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.
Not very difficult to do. With the world at your fingertips via the internet, you too can do some research and reading instead of depending on the archaic Republican re-writings of history on cave walls.
The Real Reagan Legacy Debunking Myths About Reagan
Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats retook the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
Sensing their own smallness, contemporary politicians often seek to puff themselves up by appealing to myth and legend. For Republicans, there is no mythology more appealing than that of Ronald Wilson Reagan, as the party’s presidential candidates eagerly demonstrated during their May 3 debate in the library that bears his name.
So when the Republicans took congress in 1994 they helped to propel America in to a decade of prosperity..right?
Then came Clinton. And the one thing he did that most offended the Republicans was pass what Bob Dole liked to call "the largest tax increase in our nation's history", pushing upper bracket rates part of the way back to pre-Reagan levels. Compromising with Republicans in congress, he worked out budget cuts that were broad and balanced, instead of trying to gut particular sectors that he was ideologically opposed to. The result was a more successful effort to cut spending than Reagan's was, even though its goals were more modest. So the federal deficit shrank, and eventually reversed. He restored some of the governmental functions that Reagan had decimated on ideological grounds. This helped with some small relief to the unfortunate. The higher taxes on the top brackets restored some of the capital that was concentrated in big piles to general circulation, where it could do more good. (Even conservative economists don't argue that concentration of wealth, as such, is beneficial. Everyone recognizes that circulation through earning and spending does the most to generate prosperity and more wealth.) Employment rose, standards of living inched upward (though still to lower levels than we once enjoyed), and companies producing real goods became more profitable. This attracted more capital to where it could be used as wages instead of just used to buy assets from another investor. Gradually, more of the overall wealth found its way into broad circulation.
That was the exact phrase that went through my mind as I read that post!
I also love how the right-wingers consistently overlook the budget SURPLUS left by President Clinton in the middle of all those supposedly grandiose years of Republican rule. He reformed the Welfare system, introduced PAYGO and handed Bush II billions of dollars in his coffer to start off with.
Not only did he squander every penny of it, but he put us on a trajectory to disaster and left us with a gargantuan mess to try to clean up. If 3rd terms were allowed for presidents, and Bush had continued to be in power over the past 6 months, it's utterly laughable to think he'd have us anywhere near recovery. Laughable. We wouldn't be on the brink of a breakthrough, we'd be on the brink of a severe depression.
I understand that "reasonable people" can disagree as to the right course of action to get us out of this nightmare. I understand that some people don't have the depth of knowledge of economics to grasp the concept that President Obama is attempting in his effort to fix things, and therefore react from the gut (or are guided there by their favorite pundits).
What I simply cannot fathom is that not a single one of them will step up and admit that Bush made the mess, and no one - NO ONE - would be able to turn this crap around over the past 6 months alone.
It's one thing to hold differing opinions on the right course of action to correct economic problems. It's another thing entirely to deny absolute facts.
That was the exact phrase that went through my mind as I read that post!
I also love how the right-wingers consistently overlook the budget SURPLUS left by President Clinton in the middle of all those supposedly grandiose years of Republican rule. He reformed the Welfare system, introduced PAYGO and handed Bush II billions of dollars in his coffer to start off with.
Not only did he squander every penny of it, but he put us on a trajectory to disaster and left us with a gargantuan mess to try to clean up. If 3rd terms were allowed for presidents, and Bush had continued to be in power over the past 6 months, it's utterly laughable to think he'd have us anywhere near recovery. Laughable. We wouldn't be on the brink of a breakthrough, we'd be on the brink of a severe depression.
I understand that "reasonable people" can disagree as to the right course of action to get us out of this nightmare. I understand that some people don't have the depth of knowledge of economics to grasp the concept that President Obama is attempting in his effort to fix things, and therefore react from the gut (or are guided there by their favorite pundits).
What I simply cannot fathom is that not a single one of them will step up and admit that Bush made the mess, and no one - NO ONE - would be able to turn this crap around over the past 6 months alone.
It's one thing to hold differing opinions on the right course of action to correct economic problems. It's another thing entirely to deny absolute facts.
One item of trivia, for those of us old enough to remember. Back in those days the Republican Party was traditionally representended by BLUE while the Democrats were RED. I clearly remember the Reagan landslide of '84 with the entire map save one state BLUE. The symbolism back then was quite clear RED=Soviet Union=Communism=Big Government, socialism, etc. At some point recently there was a COORDINATED effort by the media to make the switch to what we see today.
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure if it is true that BLUE is historically Republican. I thought that BLUE represented the incumbent party and RED represented the opposition party. The media adopted the current system in the 2001 election and it has stuck since then. I have a feeling that at some point the Republicans are going to try to take back the BLUE color.
1976, people thought the GOP was heading for the grave...
Then people realized that a socialist president was even worse in 1980...
Now if the GOP will just get rid of the RINO's and put real conservatives in the next primary, they stand a good chance of turning the tide. If they stick another RINO in though, it will be another defeat...
Not very difficult to do. With the world at your fingertips via the internet, you too can do some research and reading instead of depending on the archaic Republican re-writings of history on cave walls.
The Real Reagan Legacy
Debunking Myths About Reagan
Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats retook the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
Sensing their own smallness, contemporary politicians often seek to puff themselves up by appealing to myth and legend. For Republicans, there is no mythology more appealing than that of Ronald Wilson Reagan, as the party’s presidential candidates eagerly demonstrated during their May 3 debate in the library that bears his name.
I also love how the right-wingers consistently overlook the budget SURPLUS left by President Clinton in the middle of all those supposedly grandiose years of Republican rule. He reformed the Welfare system, introduced PAYGO and handed Bush II billions of dollars in his coffer to start off with. .
There never was a surplus under Clinton, no matter how many times the lie is repeated it won't make it true. He also left a $130billion budget deficit his departing year for Bush, along with a dotcom bubble about to explode.
Why is it that the left tries to pretend that Bush had a surplus budget to work with when the fact is he started with a $130billion deficit inherited from Clinton with a bursting dotcom bubble that had been the primary driver of the economy in the later Clinton years?
I am not defending Bush's spending as he spent ridiculous amounts of money and drove up the national debt at an astounding rate. But lets at least be honest about where he started from, and it was NOT a surplus.
A person who would thinks that any election can easily be predicted by some events that happened in any previous election is fooling themselves. May as well base it on the zodiac.
Will Obama lose in 2012? Its possible, but highly unlikely. The Gas shortage and growing overseas hostilities caused Carter to lose in 80, but he was never that popular. Obama 6 months in is as popular as ever. Thats not even mentioning that his opposition is falling apart at the scene.
The republicans could retake the white house in '12 but the odds are far against them.
Popular president against a Party in good shape and doing well with the public = potential (still underdog) chance at beating an incumbent.
Popular president against an Opposition falling into scandal after scandal, leaderless, and scaring off moderates/insulting and alienating potential fence sitter votes = Betting Green double Zero's in Roulette. Practically a suckers bet.
Were I leading the republicans, I would suit up for 2016 and not worry about the sacrificial lambs that are going to the alter in 2012. The decision must be made, keep the base and lose the moderates, or re-establish your base as something other than the questionably intolerant old white guys and their gals club and look to the future.
The republicans are in serious danger of becoming a post civil war version of the democrats.
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.
I wouldnt look at 2012.
