ToddAldrich so you can concur with me that TheNerdywhitepeople is a liar? see that is what I am trying to help him understand that we all know it by education of the facts, that alone helps us to never be persuaded by pigheaded stubbornness to their lie
@footstomp1 Yes he absolutely IS a liar. - UNLESS he is simply a brain-dead robot who unquestioningly posts what his marxist controllers tell him to post.
@TheNerdywhitepeople Can you explain to me what will happen to medicare if we do nothing? The Ryan plan would make sure that NO ONE over 55 is even affected and the REST of us get the SAME TYPE OF COVERAGE as congress has - AND it is indexed for inflation.Also could you explain why it is wrong to let people who are carrying the VAST majority of the load to keep more of their money? ESPECIALLY when lowering the RATE actually means more money for the government - as happened in the past.
@TheNerdywhitepeople No what I am telling you is that since everyone knows that Obama is a liar and a socialist and the polls show that everyone else knows it now as well, that since you keep trying to propagate those lies we are asking you why you willing serve lies? are they your god or do you profit from the lies and how so? We know you are a liberal and thus a liar we just wonder if it is profit or a spiritual calling
Pretty much Reagan was saying (Vote for me because the other guy sucks & you will regret voting for Carter. Vote for me & I could turn tables). Of all U.S. Presidents debates. Carter was the most biggest pussy who can't defend himself & very hopeless.
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
I think to expedite the death of as many liberals in as short a period of time as is possible I suggest mass drops of them deep into the desert
"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
Truely the DNC had to have been the ones to kill JFK
@nicenonya3 not since clinton and obama and a all liberal 3 branch of government fucked everythign up. BUt thats ok because starting in nov 2012 treason trials and new laws against socialism making it a punishable by death offense, we wont have to worry about it ever happening again.
im a liberal minded person and i respect reagan but he spent WAY too much on milatary during his presidency and caused another recession and also whenever he made a speach that was as compelling as this all of the conservatives would cheer.now if someone like clinton did this the "witch" hunt would be on.
@TheNerdywhitepeople What recession did he cause? (clue there wasn't one) He got us OUT of a major downturn and prosperity lasted (with a VERY minor blip due to the first gulf war) until the recession that occurred after the Dot.COM bubble burst in 2000 .
@ToddAldrich a reffrence "Bush faced the problem of what to do with leftover deficits spawned by the Reagan years. At $220 billion in 1990, the deficit had grown to three times its size since 1980"
in 1990 America entered into a mild recession, lasting for six months As the unemployment rate edged upward.the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988. also you seem extremely upset by my comment so i ask for you not to take it in a negative way.
@TheNerdywhitepeople Not upset, but simply compelled to do a fact check. Nearly every penny of the deficit (which was FALLING in Reagan's latter years) was due to mandatory spending set in motion by liberal policies and not under his control - and the military which was so badly neglected that the US Army was SEVERELY handicapped in defending U.S. soil.
@TheNerdywhitepeople The Army rated six of its ten combat divisions in the Continental United States (CONUS) as in category C-4 (not combat ready).
Of the remaining four divisions, three were rated combat ready but with major deficiencies.
In addition, our soldiers were living in squalor and on less than subsistence wages. A HUGE portion of our equipment was not even usable due to a lack of spare parts.
In addition, the "peace dividend" that Clinton squandered was due to Reagan's changing this.
@TheNerdywhitepeople Either way, what does your post have to do with what I said? The recession you refer to occurred 2 years after Reagan left office - AND as I SAID - was due to the first Gulf War.
@TheNerdywhitepeople Reagan restoring our military had NO bearing on HW Bush's decision on whether we should expel Saddam from Kuwait. That is a non-sequitur.
Quit grasping at straws - it makes you look even dumber than you looked before..
@ToddAldrich im not talking about the decision to invade. im talking about the economic inflation that is caused by building up our military and then the inflation that is a result from war.anyway who is grasping at straws? you are the one who is constanly making excuses for militarism which caused a recession no matter how you slice it.also why do you bring up intelligence its obvious if you need to call names that your running out of ground before you fall off the cliff.
@TheNerdywhitepeople The economic inflation???? Are you SERIOUS??? Reagan inherited an inflation rate in the 12-14% range!!!! By the end of his term and in the years after, it never exceeded 6.1% and THAT was a short blip caused by worries over the oil supply - which the military action CORRECTED.
Please learn what the hell you are talking about before you waste our time again.
@ToddAldrich there you go again getting all fuckin pissed off.considering that YOU are the one who should learn your shit before you go on blabbing about something that you've been spoon fed by whoever you look to for political advice.so take this into consideration are you better off? have you considered that your opinion is inncorect are you constantly trying to improve yourself or are you living ignorence.i never once asked for YOU to respond and act like an asshole.WHO IS WATING WHOS TIME?
@ToddAldrich DESROYING OUR COUNTRY WITH LIES????????? I BEG TO DIFFER I AM EXTREMELY PATRIOTIC AND YOU THINK PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ARE DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY BY OFFERING A NEXT STEP INTO THE GREATNESS OF OUR BELELOVED COUNTRY PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME FUCKING SICK INSIDE BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO CHANGE YOURSELF!!! YOU SITTING AT HOME BITCHING ABOUT PROGRESSION AND INSTEAD OF DOING SOMETHING TO CHANGE YOURSELF YOU DO NOTHING AND WAIT IN IGNORENCE.I WOULD KNOW I USED TO BE LIKE YOU.UNTIL I WOKE UP.
@TheNerdywhitepeople That is EXACTLY what I said. Arrogant, self-righteous assholes like YOU have lied about our history and our nation and policies of conservatism and whether you are smart enough to realize the damage you have done, or whether you are purposely lying does not mitigate the damage you do.
As to my sources on inflation and ecnonomic growth and jobs -ALL can be found in Barack Obama's OWN 2010 Economic Report of the President. You can't say I used a right wing biased source.
@ToddAldrich liberals will have to be given drug and shock treatments after we take the country back to help these poor souls have a chance at life again.
or.... well at least we can put them out of their misery, becuase we know as they are now they are to dangerous to our kids futures to allow them to roam free
@TheNerdywhitepeople "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
They must have had JFK's mother held hostage in the DNC HQ to make him a dem because he does
@TheNerdywhitepeople not sound lke a dem. What iwth wanting good things for people and wanting people to have more of their own money. Thats not liberal
@ToddAldrich "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues" JFK
@ToddAldrich "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
@wutswifu Let’s begin with Iraq and the war against international terrorism, since this is the primary liberal complaint against the Bush administration and the root of all criticisms and accusations that follow. I have yet to have a single liberal democrat acknowledge the well known fact that some 300,000 Iraqi men, women and children were tortured and murdered by the Hussein Regime under the watchful eye of the Clinton “containment” policy during the 90’s.
These facts jar because they contradict the political spectrum that has shaped our worldview since the late 1930s, which places communism at the far Left, followed by socialism, liberalism in the center, conservatism, and then fascism on the far Right. But this spectrum, Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of th0e American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday
His words, indeed, fit a much larger pattern of fusing socialism with fascism: Mussolini was a leading socialist figure who, during World War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian nationalism and called the blend Fascism.
Likewise, Hitler headed the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis." Really.
@jujuman2003: Um first of all, any president can order Osama Bin Laden to be killed, hell, I'm sure Barbra Streisand would do that. The economy collapsed because Bush spent too much in Iraq and other places, it was not all his fault since most policies have to be passed by congress who at the time was mostly liberal. America was not hated because of policies, we were hated because Bush was ignorant to others beliefs. So Do us a favor and blow it out your liberal tree hugging ass.
@Jujuman2003 Let's REALLY see. America was NOT hated by our allies - just our enemies. NOW our allies don't trust us.
Our economy collapsed because of LIBERAL policies by both Republicans and Democrats.
