Jimmy Carter Hands Reagan a Terrible Economy...Four Years Later, Landslide Re-Election!! (weapons, Denver)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So not wanting people to die and spending trillions is wanting Bush to fail? Right.
Liberals want the GOP to "work with" Obama but the progressives in congress just wanted Bush to fail. They were even willing to sacrifice the lives of our troops to complete their sick mission:
You're mad because you perceive RWers to be gleeful when unemployment goes up. So what? How does that matter in the scheme of things? Them being overjoyed somehow has some effect on the economy?
Get mad at congress for manipulating the free market. Get mad because Congress said it was a good idea to make mortgage loans to people with a bad credit history, a below average ability to make those payments and little to no down payment. Get mad at the people who think the very same ones who ruined the economy can somehow make it better.
Somehow it seems to be an antithesis of "compassionate conservativism" to take great joy in other's misfortunes.
"Good economic policies"? Don't make me laugh, Reagan is the guy who started the government running on debt. Carter, the guy you republipunks hate so much? He was more conservative than any president you have ever seen fiscally. This would be a much better country today if Carter would have been re-elected.
EVERYBODY reaped the rewards of airline deregulation; that was one of the very few intelligent bills which Carter signed.
It made zero sense for all of the airlines to have their schedules, routes and prices set in stone by either the feds or the states in which they operated; Carter's signing of that bill in 1978 unleashed regulation, airfares plunged (see what happens when the marketplace determines the price of a product or service?), and the availability of flight choices, classes of service and routes EXPLODED.
Private businesses are constantly spending fortunes to make life better for us, only for the morons in Congress to screw it up.
Somehow it seems to be an antithesis of "compassionate conservativism" to take great joy in other's misfortunes.
Have you forgotten that Republicans, even though on average they earn less than democrats they donate more? Even though an overwhelming majority of blacks, who get paid less than whites, are democrats, the dems still earn more. Where's the compassion coming from the left? Oh I see they have compassion but they have to use others money.
Why walk the walk when talking the talk is much cheaper?
"Good economic policies"? Don't make me laugh, Reagan is the guy who started the government running on debt. Carter, the guy you republipunks hate so much? He was more conservative than any president you have ever seen fiscally. This would be a much better country today if Carter would have been re-elected.
Agreed. Carter was the small business mans friend more so than any president in the last 50 years.
EVERYBODY reaped the rewards of airline deregulation; that was one of the very few intelligent bills which Carter signed.
It made zero sense for all of the airlines to have their schedules, routes and prices set in stone by either the feds or the states in which they operated; Carter's signing of that bill in 1978 unleashed regulation, airfares plunged (see what happens when the marketplace determines the price of a product or service?), and the availability of flight choices, classes of service and routes EXPLODED.
Private businesses are constantly spending fortunes to make life better for us, only for the morons in Congress to screw it up.
Right... and now if you live in Portland, OR you likely can't get a flight out to anywhere without first going to Phoenix. In fact whole cities have simply been abandoned wholesale by airlines. $50 charges for luggage... any luggage... no food even on transcontinental flights... ah yes.. this is progress... the only thing that EXPLODED here is [TOS violation].
And make no mistake. Whenever a Democrat has done crap like deregulate industries or endorse legislation like NAFTA they were arm-twisted into it by the Republican architects of the policies.
Have you forgotten that Republicans, even though on average they earn less than democrats they donate more? Even though an overwhelming majority of blacks, who get paid less than whites, are democrats, the dems still earn more. Where's the compassion coming from the left? Oh I see they have compassion but they have to use others money.
Why walk the walk when talking the talk is much cheaper?
See... we cannot have honest debate if people use crap arguments like this... Mitt Romney earns less than Barack Obama... ... yes... and no. Mitts income is orders of magnitude higher than Obama's but it is semantics as to whether income from investments are earnings or not. Democrats do not earn more than Republicans if you define earnings simply as income! So, let's get a grip and get real at the same time and what's your point anyway?
