[quote]H factor wrote:
You can trap righties in terms of Obama by pointing at Reagan when he does the same thing. [/quote]
Yes, both Obama and Reagan breathed air but that is where the similarity ends. Sure Reagan pushed the debt up by a couple of billion over 8 years (he also created 20 million private sector jobs to Obama’s ZERO) as he never had both houses of congress republican. Obama on the other hand could have done anything that he wanted during his first two years as both houses of congress were democrat. What did he do? He passed the single most unpopular bill in modern times and one that will spend us into oblivion Obamacare. He also raised the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
Really, I know Reagan wasn’t perfect in this area but don’t compare him to Obama you only lose credibility.
[/quote]
Talking points, talking points, opinion on Obamacare, and more talking points. Reagan tripled the motherfucking deficit. How many times do we have to paint this for you? Obama RECEIVED a deficit much larger than Ronald Reagan. The interest is much higher on it than Reagan ever saw. He received two very costly wars in the midst of one of the worst recessions in American history coupled with a housing crisis. I’d say it’s a little early to write the book on him as you want to do. We can judge Obama when he’s finished. I don’t think it looks good for him, but unemployment was quite high at this point in Reagan’s term (where Obama is) as well. If you wrote the book on Reagan at year three of his Presidency it wouldn’t be anywhere near as good as at year 8. Now that I said I don’t expect Obama to have a solid track record in 4 years, but your comparing 8 years to 4. He’s going to get 8 years like Reagan did.
Reagan exploded the size of the federal government. So did Obama. They have much more in common than you will ever begin to admit. It was a huge deal when Obama raised the debt ceiling. Ronald Reagan did this 18 times. All I’m asking for is a little consistency. Probably asking way too much I realize. [/quote]
I like that, “we can judge Obama when he’s finished.” But we are not allowed to judge his first term? Huh? Why can’t we talk about the unmitigated disaster that is his first term. Yeah…I think I will talk about it.
Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.[/quote]
Your just Republican talking points. You don’t slow down to acknowledge the fact that the interest rate for Obama is astronomical on the debt compared to Reagan when he took office, but you WANT to talk interest rates when it makes Reagan look good. Ignore the tripled the deficit part (of course) and talk about how when you compare in just numbers which are skewed obama has raised the debt more. As if he is the sole reason we had stimulus checks, entitlements (medicare part D expansion which you support), two wars, housing crisis, etc. That’s all on him right? Anyone with half a brain realizes how true this was going to be and you’ve been outed as a national debt fraud in another thread. We DON’T need to do this again. It was bad for you once, and you haven’t gained anything new.
“the debt had increased by 34 percent, or $3.66 trillion, under Obama – well below the 86 percent increase, or a total of $4.9 trillion, under George W. Bush.)”
Ooops indeed. Can you remind me again why you have no deficit posts until Obama got into office? At exactly what point did it become an issue? The day he took office? I mean you said your third party would eliminate the debt. So clearly it matters to you. Or at least it does now. You don’t support cuts in what you’d HAVE to do to eliminate it of course (Medicare and Defense) so that idea doesn’t hold much water either. We’re used to that though. So your plan is to drastically increase taxes as that remains the only other option. Seems like you agree with Obama on more than you thought. Support his war stuff just like you did Bushes and support his tax ideas. You’re warming up to him. He’s a great big government President and all fans of Reagan, Bush or any other big government Presidents should be cheering him on. More of the same is good right?
Serious question: If the national debt is a big deal to you how can you be a fan of a guy who tripled it or a guy like Bush 2 where it also exploded? Your posts slobber all over both of these men. You claim you disagreed with Bush on some, yet have 0 posts related to the national debt during almost 7 years of you posting. At least 0 that show up in a google site search. You’ll handwave most of this post away and attack me personally, because that’s easier than addressing questions, but I honestly would like to know.
It is time for the dems and pubs to sit down and compromise and get the ship moving forward again, instead of paddling the opposite way… our immediate future demands this. We have tried ultra partisanship and it doesn’t work when the numbers are relatively 50/50.