The evidence that led to us getting Osama was being tracked down and gathered using techniques the Republicans approved of & Democrats wanted to outlaw. Of course when those methods WORKED, the Democrats want to take credit.
@Jujuman2003 Bin Laden is dead bc a Republican Pres was willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of pot shot a couple of missiles circa Bill Clinton. Bin Laden is dead because a Republican Pres was willing to build our military and specops. I was in the army under a dem pres, all but 3 guys in my platoon qual'd for foodstamps. It was a dem controlled housing commision headed by Barney Frank that collapsed our econ, so pls, go on.... or better, keep drinkin koolaid with Soros.
@SinnKanos "Bin Laden is dead bc a Republican Pres was willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of pot shot a couple of missiles circa Bill Clinton."
Yeah, I'm glad Bush killed Bin Laden in Iraq. Cuz that's what happened, right? In actuality, Bush already had shut down the CIA unit in charge of finding Bin Laden in 2005, and worse, let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora. Dumbass Republicans couldn't do anything right except wreck the economy and hate homosexuals and minorities.
@Jujuman2003 Bin Laden was caught after Bush initiated policies (i.e. enhanced interrogations) led to KSM giving up the nickname of one of Bin Laden's couriers. That relationship was confirmed and more info gathered when we captured Hasan Ghul ------ IN IRAQ. Wiretapping led us to gaining the REAL name of this courier and that is what led us to getting Bin Laden.Gitmo, Rendition, Wiretapping, AND enhanced interrogation - ALL led to us getting Bin Laden. If you lefties had your way - NOTHING.
@ToddAldrich You're living in a rightwing alternate reality. Bush's torture techniques did NOT lead to Bin Laden's assassination. KSM did not give up the name of the courier, even though he was waterboarded 183 times. Hassan Ghul gave up the name under regular interrogation. Once again, here's reality under Bush:
1. Bush already had shut down the CIA unit in charge of finding Bin Laden in 2005.
@ToddAldrich In Bruce Springsteen's tune "Glory Days," The Boss weaves the tale of a guy whom we all know. He sings of a middle-aged fellow whose life peaked as a high school sports hero. The former jock's evenings are now spent at the local bar, regaling all with stories of his brief success and synthetic heroics.
Such describes perfectly the liberal philosophy generally, and Tom Daschle particularly.
@ToddAldrich Liberals suffer from a number of maladies and delusions, but several are painfully obvious. First, not only are they incapable of taking care of themselves, they cannot comprehend why they should be FORCED to take care of themselves.
They are terrified of everything that is not pre-processed, homogenized and approved by an official governmental entity.
Republicans should ask themselves these questions pertaining to the GOP since Reagan left office in 88'. Perhaps it's time we take our party back. Ron Paul 2012
@crystal9154 Communism is a terrible system that would have nuked itself. It's government had become so unstable, that it collapsed. Sure, making up wonderful "Super Star Wars Defense Systems" to try and scare the Soviets worked out in the short term, but do you actually think pointing nukes at people makes them friendly toward you?
@zinpgh The instability of the Soviet Government led to its own collapse. So now spending billions of dollars on something "necessary" can fix a problem? Heh, pouring money into Iraq sure worked out, didn't it?
@LambdaGamma42 The instability of the Soviet Government was brought on by Reagans policies of isolating them ecnonomically and politically, devaluing their currency and driving up the cost of them keeping up the communist nations they installed all over the planet.
Reagan was the incarnation of all things evil. To paraphrase Graham Greene, "one began to believe in heaven because one knew there was a hell..." Reagan destroyed first California as governor, and then the United States as president. His legacy was not the destruction of an evil empire, but the further acceleration and growth of one, namely, the United States.
@huskerkingth O yea Reagonomics yea that went real well, first he used all your tax payer money to fund star wars and nearly a year before he left office he relized that the star wars thing was a joke come on how was reagan good Yes we are going to build a ship from a movie and im making you pay for it reagan was a joke he got elected by acting
@109jfkpt and Chairman Obama got elected by giving a speech. What's your point Copernicus? Reagan had been active in politics since the 1950s. Obama voted "present" in the Illinois state senate for a couple years and was a US senator for 150 days before he started campaigning for President.
what If W Bush would have said that in 2000? "are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" and all that crap. HAHA the answer would have been a resounding YES. The Clinton years were just outstanding.
@beradification Thats not terrorism, thats kicking ass. Terrorism is supposed to "Kill few, injure many, and scare thousands." Reagan lead an army that killed thousands, he personally did not, so he is not the terrorist. Are you sure it is 100,000? that seems a little steep for one "affair".
@beradification The Sandanistas were responsible for much of that. Reagan assisted the overthrow of a DICTATORSHIP, much like we are doing now in Libya. Except that Reagan made sure the people he helped actually held REAL elections. I doubt Obama will do the same.
But the Soviet Union defeated itself. That was because central planning and/or excessive government regulation and taxation do nothing except kill the nation that the government that does that leads.
@GuttahMastah What about the fact that he ended the Cold War, the hostages in Iran were released when he was sworn in, he brought down unemployment and inflation, he supported anti-Communist groups, he actually believed that America was built on strong principles and in the greatness of this nation, he got rid of several illegal unions, and he ended the price control on domestic oil?
It's funny that you call him a bad president considering he ranks highly in public opinion polls.
@tunapup1 You give Reagan too much credit about the whole Iranian hostage Crisis. he wasn't the one that got them released. Carter did. And Unemployment actually went way up during his first term. it was like 10.5 percent. highest since the Great depression. We went further into debt and didn't get out until the mid 90's. Reagan favored the rich. A lot of the problems that America faces today all started with Reagan. Reagan was overrated and that's the bottom line.
@jayNicks10 I'm not saying he released the hostages but they were held until Reagan finished his innagural address just to stick it to Carter. Reagan spent his first two years in office cleaning up Carter's mess. When Carter left office, inflation was approx. 12.5%. When Reagan left office it was 4.4%. During Reagan's terms, GDP grew and unemployment significantly fell after that huge, over 10%, spike. My point: YOU think Reagan is overrated, I don't, and THAT'S the bottom line.
@jayNicks10 bull reagan is a fuckin beast got them hostages realesed, if carter didnt do shit for that whole year reagan would have gotten them out in the day and he did didnt he bitch.
@tunapup1 it's actually funny you would place so much stock in public opinion polls. I hate to be cliche, but remember: what is popular is not always right; and what is right is not always popular. also, which poles are you going by?
@charliecheswick an ABC Poll, a Washington College Poll, a Sienna College Poll, a Gallup Poll, and a Quinnipiac University Poll, among a few others. I place stock in them because he ranks usually highly when it comes to public opinion polls but when it comes to polls where historians rank presidents, he is ranked around the middle (because, no offence, those historian polls are very biased towards liberals). My point was that the public seemed to think he was a good president.
4. Reagan cut school funding and tried to classify ketchup as a vegetable.
5. Reagan’s streamlining of the income tax created the largest-ever shift of tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class and working poor, resulting in expanding the income gap, which continues 30 years later.
6. Reagan showed no leadership and ignored AIDS — the biggest health crisis of the century — while tens-of-thousands of people died.
@GuttahMastah Reagan did NOT try to classify ketchup as a vegetable - a BUREAUCRAT did. Since Reagan spent his entire political career trying to lessen the bureaucracy, it is a HUGE stretch to make the claim you just made.
This bureaucratic attempt was EXACTLY what Reagan fought AGAINST.
@GuttahMastah Reagan was the FIRST president to fund aids research you dolt. To characterize him as ignoring it shows just how fucking stupid and blinded by politics you are.AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 – when the media started blaring headlines – from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988.
Reagan's economy truly was a tide that lifted all boats. The income gap is mere propaganda - not that it exists, but that it is necessarily bad. If EVERYONE benefits, what is the problem??? Jealousy?? Not only that but the tax burden shifted MORE toward the rich. You REALLY are a brainwashed moron.