He does? Like what exactly? Most of what he truly wants involves spending, raising debt limit, higher taxes. How exactly are those good policies?
And why do you conveniently forget that the Democrats had the House and Senate for two years? What did they do with those two years? Stimulus that was nothing more than added debt and temporary jobs. And a health care bill most of us were against.
This was a funny quote, especially the part I bolded where you are speaking of Obama, it is funny because it is EXACTLY what Reagan did during the 80s - spending, raising debt limit, high taxes. I would think you would support Obama since he actually is and does do a lot of things similar to Reagan. Expanding healthcare, giving more rights to illegal immigrants are even things that Reagan did. The only thing that made the Reagan years more bearable than today is that Reagan had a congress that worked with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhenomenalAJ
Reagan had a Democratic congress who actually worked cooperatively with him. Obama has a Republican congress who constantly obstruct and taxes are far lower now than the Reagan era.
This is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallahasseehero1
Unfortunately a lot of the problems were are in today is because of Reagan, he had a terrible foreign policy (and I believe an immoral one). From the Iran Contra affair, to funding death squads in El Salvador, to the totally unnecessary invasion of Grenada. Then you also had his ridiculous rhetoric of securing the Panama Canal.
As for the economy, Reagan tripled the deficit. He cut back many programs that brought people out of poverty and into the Middle Class. Reaganomics is "trickledown" economics. Wealth created at the top is supposed to flow down into the middle class. Unfortunately, I think the results are in and show this to be untrue, or at the very least has not been sufficiently effective.
Obama has had to deal with more structural problems that Reagan has. The financial system was not on the verge of collapse when Reagan took office, and the economy was not nearly as much as a precarious state. It is also important to remember that there was not as much growth in the Reagan era, as there was in the FDR or Johnson/LBJ era.
Clinton (who was no saint and certainly has his role as well in some issues that plague us) was probably a more effective president than Reagan, especially in handling the deficit.
I also agree with the above, especially the bolded area. I honestly think Reagan was an okay president but that Clinton was better than in him more ways than one. I feel that NAFTA was the worse thing that happened during his term though and that it should not have been passed. If it had been in effect during the Reagan years, many of you who idolize Reagan wouldn't do so as he would not have had the growth or UE rates that fell during that era. It would be more like today where we don't have many run of the mill manufacturing jobs anymore that don't require a high school diploma or less and can employ large swaths of young men to keep the economy going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkm370
My problem with Reagan is that he solved problems short term. He really didn't care about the long term future of the country as long as things were good and rosy looking now. Alot of his decision are to this day still affecting us for the worst. This is why, in my opinion, Clinton was a FAR better president because he left Bush with a plan to eliminate the deficit in a decade among other things. He planned for the future and was constantly creating policies to benefit us long term, where as Republicans seem only interested in short term gratification.
I also agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10
Liberals want the GOP to "work with" Obama but the progressives in congress just wanted Bush to fail. They were even willing to sacrifice the lives of our troops to complete their sick mission:
What issues did the progressives in Congress ever agree with Bush on?
They voted to send our troops to war overwhelming with the GOP. They voted to create the department of homeland security. They voted to pass Mediare Part D for seniors. I could go on and on. I never saw a progressive or heard a progressive say that they their only goal was for Bush to be a "one term president." I think that since so many of the GOP have said this, it speaks volumes to what they really want - power and unlimited control IMO. This is coming from someone who doesn't have a completely negative view of republicans either but their pacts to not raise taxes and some members of their ranks comments, immediately following the 2008 election, stating they wanted Obama to be a one term president showed me that many of them in office right now aren't about anything but their own egos and powertrips (the same can be said about dems as well but they are smart enough not to vocalize it on tv or radio or in print).
Who ran out crying in the middle of talks and when the other side had already conceded most of what they wanted? This happens over and over again.
"Who ran out crying in the middle of talks?"
Another with a lack of facts.
A deal was struck. Everyone agreed. Then Obama came back after some of his "people" didn't like the deal.
Some people you just can't trust.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