I certainly am not against ZEB’s suggestion of a 3rd party as I personally have voted 3 presidential candidates since 1980 that were 3rd party and was registered Independent when living in Oklahoma. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time for that to come to fruition, before addressing debt, budget, taxes, et al.
[quote]treco wrote:
Actually going back to my original post
It is time for the dems and pubs to sit down and compromise and get the ship moving forward again, instead of paddling the opposite way… our immediate future demands this. We have tried ultra partisanship and it doesn’t work when the numbers are relatively 50/50.
I certainly am not against ZEB’s suggestion of a 3rd party as I personally have voted 3 presidential candidates since 1980 that were 3rd party and was registered Independent when living in Oklahoma. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time for that to come to fruition, before addressing debt, budget, taxes, et al.
The two party system is at the root of the problems though. It’s just painting the other side as evil over and over again. Z is a prime example of this. Watch him ignore facts that make Republicans look bad and go holy cow look at this when it makes Dems look poor. The Left does the exact same thing ALL the time. Both parties know this is the best way to keep power. A divided country where the pendulum swings back and forth. Republicans sucked ass in 08 so let’s put Democrats in. Shit, they suck ass too. Let’s try the Republicans again. Never ending cycle when people treat politics like football. It’s fun to be for the winning time, and people don’t vote issues, they vote down the party lines even if they have NO idea where people stand. After all the best pills for most are either all red or all blue.
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.[/quote]
Wrong. There is no hierarchy among the documents with the Constitution trumping the Dec of Ind.
Rather they are compatible documents, each serving a different purpose.[/quote]
You are seriously deluded if you do not recongize that the Constitution is without a doubt the single most profound document in the history of the United States. The Declaration, as important as it is, was a promise that the Constitution fufilled.
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.[/quote]
Wrong. There is no hierarchy among the documents with the Constitution trumping the Dec of Ind.
Rather they are compatible documents, each serving a different purpose.[/quote]
You are seriously deluded if you do not recongize that the Constitution is without a doubt the single most profound document in the history of the United States. The Declaration, as important as it is, was a promise that the Constitution fufilled.[/quote]
[quote]treco wrote:
Actually going back to my original post
It is time for the dems and pubs to sit down and compromise and get the ship moving forward again, instead of paddling the opposite way… our immediate future demands this. We have tried ultra partisanship and it doesn’t work when the numbers are relatively 50/50.
I certainly am not against ZEB’s suggestion of a 3rd party as I personally have voted 3 presidential candidates since 1980 that were 3rd party and was registered Independent when living in Oklahoma. Unfortunately, we don’t have the time for that to come to fruition, before addressing debt, budget, taxes, et al.
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.[/quote]
Wrong. There is no hierarchy among the documents with the Constitution trumping the Dec of Ind.
Rather they are compatible documents, each serving a different purpose.[/quote]
A very different purpose: one to justify separation with Great Britain, the other to create the government under which we still live today.
[/quote]
Smh, was the United State of America a nation between 1776 and 1789?[/quote]
You are making a fatuous argument based on misdirection and minutiae. The Declaration of Independence amounted to an announcement that the colonies thereafter regarded themselves as independent of Great Britain. The Articles of Confederation (which, incidentally, didn’t say a word about God and mentioned religion only to ensure that it didn’t divide the states) established a government. The Constitution established a different government. The essential machinery of that government as it has been handed down to us from history was not entirely in place until the Bill of Rights’ ratification on December 15, 1791.
But none of this is apropos of the dialogue in which we’ve been locked since yesterday. I live under the authority of a nonreligious government because that government’s Constitution–indisputably the document with the highest authority to settle questions of its nation’s essential character–is nonreligious.
I will reiterate the point that if we were to reverse roles–if the Constitution were rife with religious language and the Declaration were devoid of any mention of God–you would not under any circumstances believe the United States of America to be nonreligious “because the Declaration of Independence is Godless.” Instead, you would rightly argue that the Constitution is the prescriptive and foundational instrument of the United States government and that it establishes a system of political and legal institutions with a particular religious flavor or bent or whatever the case would be. And I would agree with you.