@ToddAldrich tell me, how is everyone benefiting? and how is the income gap propaganda? also, have you looked at tax rates historically? they haven't been this low --for everyone -- since Eisenhower. You need to do some fact checking. Also, you need to think about others, not just the rich.
@charliecheswick Charlie, that is just it. I don't think about the rich at all. They don't NEED tax breaks, but WE need them to have those breaks.
The reason we were able to prosper during Eisenhower's time while still having high tax rates is because after WWII, every single industrialized nation - EXCEPT US - was reduced to rubble. We had no competition for our goods and services and we could charge whatever we wished and still make a profit. That is no longer the case.
@charliecheswick It is you liberals who think about the Rich all of the time - and you scheme and plot on ways to demonize them and harm them - but it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.When they keep more of their money, it gets invested in job creating activities - new factories, new businesses, new medicines, new technologies - things that produce LONG term benefits and LONG term jobs for society.THAT is why tax cuts for the rich matter. I don't care how it affects them personally.
@ToddAldrich Link me to a reputable source for your facts and figures. But, let me ask you this, if the economy is "growing" why is unemployment still the same, if not rising? If companies are making record profits and bouncing back from the economic meltdown, why hasn't job creation shot up? I take it, from your defence of the rich, that you're one of them. I'm sorry to hear that. I simply believe in humanity, not just the top one percent, which is hoarding money.
what purpose is there is "hoarding money"? Why would a rich person do such a stupid thing - UNLESS the potential gain of investing that money is not worth the risk of losing that money?
Job creation has not shot up because people who actually KNOW things, understand that this administration is making it harder to succeed in their investments into new jobs, and in addition to making it harder to succeed, it is not WORTH the effort if they DO succeed.
@charliecheswick MOST of my facts came from Barack Obama's OWN 2010 "Economic Report of the President" (wages and unemployment figures ) They do a better job of showing an easily comparable wage information in one place - even though the figures are drawn from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Inflation figures came from Bureau of Labor statistics and are easily accessible at .usinflationcalculatorDOTcom/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ (again - much easier to see side by side results)
@ToddAldrich All right, let's say those are the most accurate figures. Since this is more or less public knowledge, why hasn't anyone (Republican or Democrat) seized on the opportunity to blame this administration?
@charliecheswick Secondly, the "growth" we have experienced in the last little bit is PHONY growth. It is growth almost entirely made up of government spending. Every job "created" by direct government spending is by definition, not sustainable on it's own. What is worse, is that it comes at the EXPENSE of two or three sustainable private sector jobs. When you have GDP growth, and the only part of the equation that is really growing is the "G" then it is a BAD thing, not a good thing.
@ToddAldrich How was the growth under Reagan any more "real"? How do you explain the INCREASE in budget deficit? (which, by the way, has plagued every administration, since World War I --except for the brief retrenchment of the government after World War II). Your point makes my point clear, however, there is "growth" --albeit it is just the "g" of "GDP."
@charliecheswick The "G" part of the GDP equation is government spending. It CANNOT be self sustaining - by definition it is taken from other sectors of the economy.
Let me explain. GDP = C + I + G + net exports C being consumer spending, I - Investment, G = govt. spending and net exports equaling the total exports minus the total imports.
What happened to cause the recent growth was merely an increase in government spending. There was no private sector growth.
@charliecheswick Under Reagan, the GDP growth was diversified between all parts of the GDP equation. When govt. spending is the reason for growth - it is a DRAIN on govt. revenues and as such they are not self-sustaining. The other components ADD to govt revenues and can go on indefinitely w/o govt. help.
Reagans deficit was comprised almost entirely of entitlement spending - that he had no authority over, and military spending - which, considering the dire state Carter left us in, was needed
@ToddAldrich It has been shown for the last 30 years of the failed experiment that is trickle-down economics that giving the rich more money means the rich have even more money than they can spend. Jobs do not get created -- this has been historically proven.
@tgrigsby7 Well, it that is true (instead of being pure BULLSHIT) you should EASILY be able to find ANY 30 year period where we have created more jobs than the 30 years since Reagan.
Let me save you the effort. THERE IS NO PERIOD IN OUR HISTORY WHERE we have created as many jobs.
My GOD! You guys don't bother to check your facts and just spout the ignorant lies your liberal masters puke out.
@tgrigsby7 And let me clue you in about "trickle down" economics. The objective is NOT to have the rich spend all of their money. The goal is to keep them from hiding their money overseas. It bring capital BACK to the U.S. and we then are able to tax it. They INVEST it here and it creates jobs. Only an idiot would think the goal of lower tax rates is to have them waste it all on spending - but then, most liberals ARE idiots.
@ToddAldrich In what bizarro world do you cut the rich's taxes so you can get more money from them? These tax cuts didn't come with guarantees that the money the rich saved would be invested here, or that the jobs wouldn't be off-shored. My taxes went up in the 80s while the rich folks got taxed less, and not a single job was create as a result of the tax cuts. Since when did giving someone your money guarantee they would give even more back? Are you gullible or just *really* bad at math?
@tgrigsby7 IT is called the REAL world - at least this world at the tax rates that we are imposing on the rich today. There need not BE a guarantee, lowering taxes is what CAUSES that money to be invested AND KEEPS jobs from being off-shored.You are lying about your taxes going up. EVERYONE got a tax cut under Reagan.If you did a bit of research you would see that the tax cuts REVERSED the downward trend of the economy - and that after the tax cuts investment in new businesses increased.
@tgrigsby7 Its called the whacky world of JFK and other sane people.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
@charliecheswick I forgot to address the income gap issue. The income gap is ONLY significant if the gain of the wealthy comes at the expense of the poor. But that is not what has happened.EVERYONE has gained. REAL wages have gone up significantly since they were destroyed under Jimmy Carter. What is even more significant, is that the poor in one time period are more likely to have moved up in the next time period than they are to stay poor-UNLESS they do drugs, commit crimes or get pregnant.
1. Reagan sent the deficit skyrocketing, growing faster in real dollars than under any other president, including Obama. 2. Reagan cut social spending to the bone and created the homeless problem by turning hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people out on the streets. 3. Reagan catastrophically lowered taxes in 1981, creating debt so bad he raised taxes each of the next six years and still didn’t make up for it.
@GuttahMastah Question. If revenues increased, how did cutting taxes lead to a higher debt? You also misrepresent the later "taxes". Of course being a liberal, the truth doesn't matter to you.
@ToddAldrich what are you smoking? and what is your conception of truth? If you really want to point fingers, tell me, when has a conservative told the truth?
Revenues increased, but not because of the tax cuts. The federal reserve lowered interest rates and expanded the money supply.
There are documents by the IRS and the CBO that show that if he left the taxes for the rich at 70%, there wouldn't have been any deficit.
And get the FUCK outta here with your BS about me being a liberal and the truth not mattering. You are truly a disgrace to politics, spreading false rhetoric and propaganda to promote false stereotypes. You and I
@GuttahMastah If revenues increased because of lowered federal reserve rates, then we would have had EXCESSIVE revenues under Jimmy Carter. Funny - that was not the case!!! In FACT Reagan and Volker embarked on a TIGHT money policy to wring inflation
All the GOP needs to do to win the 2012 election is to run an ad like this, that just asks this simple question. But they won't, of course. That would be INTELLIGENT advertising on their part, and they're not so good at that lately.
Shifterwizard 2 weeks ago
Anyone but Obama 2012!
jtbpnw 2 weeks ago 2
Interesting story here from TheHill com. Look at the headline: "Poll: GOP Gains Big with White Voters -- Democrats' advantage over Republicans in partisan affiliation is way down from 2008 as white voters have turned against them, according to a poll released Friday by the Pew Research Center. While minority voters continue to support Democrats in large numbers, what was just a two-point Republican edge among whites in 2008 has grown to a 13-point advantage today.
footstomp1 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Yep, thats even more true today
consintrovy 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haha! Funny enough, presidential candidates have used the same lines through the years! - Are u better off today than you were 4 years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? That was 1980 and of course America was respected. It just seems that at any given period, the feeling of not being respected flows into Americans. 20 years later, however, they look back in nostalgia at the "respect" they had. Same would happen in 20 years about today.
meinghost 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Reagan smash!
thenesmaster 1 month ago
Conservative in 2012!
bestpowerful 2 months ago in playlist Conservative videos 2 4
Let's get another Ronald into the White House!
RON PAUL 2012
Join the R3VOlUTION!
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 months ago
They say taxes are a patriotic duty. So why did Geithner and Daschle have trouble paying them? During the presidential campaign, Joe Biden insisted that paying your taxes is a patriotic duty. No, scratch that. He said that supporting a tax hike was the American thing to do. "It's time to be patriotic," he told America's putative tax slackers.
phoenixbornagain 2 months ago
This was the knockout punch that put Carter back to the backwoods of Georgia.
bluedevil0704 2 months ago
@bluedevil0704 Well stated. 100% correct
phoenixbornagain 2 months ago
@nicenonya3
It took you minutes to respond to my post to someone else's comments. My rebuttal came just as fast. You have no idea what you are talking about. Somehow, you think that government hand outs have always been the domain of the Republicans. That is where you got it backwards. Government, with the exception of the military, has always been the tool of Democrats. DUH!!!!!
666sigma 2 months ago
@nicenonya3
As I stated, Reagan revived the economy. You must not be old enough to remember the 70's. The inflection point in our economy relative to Europe and Japan can be seen in 1982 on interest rates, inflation and unemployment.
Our economy was heading into a sinkhole, the same as today, except we got Reagan instead of Obama. Goverment corruption (by big business and the moneyed interests) is the problem. A vote for Obama or mainstream GOP is a vote for corruption.
666sigma 2 months ago
@nicenonya3
I am going to tell you your fundamental fallacy. There is no doubt that big business and the powerful elite will fuck you. But they will use government to do it. Government is the ultimate power, not big business. Your government leaders are wannabees. They are easy to control. Obama is in Wall Street's back pocket. Investment Bankers, like Lawyers and Unions, are Democrats. Why? They are not capitalists. Time to wake up.
666sigma 2 months ago
@nicenonya3
Robert Rubin, Clinton's ex-Goldman Sachs Secretary of Treausury, went to work for Citi Group, which was the primary beneficiary and supporter of GLB. He made $150 million and left Citi near collapse because of their gambling. Rubin, Summers and Greenspan made sure derivatives were not regulated under Clinton. Clinton signed GLB in exchange for stronger penalties under the CRA that virtually created sub-prime.
You are an angry man armed with no facts or marketable skills.
666sigma 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666sigma no shit,there are plenty of "blue dog" demorats,you haven't told me anything I don't know.It was Phil Gramm(R) who pushed for the COMMODITIES FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT and the repeal of Glass-Steagal .
nicenonya3 2 months ago
@nicenonya3
The CFMA was proposed by Clinton's administration with Summers and Greenspan leading the charge. There is no doubt that Phil Gramm is as dirty and should be jailed as a traitor. In fact, Phil was negotiationing directly with Larry Summers (head of Treasury) to iron on the details on CFMA to get it passed.
GLB had nothing to do with the crisis. The CFMA is the cause of crash. Wall Street has become a bunch of Hedge Funds attached to Investment Banks.
666sigma 2 months ago
@nicenonya3
Bill Clinton fucked this country hard and we are paying for it. Bush inherited a mess and made it worse. Obama inherited a bigger mess and has made it much worse.
You can look at historical data and see the unemployment, inflation and interest rates peaked in 1982 and went almost straight down for almost 2 decades. I guess that was just luck. Try to refute that, my friend. I will tear you a new asshole with the facts. That's a promise. Go ahead, make my day.
666sigma 2 months ago
We are voting for Reagan!
mrspatrickcampbell 3 months ago 19
my wealth isn't gov concern
assman255 3 months ago
are you better off after REAGANOMICS,99% will say NO!!!!
nicenonya3 4 months ago
@nicenonya3
You are dead wrong. The vast majority of Americans would have said "yes" in 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000. In 2005, it would be "iffy" and in 2010, we would have come full circle. There is no doubt that Dubya was a horrible President. He ranks up there with Carter as the worst in my lifetime. Unfortunately, most Americans don't realize that the answer that they gave in 2000 was the wrong one. This is not solely Clinton's fault, but he sowed the seeds for 2008. That is fact!!!
666sigma 2 months ago
This question should be asked again in 2012.
chippewaman1975 4 months ago 25
@chippewaman1975 You damn right and the answer will be HELL NO !!!!!!
daved1974 4 months ago
@daved1974
You must have been born in 1974. You were 8 in 1982 so you have no clue what the economy looked like in your first 8 years. I do. It looked like the last 4. I graduated from college in 1982. My older brother graduated in 1980. Fortunately, we got real degrees and real jobs when many did not. The economy today looks like the 70's to me. America hit an inflection point in 1982-83 relative to the rest of the world economically. That changed in 1995.
666sigma 2 months ago
@chippewaman1975 you don't have to wait until 2012 to know the answer to that one.
Bag0fRats 3 months ago
@chippewaman1975 I've asked and answered that question! The answer is NO! And NOBAMA HAS 373 DAYS TO GO!
vccstudents 2 weeks ago
Mr. Nerdywhitepeople, in case you hadn't noticed, those combinations of tax brackets were for lower income people and they all were consolidated in to lower rates. In addition, when one SMALL demographic is carrying the VAST MAJORITY of the burden, it SHOULD be fair to ask others to carry their share, but if there is a criticism of Ryan's plan it SHOULD be that he did NOT ask the poor and middle class to pay their fair share.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel set the tone in November 2008. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” he said. “And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
footstomp1 5 months ago
Liberals have long dreamed of putting the government in charge of America’s health insurance industry. Each time they tried, the American people have stood up and rejected a government takeover of health care.
This is different. The stakes are higher and government-run health care advocates are more united than ever before. They believe their political future depended on this bill’s passage.
footstomp1 5 months ago
Obama Care will destroy America. Via Politico, Michele Bachmann and Steve King speaking the truth that progressives and their media helpers don't want people to fully understand. I'd spit on a Democrat before ever voting for one, again, after this. And I began as one before switching to Independent. Makes me sick to think of what that party has become.
footstomp1 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ToddAldrich the basic ideas included in the proposal ■Maintain the Bush-era tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2012 and cut the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent
■Consolidate the current six tax brackets into some, unspecified, fewer number of brackets
■Pay for the enormous tax cut for the top by eliminating or curtailing some, unspecified, tax expenditures
by combining the brackets people of extremely different incomes would pay the same dollar amount.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
But let's have the conversation. I mean, can I ask you a serious question? When did referring to someone as a socialist become akin to calling somebody a racist name? I mean, I understand the meaning of racist words and the hurt there. But socialism is not that.
That's political ideology defined by discernable characteristics and if somebody points out those characteristics, you're pointing out a political viewpoint or policy.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
I want to spend the time with you answering the president's claim that no one has anything to back up calling him a socialist. Why are we in the name game? I want you to know that all of the evidence presented, I wanted to put together a one-sheet for you of everything that you need to know. I want you to pass this around. Make a commitment to pass it around to 10 friends. Let them decide for themselves.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich UNTILL I REALIZED THAT THE CORE OF CONSERVATISM IS MORONIC UNTILL I REALIZED THAT UNLESS YOU CHANGE YOURSLEF NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE TO PROGRESS THE WORLD NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES,AND AS ME BEING A LIAR THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSEHOOD HOW ABOUT YOU SITE YOUR SOURCES HOW ABOUT YOU LOOK INTO WHAT THE HELL YOUR SAYING.REAGANOMICS HAS FAILED JUST LOOK AT THE SHIT WE ARE IN NOW.ANYONE WHO DOUBTS ME CONSIDER THIS IF EVERY HUMAN WAS CONSERVATIVE NO ONE WOULD STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople
NOW, if you want to have a RATIONAL conversation based on ACTUAL facts instead of the literal CRAP you have posted, I am MORE than willing to engage you civily. But your baseless accusations and unfounded charges should be backed up.