Yes, you like that phrase yet you have not yet proven that they are talking points. And even if they are you have not proven the points wrong. So you can continue to say they are merely talking points but all that says to me is that you have no answer for those points regardless of what they are.
He also had an off the charts thriving economy. Where is the Obama economy again? Oh yeah…in the toilet along with his other leftist ideas.
Until YOU actually understand that all debt is not bad and when the economy grows by 20 million private sector jobs while the debt increases by a couple of billion that’s not a bad thing. Now what happened with Obama? He raised the debt more than from Washington to Reagan (I know you like that one:) and what do we have for jobs? Z I P !
And raised it far higher than any President in the history of the country and did it in only four years! WOW WHAT A GREAT JOB! LOL
Another Obama apologist…now who would have figured the great libertarian would be making up excuses for the great spender? But YOU ARE!
Yeah…according to you it’s also too early to assess his first failed term. Will it be okay to talk about him in four more years or won’t you like that either?
I can sum it up in two words for you: Obama sucks.
But to be fair he did do three things right. He killed Bin Laden and he extended the Bush tax cuts once(even though he promised to end them). And he left Gitmo open even though he promised to close it.
Other than that he’s the second worst modern day President. Only LBJ surpasses him on the lousy Presidents list. And it’s not too early to say that. Sure he might have an incredibly second term and pull himself out. But so far…he sucks.
In 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% ready to crack into the 6’s. Right now we are at 7.9% once again poised to rise back up to 8%. Quite a big difference.
I am merely commenting on how bad he is. And you are simply defending him like a leftist who can’t wait for Obama to do something right. Odd for a libertarian…quite odd.
Reagan did a good job his first term. He lowered unemployment, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates. And also many foreign policy success stories. Compare that to the pile of shit that Obama has created both economically and abroad.
Now tell me again about how our Abassador and three others died because of an anti-Muslim film? Oh yeah, that didn’t happen after all it was just that Obama and ever single one of his henchman said that it happened. Oh well…it doesn’t matter does it? The press will cover for him. And “libertarians” like you will defend him.
Wanna talk about “talking points”? UH HUH.
[quote]Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.
Your just Republican talking points.[/quote]
Talking points that you cannot refute. So I can understand why you wouldn’t want to hear them. Which one again isn’t factual?
Uh huh.
I was never proven wrong by you on anything–keep dreaming. Everyone (except you apparantly) knows that debt in and of itself is not the measure of a weak or strong economy. One more time when you create 20 million private sector jobs and the debat is a couple of billion that is not big deal. But, when you don’t creat one single private sector job as your hero Obama has done…AND you raise the debt more than any other President from Washington to Reagan (that one was just for you:) you are horrible President. And don’t forget in the mean time he had both houses of congress democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. AND he passes the worst bill in the history of Washington. A take over of health care 1/6th of the economy. Now I would think that a libertarain like yourseld would be upset over that. But, for some reason that doesn’t bother you in the least. Quite odd. I guess your brand of libertarianism thinks that obamacare is a wonderful idea.
And let’s not forget all the giveaways to his pals at Solendra and other companies that went belly up and ran off with the tax payers money. Does that bother you as a “libertarian” Seems like it should.
And the bail out of GM? Did you like that move mister libertarian?
Oh my I could go on and on. Seesm you should be railing against Obama but instead you chose to pick on one of the most conservative Presidents that we’ve ever had. And one of the most successful modern day Presidents as well.
That’s an odd style of libertarianism that you espouse. Quite odd.
I explained this to you on a prior thread but sometimes I think you rant and rave yourself through a post without really reading it. If an economy is expanding as it was under Reagan (20 million new jobs) and was even under Bush II (4 million private sector jobs) The debt is not as big an issue. But, even so I did post about the debt growing when Bush was President. I guess you better go back and read more of my posts.
I wonder what compells you to make such ridiculous claims regarding my posts if you have not read them all?