Care to try?
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Freedom is NEVER moronic.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople The core of conservatism is simply FREEDOM. YOUR side wants oppression and control.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich liberalism asks for a bigger government so that peoples lives will be easier.conservatism asks for more of a drect democracy.conservatism also protects the super rich and makes the average american suffer.the basis of republican is republic and the denifinition is that a few people control the government.a democracy on the other hand is controled by the people for the people.oppression? really?once again demorcats can be jackasses but republicans can be aggressive and slow elephants
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople That bigger government that liberalism creates is like a drug. It seems harmless and even helpful - until you are hooked. It creates helpless sheep, UTTERLY dependent on government. The Liberals know this and are like drug pushers, giving out "free" samples in order to ensure that the people get hooked and become dependent on them - and to fool them into thinking they are their friends. But instead they are wolves - and the sheep are their victims.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople I will admit thought that you liberals ARE VERY good at suckering in the people. Who else could convince a large % of the population that stealing their money and literally depriving them from being millionaires in their golden years, in exchange for votes and a $1,800/mo in "retirement" is a good thing. But you have gotten them hooked and dependent on that paltry sum and they live in abject terror that someone is going to take it away.You exploit that fear for votes.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Look at what your side did with the Ryan Budget plan. You accused that plan ( and Ryan personally) of throwing Grandma off a cliff. Your side LIED and used that fear to win the special election in New York and are still using it to scare the shit out of Seniors all over the nation. You have them SO addicted and dependent on government that they are easily controlled. Like slaves. You go ahead and be proud of that.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich maybe if ryans plan didnt involve walking on the backs of the mid to lower class and giving the super rich a gigantic tax break(more than what they're getting now) maybe just maybe it would have been passed.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Could you explain to me just how it involves "walking on the backs" of mid to lower class people?
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich the proposed plan stated by increasing the tax on people who make 20,000-40,000 a year to allow america to gain 700 billion dollars in revenue over 10 years.which if tax increases on american based multi billion dollar companies was instatuted would raise the exact same a article by warren buffet (net worth 50 billion) investor in the stock marketamount.
at ny times .com /2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople There you go again. That is a flat out lie and it IS a lie because you tried to hide it. You made a statement, then pulled a bait-and switch with your Warren Buffet article.
The Ryan plan does NO SUCH THING.
Point out to me the tax increase in the Ryan plan you are talking about.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich so you can concur with me that TheNerdywhitepeople is a liar? see that is what I am trying to help him understand that we all know it by education of the facts, that alone helps us to never be persuaded by pigheaded stubbornness to their lie
footstomp1 5 months ago
@footstomp1 Yes he absolutely IS a liar. - UNLESS he is simply a brain-dead robot who unquestioningly posts what his marxist controllers tell him to post.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich well I would add liberal to the list you gave but I would hate to be redundant ^_^
footstomp1 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Can you explain to me what will happen to medicare if we do nothing? The Ryan plan would make sure that NO ONE over 55 is even affected and the REST of us get the SAME TYPE OF COVERAGE as congress has - AND it is indexed for inflation.Also could you explain why it is wrong to let people who are carrying the VAST majority of the load to keep more of their money? ESPECIALLY when lowering the RATE actually means more money for the government - as happened in the past.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Is it that as a liberal you do not know truth from lie or that lies are your god?
footstomp1 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@footstomp1 so naturaly what you're telling me is "believe what i believe or your stupid"
is that it? you're so immature if you believe that your opinion is 100% correct 100% of the time.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople No what I am telling you is that since everyone knows that Obama is a liar and a socialist and the polls show that everyone else knows it now as well, that since you keep trying to propagate those lies we are asking you why you willing serve lies? are they your god or do you profit from the lies and how so? We know you are a liberal and thus a liar we just wonder if it is profit or a spiritual calling
footstomp1 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich Amen friend. NEver heard it stated better and honestly then the way you did.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
Pretty much Reagan was saying (Vote for me because the other guy sucks & you will regret voting for Carter. Vote for me & I could turn tables). Of all U.S. Presidents debates. Carter was the most biggest pussy who can't defend himself & very hopeless.
royaladam 5 months ago
@royaladam AMEN!
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
I think to expedite the death of as many liberals in as short a period of time as is possible I suggest mass drops of them deep into the desert
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
"In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President"
Truely the DNC had to have been the ones to kill JFK
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
are you better off after 30 years of Ronnie Raygun trickle down voodoo economics?
nicenonya3 5 months ago
@nicenonya3 not since clinton and obama and a all liberal 3 branch of government fucked everythign up. BUt thats ok because starting in nov 2012 treason trials and new laws against socialism making it a punishable by death offense, we wont have to worry about it ever happening again.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@nicenonya3 Yes. At least until Obama messed it up.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
im a liberal minded person and i respect reagan but he spent WAY too much on milatary during his presidency and caused another recession and also whenever he made a speach that was as compelling as this all of the conservatives would cheer.now if someone like clinton did this the "witch" hunt would be on.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople What recession did he cause? (clue there wasn't one) He got us OUT of a major downturn and prosperity lasted (with a VERY minor blip due to the first gulf war) until the recession that occurred after the Dot.COM bubble burst in 2000 .
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich a reffrence "Bush faced the problem of what to do with leftover deficits spawned by the Reagan years. At $220 billion in 1990, the deficit had grown to three times its size since 1980"
in 1990 America entered into a mild recession, lasting for six months As the unemployment rate edged upward.the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988. also you seem extremely upset by my comment so i ask for you not to take it in a negative way.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Not upset, but simply compelled to do a fact check. Nearly every penny of the deficit (which was FALLING in Reagan's latter years) was due to mandatory spending set in motion by liberal policies and not under his control - and the military which was so badly neglected that the US Army was SEVERELY handicapped in defending U.S. soil.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople The Army rated six of its ten combat divisions in the Continental United States (CONUS) as in category C-4 (not combat ready).
Of the remaining four divisions, three were rated combat ready but with major deficiencies.
In addition, our soldiers were living in squalor and on less than subsistence wages. A HUGE portion of our equipment was not even usable due to a lack of spare parts.
In addition, the "peace dividend" that Clinton squandered was due to Reagan's changing this.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Either way, what does your post have to do with what I said? The recession you refer to occurred 2 years after Reagan left office - AND as I SAID - was due to the first Gulf War.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich and increasing the size of the military has nothing to do with a war that occured ONLY 2 years after reagan?
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople Reagan restoring our military had NO bearing on HW Bush's decision on whether we should expel Saddam from Kuwait. That is a non-sequitur.
Quit grasping at straws - it makes you look even dumber than you looked before..
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich im not talking about the decision to invade. im talking about the economic inflation that is caused by building up our military and then the inflation that is a result from war.anyway who is grasping at straws? you are the one who is constanly making excuses for militarism which caused a recession no matter how you slice it.also why do you bring up intelligence its obvious if you need to call names that your running out of ground before you fall off the cliff.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople The economic inflation???? Are you SERIOUS??? Reagan inherited an inflation rate in the 12-14% range!!!! By the end of his term and in the years after, it never exceeded 6.1% and THAT was a short blip caused by worries over the oil supply - which the military action CORRECTED.
Please learn what the hell you are talking about before you waste our time again.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich there you go again getting all fuckin pissed off.considering that YOU are the one who should learn your shit before you go on blabbing about something that you've been spoon fed by whoever you look to for political advice.so take this into consideration are you better off? have you considered that your opinion is inncorect are you constantly trying to improve yourself or are you living ignorence.i never once asked for YOU to respond and act like an asshole.WHO IS WATING WHOS TIME?
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople If you don't want me to respond in that way, quit posting STUPID things.
You and your ilk are DESTROYING this country with your lies. YOU need to be called on them for a change.
If you can prove your points, do so. Problem is your points have been flat out lies.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich DESROYING OUR COUNTRY WITH LIES????????? I BEG TO DIFFER I AM EXTREMELY PATRIOTIC AND YOU THINK PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ARE DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY BY OFFERING A NEXT STEP INTO THE GREATNESS OF OUR BELELOVED COUNTRY PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME FUCKING SICK INSIDE BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO CHANGE YOURSELF!!! YOU SITTING AT HOME BITCHING ABOUT PROGRESSION AND INSTEAD OF DOING SOMETHING TO CHANGE YOURSELF YOU DO NOTHING AND WAIT IN IGNORENCE.I WOULD KNOW I USED TO BE LIKE YOU.UNTIL I WOKE UP.
TheNerdywhitepeople 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople That is EXACTLY what I said. Arrogant, self-righteous assholes like YOU have lied about our history and our nation and policies of conservatism and whether you are smart enough to realize the damage you have done, or whether you are purposely lying does not mitigate the damage you do.
As to my sources on inflation and ecnonomic growth and jobs -ALL can be found in Barack Obama's OWN 2010 Economic Report of the President. You can't say I used a right wing biased source.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich liberals will have to be given drug and shock treatments after we take the country back to help these poor souls have a chance at life again.
or.... well at least we can put them out of their misery, becuase we know as they are now they are to dangerous to our kids futures to allow them to roam free
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
They must have had JFK's mother held hostage in the DNC HQ to make him a dem because he does
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@TheNerdywhitepeople not sound lke a dem. What iwth wanting good things for people and wanting people to have more of their own money. Thats not liberal
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich HE is just a liberal playing BS games. Just keep cleaning your shoes on him. Great post
ironfist2libface 5 months ago
@ironfist2libface I wouldn't mind so much, but like ALL liberals - he simply doesn't have a single fact to back his claims up.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues" JFK
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich Well he has none to offer
ironfist2libface 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
Todays liberal democrats would make JFK vomit
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
Reagan was the greatest! We need another Reagan.
wutswifu 5 months ago
@wutswifu Let’s begin with Iraq and the war against international terrorism, since this is the primary liberal complaint against the Bush administration and the root of all criticisms and accusations that follow. I have yet to have a single liberal democrat acknowledge the well known fact that some 300,000 Iraqi men, women and children were tortured and murdered by the Hussein Regime under the watchful eye of the Clinton “containment” policy during the 90’s.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
These facts jar because they contradict the political spectrum that has shaped our worldview since the late 1930s, which places communism at the far Left, followed by socialism, liberalism in the center, conservatism, and then fascism on the far Right. But this spectrum, Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of th0e American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
His words, indeed, fit a much larger pattern of fusing socialism with fascism: Mussolini was a leading socialist figure who, during World War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian nationalism and called the blend Fascism.
Likewise, Hitler headed the National Socialist German Workers Party.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis." Really.
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
6 ppl have been living in some sort of isolated tank for the past 2 1/2 years
southernboygonebad 5 months ago
Exactly what is needed in the 2012 election. I can't wait... Obama is GONE.
cdnerds 6 months ago 21
Obama's Opponet needs to ask this question next year. Bachmann, romney, Paul, Cain... I don't care who just get ride of Obama.
incrediblehulkmovies 6 months ago
The federal reserve hold much more blame for the economic collapse than wall street.
Cinnamonbuns13 7 months ago
@jujuman2003: Um first of all, any president can order Osama Bin Laden to be killed, hell, I'm sure Barbra Streisand would do that. The economy collapsed because Bush spent too much in Iraq and other places, it was not all his fault since most policies have to be passed by congress who at the time was mostly liberal. America was not hated because of policies, we were hated because Bush was ignorant to others beliefs. So Do us a favor and blow it out your liberal tree hugging ass.
Bryce1413 7 months ago 14
@Bryce1413 LOL right on great post
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
Let's see. 4 years ago (well, actually, three):
Osama Bin Laden was still alive because of Republican policies.
The economy collapsed under Republican policies.
America was hated all over the world because of Republican policies.
Shall I go on?
Jujuman2003 7 months ago
@Jujuman2003 Let's REALLY see. America was NOT hated by our allies - just our enemies. NOW our allies don't trust us.
Our economy collapsed because of LIBERAL policies by both Republicans and Democrats.
The evidence that led to us getting Osama was being tracked down and gathered using techniques the Republicans approved of & Democrats wanted to outlaw. Of course when those methods WORKED, the Democrats want to take credit.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@Jujuman2003 Bin Laden is dead bc a Republican Pres was willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of pot shot a couple of missiles circa Bill Clinton. Bin Laden is dead because a Republican Pres was willing to build our military and specops. I was in the army under a dem pres, all but 3 guys in my platoon qual'd for foodstamps. It was a dem controlled housing commision headed by Barney Frank that collapsed our econ, so pls, go on.... or better, keep drinkin koolaid with Soros.
SinnKanos 7 months ago
@SinnKanos "Bin Laden is dead bc a Republican Pres was willing to take the fight to the enemy instead of pot shot a couple of missiles circa Bill Clinton."
Yeah, I'm glad Bush killed Bin Laden in Iraq. Cuz that's what happened, right? In actuality, Bush already had shut down the CIA unit in charge of finding Bin Laden in 2005, and worse, let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora. Dumbass Republicans couldn't do anything right except wreck the economy and hate homosexuals and minorities.
Jujuman2003 7 months ago
@Jujuman2003 Bin Laden was caught after Bush initiated policies (i.e. enhanced interrogations) led to KSM giving up the nickname of one of Bin Laden's couriers. That relationship was confirmed and more info gathered when we captured Hasan Ghul ------ IN IRAQ. Wiretapping led us to gaining the REAL name of this courier and that is what led us to getting Bin Laden.Gitmo, Rendition, Wiretapping, AND enhanced interrogation - ALL led to us getting Bin Laden. If you lefties had your way - NOTHING.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich You're living in a rightwing alternate reality. Bush's torture techniques did NOT lead to Bin Laden's assassination. KSM did not give up the name of the courier, even though he was waterboarded 183 times. Hassan Ghul gave up the name under regular interrogation. Once again, here's reality under Bush:
1. Bush already had shut down the CIA unit in charge of finding Bin Laden in 2005.
2. Bush let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora.
No go vote for Michele Bachman, douche!
Jujuman2003 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich In Bruce Springsteen's tune "Glory Days," The Boss weaves the tale of a guy whom we all know. He sings of a middle-aged fellow whose life peaked as a high school sports hero. The former jock's evenings are now spent at the local bar, regaling all with stories of his brief success and synthetic heroics.
Such describes perfectly the liberal philosophy generally, and Tom Daschle particularly.
footstomp1 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich Liberals suffer from a number of maladies and delusions, but several are painfully obvious. First, not only are they incapable of taking care of themselves, they cannot comprehend why they should be FORCED to take care of themselves.
They are terrified of everything that is not pre-processed, homogenized and approved by an official governmental entity.
footstomp1 7 months ago
Republicans should ask themselves these questions pertaining to the GOP since Reagan left office in 88'. Perhaps it's time we take our party back. Ron Paul 2012
JustinFrom1776 7 months ago
I sure do miss Reagan.
wmjsarah 7 months ago
Under President Reagan, the national debt tripled. Nice job, partner.