And I’m used to you not understand the basic fundamentals of your own government. One does not have to cut defense, or meidicare in order to cut the size of government. You do know that right? There is a vast number of departments and gov employee’s that could be cut.
To you maybe because you are apparently clueless as to how this government works. In shape scope and size. CLUELESS.
You are the Obama fan boy on this thread. You are a libertarian who thinks it’s okay to grow the debt create zero jobs and have one of our Ambassador’s raped murdered and dragged through the streets by animals. You are a walking contradiction. What’s wrong can’t get enough of Obama? Well…you get your wish he has 4 more years to show you how great he is. We can’t judge him yet you say give him four more years then judge him. Yeah… you sound like a libertarian. Seriously I don’t know of any libertarians that think the way you do. The ones I know are furious with obama. But you…not so much. You like his wild spending and his failed foreign policy.
As for me if there is going to be higher debt there better be a thriving economy. Reagan had one and at least GW Bush created 4 million new private sector jobs while growing the debt. Did he do things wrong sure did and I noted them in my many posts (you have to read more). What do you think of Obama growing the debt 5 trillion and not one single private sector job? He took office when the unemployment rate was 7.9% and currently it is 7.9%. If you count those who left the work force and gave up looking for jobs it would be about 14%. But no problem as a libertarian I am sure you like the idea that we are paying for them with extended unemployment, welfare, food stamps and an alphabet soup full of government programs.
One has to look at the economy as a whole. As a libertarian I’m sure you realize this. The first four years of Obama has been an unmitigated disaster.
As Presidents…
GW Bush…Okay. Obama far worse…Reagan…a great President.
The two party system is at the root of the problems though…
[/quote]
Yes and no.
The root of the problem is a disengaged, disinterested, ignorant electorate.[/quote]
I would only add one thing to your very accurate assessment. They have also become very greedy. They are coming to expect something (perhaps anything) from the US government. Whereas years ago this was not the case
The reason is irrelevant: the Constitution is supreme and it endorses neither a particular sect of Christianity nor Christianity itself. It makes no mention of God or Jesus. It is not the foundation of a government with a particular religious flavor, or a religious flavor at all. That is overwhelmingly obvious.[/quote]
Wrong. There is no hierarchy among the documents with the Constitution trumping the Dec of Ind.
Rather they are compatible documents, each serving a different purpose.[/quote]
You are seriously deluded if you do not recongize that the Constitution is without a doubt the single most profound document in the history of the United States. The Declaration, as important as it is, was a promise that the Constitution fufilled.[/quote]
The Constitution is awesome. It is the most profound document in the history of the US.
It does not trump - hold authority - over the Declaration of Independence. It defines the mechanism by which the federal government can perform its duties and it reminds it readers, its “mechanics” if you will, of its limitations.
You are seriously deluded if you think, like smh, it is what founded our nation. Our nation was founded 13 years prior to its ratification. Our nation fought a war and existed under peace without the Constitution.
I really can see an ignorance of American history and civics with you and smh and I’m sure it extends to countless others as well. Our nation had fully functioning state governments built on the colonial legislatures that had been in existence for over a century and well BEFORE the Constitution was even drafted.
The case could even be made that we had a nation, just not a sovereign one, well before 1776.
We had a federal constitution called the Articles of Confederation (ever heard of it or am I schooling you?) from 1783 - 1789. It did not function as well as many in the United States of America had hoped and so a new charter was drawn up and executed.
Like you said that new charter is the most profound document in US history. However, it would behoove you to comprehend US history better than you do; if you did, when you uttered statements about profundity you would appear to have the requisite intellectual mettle to discuss foundational documents.
Let me state all this a different way: our federal government does not define us as a people, a nation, a country. We are all those things with or without an operating manual for the federal government that politically binds our political states together.[/quote]
It most certainly does and anyone with a formal education of history would tell you as much or laugh in your face. What “authority” does the Declaration hold today, or ever hold? What does it mean to your argument even if it did? The Creator referenced in it is not the God of the Bible, that much is painfully obvious to anyone not under the influence of confirmation bias. Are you seriously bringing up the Articles of Confederation? No shit, the Articles were terrible and the only thing noteworthy that came out of them was the North West Ordinance. You can drop the condescending tone,its rather childish. Apparently I keep forgetting that you are a highly lauded Professor of History whose intellect vastly surpasses everyone on this thread. Complete hubris.