LambdaGamma42 7 months ago
@LambdaGamma42
How do you think we defeated communism, moron?!?!?!
crystal9154 7 months ago
@crystal9154 Communism is a terrible system that would have nuked itself. It's government had become so unstable, that it collapsed. Sure, making up wonderful "Super Star Wars Defense Systems" to try and scare the Soviets worked out in the short term, but do you actually think pointing nukes at people makes them friendly toward you?
LambdaGamma42 7 months ago
@LambdaGamma42 It was necessary to defeat the Soviets. Nice job, jackass!
zinpgh 7 months ago
@zinpgh The instability of the Soviet Government led to its own collapse. So now spending billions of dollars on something "necessary" can fix a problem? Heh, pouring money into Iraq sure worked out, didn't it?
LambdaGamma42 7 months ago
@LambdaGamma42 The instability of the Soviet Government was brought on by Reagans policies of isolating them ecnonomically and politically, devaluing their currency and driving up the cost of them keeping up the communist nations they installed all over the planet.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
The "income gap" issue DOES, however make an effective political tool for the party that preaches hatred and is trying to incite a class war.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
Well .... now-a-days the answer seems obvious.
msradioman 7 months ago
Reagan was the incarnation of all things evil. To paraphrase Graham Greene, "one began to believe in heaven because one knew there was a hell..." Reagan destroyed first California as governor, and then the United States as president. His legacy was not the destruction of an evil empire, but the further acceleration and growth of one, namely, the United States.
charliecheswick 8 months ago
Reagan was good at one thing through out his entire life acting, acting as a president but not actually being one
109jfkpt 8 months ago
@109jfkpt reagan was the fuckin best u dip shit economy was fuckin awesome
huskerkingth 8 months ago
@huskerkingth O yea Reagonomics yea that went real well, first he used all your tax payer money to fund star wars and nearly a year before he left office he relized that the star wars thing was a joke come on how was reagan good Yes we are going to build a ship from a movie and im making you pay for it reagan was a joke he got elected by acting
109jfkpt 8 months ago
@109jfkpt and Chairman Obama got elected by giving a speech. What's your point Copernicus? Reagan had been active in politics since the 1950s. Obama voted "present" in the Illinois state senate for a couple years and was a US senator for 150 days before he started campaigning for President.
drumuitar 7 months ago
what If W Bush would have said that in 2000? "are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" and all that crap. HAHA the answer would have been a resounding YES. The Clinton years were just outstanding.
jayNicks10 8 months ago
Reagan was also a leading terrorist in the 1980s, assisting in the deaths of roughly 100,000 Nicarguans during the iran contra affair.
beradification 9 months ago
@beradification
Obama's economic treason (hope and change) has caused more pain and suffering than any other president. Think about it.
Orchard6773 8 months ago
@beradification Thats not terrorism, thats kicking ass. Terrorism is supposed to "Kill few, injure many, and scare thousands." Reagan lead an army that killed thousands, he personally did not, so he is not the terrorist. Are you sure it is 100,000? that seems a little steep for one "affair".
wazzuspartan 8 months ago
@beradification The Sandanistas were responsible for much of that. Reagan assisted the overthrow of a DICTATORSHIP, much like we are doing now in Libya. Except that Reagan made sure the people he helped actually held REAL elections. I doubt Obama will do the same.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
REAGAN created 21 million new jobs and defeated the liberals' beloved Soviet Union.
OBAMA has lost 5 million jobs and can't defeat a handful of illiterate Afghan shepherds.
Blago6actual 9 months ago 8
@Blago6actual
Reagan was a great president, no doubt.
But the Soviet Union defeated itself. That was because central planning and/or excessive government regulation and taxation do nothing except kill the nation that the government that does that leads.
Tezcatlepocatl 5 months ago
We need someone like former President Reagan now. Our country would most definitely not be in the mess it is currently in.
tunapup1 10 months ago 2
We all need to ask ourselves the same question Reagan did in 1980 now.
hannah894545 11 months ago 34
7. Reagan traded arms, money, drugs and hostages between Iran and the Nicaraguan rebels.
8. Reagan gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein.
9. Reagan claimed “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do”.
10. More appointed officials were indicted and convicted of crimes under Reagan than than any other president.
GuttahMastah 11 months ago
@GuttahMastah What about the fact that he ended the Cold War, the hostages in Iran were released when he was sworn in, he brought down unemployment and inflation, he supported anti-Communist groups, he actually believed that America was built on strong principles and in the greatness of this nation, he got rid of several illegal unions, and he ended the price control on domestic oil?
It's funny that you call him a bad president considering he ranks highly in public opinion polls.
tunapup1 10 months ago 2
@tunapup1 You give Reagan too much credit about the whole Iranian hostage Crisis. he wasn't the one that got them released. Carter did. And Unemployment actually went way up during his first term. it was like 10.5 percent. highest since the Great depression. We went further into debt and didn't get out until the mid 90's. Reagan favored the rich. A lot of the problems that America faces today all started with Reagan. Reagan was overrated and that's the bottom line.
jayNicks10 8 months ago
@jayNicks10 I'm not saying he released the hostages but they were held until Reagan finished his innagural address just to stick it to Carter. Reagan spent his first two years in office cleaning up Carter's mess. When Carter left office, inflation was approx. 12.5%. When Reagan left office it was 4.4%. During Reagan's terms, GDP grew and unemployment significantly fell after that huge, over 10%, spike. My point: YOU think Reagan is overrated, I don't, and THAT'S the bottom line.
tunapup1 8 months ago
@jayNicks10 bull reagan is a fuckin beast got them hostages realesed, if carter didnt do shit for that whole year reagan would have gotten them out in the day and he did didnt he bitch.
huskerkingth 8 months ago
@tunapup1 it's actually funny you would place so much stock in public opinion polls. I hate to be cliche, but remember: what is popular is not always right; and what is right is not always popular. also, which poles are you going by?
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick an ABC Poll, a Washington College Poll, a Sienna College Poll, a Gallup Poll, and a Quinnipiac University Poll, among a few others. I place stock in them because he ranks usually highly when it comes to public opinion polls but when it comes to polls where historians rank presidents, he is ranked around the middle (because, no offence, those historian polls are very biased towards liberals). My point was that the public seemed to think he was a good president.
tunapup1 7 months ago
@tunapup1 I get your point, but I still disagree. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick Works with me.
tunapup1 7 months ago
@GuttahMastah Reagan did NOT give Chemical weapons to Saddam. He gave antrax VACCINES to Saddam and NOTHING he gave them ended up in a weapon.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
4. Reagan cut school funding and tried to classify ketchup as a vegetable.
5. Reagan’s streamlining of the income tax created the largest-ever shift of tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class and working poor, resulting in expanding the income gap, which continues 30 years later.
6. Reagan showed no leadership and ignored AIDS — the biggest health crisis of the century — while tens-of-thousands of people died.
GuttahMastah 11 months ago
@GuttahMastah Reagan did NOT try to classify ketchup as a vegetable - a BUREAUCRAT did. Since Reagan spent his entire political career trying to lessen the bureaucracy, it is a HUGE stretch to make the claim you just made.
This bureaucratic attempt was EXACTLY what Reagan fought AGAINST.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@GuttahMastah Reagan was the FIRST president to fund aids research you dolt. To characterize him as ignoring it shows just how fucking stupid and blinded by politics you are.AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 – when the media started blaring headlines – from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@GuttahMastah
Reagan's economy truly was a tide that lifted all boats. The income gap is mere propaganda - not that it exists, but that it is necessarily bad. If EVERYONE benefits, what is the problem??? Jealousy?? Not only that but the tax burden shifted MORE toward the rich. You REALLY are a brainwashed moron.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@ToddAldrich tell me, how is everyone benefiting? and how is the income gap propaganda? also, have you looked at tax rates historically? they haven't been this low --for everyone -- since Eisenhower. You need to do some fact checking. Also, you need to think about others, not just the rich.