Not sure which doghouse is worse? ZEB’s or pushharder’s???
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
ZEB’s is (somehow) crazier. It’s a constant struggle with those two for most insane board member. One they are both determined to fight out constantly though.
Not sure which doghouse is worse? ZEB’s or pushharder’s???
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
ZEB’s is (somehow) crazier. It’s a constant struggle with those two for most insane board member. One they are both determined to fight out constantly though. [/quote]
Says the “libertarian” who defends Obama on a daily basis. Want to talk insanity? You are the very definition!
Yes, you like that phrase yet you have not yet proven that they are talking points. And even if they are you have not proven the points wrong. So you can continue to say they are merely talking points but all that says to me is that you have no answer for those points regardless of what they are.
He also had an off the charts thriving economy. Where is the Obama economy again? Oh yeah…in the toilet along with his other leftist ideas.
Until YOU actually understand that all debt is not bad and when the economy grows by 20 million private sector jobs while the debt increases by a couple of billion that’s not a bad thing. Now what happened with Obama? He raised the debt more than from Washington to Reagan (I know you like that one:) and what do we have for jobs? Z I P !
And raised it far higher than any President in the history of the country and did it in only four years! WOW WHAT A GREAT JOB! LOL
Another Obama apologist…now who would have figured the great libertarian would be making up excuses for the great spender? But YOU ARE!
Yeah…according to you it’s also too early to assess his first failed term. Will it be okay to talk about him in four more years or won’t you like that either?
I can sum it up in two words for you: Obama sucks.
But to be fair he did do three things right. He killed Bin Laden and he extended the Bush tax cuts once(even though he promised to end them). And he left Gitmo open even though he promised to close it.
Other than that he’s the second worst modern day President. Only LBJ surpasses him on the lousy Presidents list. And it’s not too early to say that. Sure he might have an incredibly second term and pull himself out. But so far…he sucks.
In 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% ready to crack into the 6’s. Right now we are at 7.9% once again poised to rise back up to 8%. Quite a big difference.
I am merely commenting on how bad he is. And you are simply defending him like a leftist who can’t wait for Obama to do something right. Odd for a libertarian…quite odd.
Reagan did a good job his first term. He lowered unemployment, lowered inflation, lowered interest rates. And also many foreign policy success stories. Compare that to the pile of shit that Obama has created both economically and abroad.
Now tell me again about how our Abassador and three others died because of an anti-Muslim film? Oh yeah, that didn’t happen after all it was just that Obama and ever single one of his henchman said that it happened. Oh well…it doesn’t matter does it? The press will cover for him. And “libertarians” like you will defend him.
Wanna talk about “talking points”? UH HUH.
[quote]Obama grew the the debt more than from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
And since you want to make a comparison Reagan was handed a lousy economy by Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were something like 17%, unemployment 8%.
Funny thing about Reagan though he never mentioned Carter after he was elected. Never blamed him or anyone else. He just went to work for the American people and created 20 million new private sector jobs.
Obama doesn’t deserved to be mentioned in the same sentence with Ronald Reagan–Oops I just did it.
Your just Republican talking points.[/quote]
Talking points that you cannot refute. So I can understand why you wouldn’t want to hear them. Which one again isn’t factual?
Uh huh.
I was never proven wrong by you on anything–keep dreaming. Everyone (except you apparantly) knows that debt in and of itself is not the measure of a weak or strong economy. One more time when you create 20 million private sector jobs and the debat is a couple of billion that is not big deal. But, when you don’t creat one single private sector job as your hero Obama has done…AND you raise the debt more than any other President from Washington to Reagan (that one was just for you:) you are horrible President. And don’t forget in the mean time he had both houses of congress democrat and could have done anything that he wanted. AND he passes the worst bill in the history of Washington. A take over of health care 1/6th of the economy. Now I would think that a libertarain like yourseld would be upset over that. But, for some reason that doesn’t bother you in the least. Quite odd. I guess your brand of libertarianism thinks that obamacare is a wonderful idea.
And let’s not forget all the giveaways to his pals at Solendra and other companies that went belly up and ran off with the tax payers money. Does that bother you as a “libertarian” Seems like it should.
And the bail out of GM? Did you like that move mister libertarian?
Oh my I could go on and on. Seesm you should be railing against Obama but instead you chose to pick on one of the most conservative Presidents that we’ve ever had. And one of the most successful modern day Presidents as well.
That’s an odd style of libertarianism that you espouse. Quite odd.
I explained this to you on a prior thread but sometimes I think you rant and rave yourself through a post without really reading it. If an economy is expanding as it was under Reagan (20 million new jobs) and was even under Bush II (4 million private sector jobs) The debt is not as big an issue. But, even so I did post about the debt growing when Bush was President. I guess you better go back and read more of my posts.
I wonder what compells you to make such ridiculous claims regarding my posts if you have not read them all?
And I’m used to you not understand the basic fundamentals of your own government. One does not have to cut defense, or meidicare in order to cut the size of government. You do know that right? There is a vast number of departments and gov employee’s that could be cut.
To you maybe because you are apparently clueless as to how this government works. In shape scope and size. CLUELESS.
You are the Obama fan boy on this thread. You are a libertarian who thinks it’s okay to grow the debt create zero jobs and have one of our Ambassador’s raped murdered and dragged through the streets by animals. You are a walking contradiction. What’s wrong can’t get enough of Obama? Well…you get your wish he has 4 more years to show you how great he is. We can’t judge him yet you say give him four more years then judge him. Yeah… you sound like a libertarian. Seriously I don’t know of any libertarians that think the way you do. The ones I know are furious with obama. But you…not so much. You like his wild spending and his failed foreign policy.
As for me if there is going to be higher debt there better be a thriving economy. Reagan had one and at least GW Bush created 4 million new private sector jobs while growing the debt. Did he do things wrong sure did and I noted them in my many posts (you have to read more). What do you think of Obama growing the debt 5 trillion and not one single private sector job? He took office when the unemployment rate was 7.9% and currently it is 7.9%. If you count those who left the work force and gave up looking for jobs it would be about 14%. But no problem as a libertarian I am sure you like the idea that we are paying for them with extended unemployment, welfare, food stamps and an alphabet soup full of government programs.
One has to look at the economy as a whole. As a libertarian I’m sure you realize this. The first four years of Obama has been an unmitigated disaster.
As Presidents…
GW Bush…Okay. Obama far worse…Reagan…a great President.
I’m sure you agree with me right?
[/quote]
If your definition of a conservative President is cutting taxes while spending highly, then I guess Reagan is one of our most conservative Presidents. Sounds very conservative to me. All your ponies at less prices guys! Bush was the same way. More handouts at a lower cost to you. And stimulus checks in the mail. THIS SHIT FUCKING ROCKS GUYS. Lowered taxes while giving us money and expanding Medicare? Hot damn conservatives do it up right! Big government at a big discount!
I also LOVE how the deficit is no big deal when the economy is doing better…but solving it right now while the economy is crap is your BIGGEST priority? So let’s get this straight. The national debt…which is SO important to you you’d create a third party to end it was no big deal under Ronald Reagan when the economy was improving, but is the NUMBER ONE concern right now? So in good times when you could build up more steam for cutting government jobs or increasing taxes because people are actually working (you do know HOW to lower the debt right Zeb) you are AGAINST caring about the debt. But when the economy’s down and people don’t have jobs and we aren’t taking in as many revenues THAT is the time it’s the number one priority?
That right there might be the most illogical thing you’ve ever said, and that’s really saying something in your case my friend.