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick Charlie, that is just it. I don't think about the rich at all. They don't NEED tax breaks, but WE need them to have those breaks.
The reason we were able to prosper during Eisenhower's time while still having high tax rates is because after WWII, every single industrialized nation - EXCEPT US - was reduced to rubble. We had no competition for our goods and services and we could charge whatever we wished and still make a profit. That is no longer the case.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@charliecheswick It is you liberals who think about the Rich all of the time - and you scheme and plot on ways to demonize them and harm them - but it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.When they keep more of their money, it gets invested in job creating activities - new factories, new businesses, new medicines, new technologies - things that produce LONG term benefits and LONG term jobs for society.THAT is why tax cuts for the rich matter. I don't care how it affects them personally.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich Link me to a reputable source for your facts and figures. But, let me ask you this, if the economy is "growing" why is unemployment still the same, if not rising? If companies are making record profits and bouncing back from the economic meltdown, why hasn't job creation shot up? I take it, from your defence of the rich, that you're one of them. I'm sorry to hear that. I simply believe in humanity, not just the top one percent, which is hoarding money.
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick
what purpose is there is "hoarding money"? Why would a rich person do such a stupid thing - UNLESS the potential gain of investing that money is not worth the risk of losing that money?
Job creation has not shot up because people who actually KNOW things, understand that this administration is making it harder to succeed in their investments into new jobs, and in addition to making it harder to succeed, it is not WORTH the effort if they DO succeed.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@charliecheswick MOST of my facts came from Barack Obama's OWN 2010 "Economic Report of the President" (wages and unemployment figures ) They do a better job of showing an easily comparable wage information in one place - even though the figures are drawn from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Inflation figures came from Bureau of Labor statistics and are easily accessible at .usinflationcalculatorDOTcom/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ (again - much easier to see side by side results)
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich All right, let's say those are the most accurate figures. Since this is more or less public knowledge, why hasn't anyone (Republican or Democrat) seized on the opportunity to blame this administration?
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick We have been, but the supposedly unbiased news sources simply suppress it - like they ALWAYS do to conservatives.
And to be fair, not everything IS the fault of this administration.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@charliecheswick Secondly, the "growth" we have experienced in the last little bit is PHONY growth. It is growth almost entirely made up of government spending. Every job "created" by direct government spending is by definition, not sustainable on it's own. What is worse, is that it comes at the EXPENSE of two or three sustainable private sector jobs. When you have GDP growth, and the only part of the equation that is really growing is the "G" then it is a BAD thing, not a good thing.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich How was the growth under Reagan any more "real"? How do you explain the INCREASE in budget deficit? (which, by the way, has plagued every administration, since World War I --except for the brief retrenchment of the government after World War II). Your point makes my point clear, however, there is "growth" --albeit it is just the "g" of "GDP."
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick The "G" part of the GDP equation is government spending. It CANNOT be self sustaining - by definition it is taken from other sectors of the economy.
Let me explain. GDP = C + I + G + net exports C being consumer spending, I - Investment, G = govt. spending and net exports equaling the total exports minus the total imports.
What happened to cause the recent growth was merely an increase in government spending. There was no private sector growth.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@charliecheswick Under Reagan, the GDP growth was diversified between all parts of the GDP equation. When govt. spending is the reason for growth - it is a DRAIN on govt. revenues and as such they are not self-sustaining. The other components ADD to govt revenues and can go on indefinitely w/o govt. help.
Reagans deficit was comprised almost entirely of entitlement spending - that he had no authority over, and military spending - which, considering the dire state Carter left us in, was needed
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
Sorry, I forgot. The mortgage rates came from Fannie Mae.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich It has been shown for the last 30 years of the failed experiment that is trickle-down economics that giving the rich more money means the rich have even more money than they can spend. Jobs do not get created -- this has been historically proven.
tgrigsby7 7 months ago
@tgrigsby7 Well, it that is true (instead of being pure BULLSHIT) you should EASILY be able to find ANY 30 year period where we have created more jobs than the 30 years since Reagan.
Let me save you the effort. THERE IS NO PERIOD IN OUR HISTORY WHERE we have created as many jobs.
My GOD! You guys don't bother to check your facts and just spout the ignorant lies your liberal masters puke out.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@tgrigsby7 And let me clue you in about "trickle down" economics. The objective is NOT to have the rich spend all of their money. The goal is to keep them from hiding their money overseas. It bring capital BACK to the U.S. and we then are able to tax it. They INVEST it here and it creates jobs. Only an idiot would think the goal of lower tax rates is to have them waste it all on spending - but then, most liberals ARE idiots.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich In what bizarro world do you cut the rich's taxes so you can get more money from them? These tax cuts didn't come with guarantees that the money the rich saved would be invested here, or that the jobs wouldn't be off-shored. My taxes went up in the 80s while the rich folks got taxed less, and not a single job was create as a result of the tax cuts. Since when did giving someone your money guarantee they would give even more back? Are you gullible or just *really* bad at math?
tgrigsby7 5 months ago
@tgrigsby7 IT is called the REAL world - at least this world at the tax rates that we are imposing on the rich today. There need not BE a guarantee, lowering taxes is what CAUSES that money to be invested AND KEEPS jobs from being off-shored.You are lying about your taxes going up. EVERYONE got a tax cut under Reagan.If you did a bit of research you would see that the tax cuts REVERSED the downward trend of the economy - and that after the tax cuts investment in new businesses increased.
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@ToddAldrich LOL great post... kind of like a shotgun going off in his commie face
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@tgrigsby7 You said " Since when did giving someone your money guarantee they would give even more back?"
How about you explain when this happened?
ToddAldrich 5 months ago
@tgrigsby7 Its called the whacky world of JFK and other sane people.
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
OR MAYBE YOU CAN ADMIT JFK SUCKED?
^_^ mmm?
phoenixbornagain 5 months ago
@charliecheswick I forgot to address the income gap issue. The income gap is ONLY significant if the gain of the wealthy comes at the expense of the poor. But that is not what has happened.EVERYONE has gained. REAL wages have gone up significantly since they were destroyed under Jimmy Carter. What is even more significant, is that the poor in one time period are more likely to have moved up in the next time period than they are to stay poor-UNLESS they do drugs, commit crimes or get pregnant.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
10 reasons Reagan was a bad president
1. Reagan sent the deficit skyrocketing, growing faster in real dollars than under any other president, including Obama. 2. Reagan cut social spending to the bone and created the homeless problem by turning hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people out on the streets. 3. Reagan catastrophically lowered taxes in 1981, creating debt so bad he raised taxes each of the next six years and still didn’t make up for it.
GuttahMastah 11 months ago
@GuttahMastah Question. If revenues increased, how did cutting taxes lead to a higher debt? You also misrepresent the later "taxes". Of course being a liberal, the truth doesn't matter to you.
ToddAldrich 8 months ago
@ToddAldrich what are you smoking? and what is your conception of truth? If you really want to point fingers, tell me, when has a conservative told the truth?
charliecheswick 7 months ago
@charliecheswick Far more recently than any liberal.
ToddAldrich 7 months ago
@ToddAldrich
Revenues increased, but not because of the tax cuts. The federal reserve lowered interest rates and expanded the money supply.
There are documents by the IRS and the CBO that show that if he left the taxes for the rich at 70%, there wouldn't have been any deficit.
And get the FUCK outta here with your BS about me being a liberal and the truth not mattering. You are truly a disgrace to politics, spreading false rhetoric and propaganda to promote false stereotypes. You and I
GuttahMastah 6 months ago
@GuttahMastah If revenues increased because of lowered federal reserve rates, then we would have had EXCESSIVE revenues under Jimmy Carter. Funny - that was not the case!!! In FACT Reagan and Volker embarked on a TIGHT money policy to wring inflation