Staying on the debt you love so much topic (although I must point out how Reagan’s 7.2 was aiming at 6 and Obama’s is aiming at 8 (weird methods you have there). Uh Reagans 7.2 was more like a 6.3 while Obama’s is looking more like an 8.5! You really don’t need to do that with numbers Zeb. Though anything to make big government look better right.
Anyhoo. Staying on the debt: Please show me how you are going to lower the national debt by NOT TOUCHING Medicare and Defense, two of the hugest pieces of the pie. You think cutting the department of education or a few other government programs is going to do it. LMAO. Again, you better be prepared to raise some serious taxes. Go ahead and show your work though please. You say you can do it, so show me how you plan to get the national debt to 0 (which you said was worth creating a third party for except when Reagan is in office when deficits don’t matter or Bush when deficits don’t matter either.
And you keep bringing up jobs. Would you support GOVERNMENT spending if it meant more jobs? After all CONSERVATIVE hero Ronald Reagan created tons of government jobs. He also created (you say) 20 million private sector jobs. You’re going Mitt Romney here though…the government doesn’t create jobs and then…I will create 12 million jobs (though I work for the government). In fact, unemployment would be closer to 7.2 percent if Obama was creating GOVERNMENT jobs at the rate Reagan was. (Weird how this is all working out for you huh?)
Moral of the story: Deficits when Presidents not named Obama are in office- No big deal. Deficits when Obama is in office: Most pressing issue ever, more important than ANYTHING else.
Second moral of the story: I haven’t brought up the ambassadors, but keep in mind what you told people while Bush was in office. Don’t question the commander in chief. Again, maybe it’s don’t question any commander in chief except Obama.
Now get your Republican pom poms out and go to work on this Zeb. Can’t wait to see how you get the debt to 0 without touching defense, medicare, or raising taxes. Or disability. Or anything else you love from the government. I may be ready to quit my job and help you run in 2016 if you do this.
Every president before Obama didn’t need to worry about the debt whether the economy was good bad or ugly. It’s his burden now. He can’t kick the can as the others did.
If your definition of a conservative President is cutting taxes while spending highly, then I guess Reagan is one of our most conservative Presidents. [/quote]
Ah, Reagan was the only President in the last 40 years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefence outlays, which fell by 9.7% in his first term. He cut the budget of eight federal agencies in his first term and ten in his second. He cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget by more than 40% in his second term. He cut the Department of Transportation budget by 10.5% in his first term and 7.5% in his second. He cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6% in his first term and cut the Department of Commerce budget by 29% in constant dollars during his first time. And he cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24% during his second term. Gotta love these Obama revisionists though.
If your definition of a conservative President is cutting taxes while spending highly, then I guess Reagan is one of our most conservative Presidents. [/quote]
Ah, Reagan was the only President in the last 40 years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefence outlays, which fell by 9.7% in his first term. He cut the budget of eight federal agencies in his first term and ten in his second. He cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget by more than 40% in his second term. He cut the Department of Transportation budget by 10.5% in his first term and 7.5% in his second. He cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6% in his first term and cut the Department of Commerce budget by 29% in constant dollars during his first time. And he cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24% during his second term. Gotta love these Obama revisionists though.[/quote]
Lol this is like lefties pointing at the sharp drop in government spending under Obama after the stimulus. It’s true, but laughable. You know federal employment dropped under Obama as well right? I mean if you get crazy you can tout “good” stuff about Obama. None of it’s really good though, it’s just good or the same in comparison to other huge government people like Bush and Reagan.
Good job. You found some places where Ronald Reagan cut government. Our national debt though (which is what Zeb keeps touting under Obama) tripled. It’s pretty fair to say government skyrocketed under our last few “conservative” Presidents. It isn’t revisionist to say that and though you guys can be quite crafty when defending your love of big government as long as it comes in the R form, you can’t disprove that no matter how hard you try.
But yes, Reagan cut some small pieces of the federal government pie while adding many more. That’s sorta like being “up” 250 at the casino before blowing 500. Great and all, but at the end of the day you’re down big time.
