The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just to be clear…

DEMS/Liberals do the exact some thing.

Mufasa[/quote]

But history tells us that even without the benefit of Congress being republican Ronald Reagan rolled back the rate of government spending. What if he had both houses of congress republican? [/quote]

Reagan was a great communicator and had the ability to negotiate. A Bachmann-esque POTUS, or for that matter Cruz, does not. Neither did Obama and we know how that worked out. Reagan having both houses of Congress is worlds different than Cruz or Bachmann or anybody like that having both houses. Again, we saw it with Obama. He had all the political capital in the world when he was elected.

That’s kind of Mufasa’s point…

242

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just to be clear…

DEMS/Liberals do the exact some thing.

Mufasa[/quote]

But history tells us that even without the benefit of Congress being republican Ronald Reagan rolled back the rate of government spending. What if he had both houses of congress republican? [/quote]

I am a fan of Reagan, worked on his behalf and served proudly in the military during his terms; however…

In 1980, Jimmy Carter’s last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of “national income” (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of “national income.”

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%â??compared with Reagan’s 3%â??in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
[/quote]

Republicans hand wave all this away as the Democrats fault, but I don’t buy it. The net effect of Reagan’s time was an incredible increase in the size of the government. I don’t buy into the political cheerleading attempts of both sides. Republicans also will take all the credit for anything Clinton did by pointing to them controlling Congress. The fact is both sides are responsible for the increase in government and one needs only look at the Presidency of George W Bush to see the most recent effects of the elephants in charge.

If one party is for small government and the other one is not then they haven’t showed it whether they control the White House or Congress in my lifetime.

That said I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is.

243

H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa

244

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.

245

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa

246

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?

247

Suspicious because I doubt that this was all so clear-cut and simple.

No big deal.

GOP all the way in 2016 for me!

Mufasa

248

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Suspicious because I doubt that this was all so clear-cut and simple.

No big deal.

GOP all the way in 2016 for me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Curious what changed your tune Muf? I know you were not a Dem cheerleader, but I always thought you leaned left?

249

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation).

250

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Suspicious because I doubt that this was all so clear-cut and simple.

No big deal.

GOP all the way in 2016 for me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Curious what changed your tune Muf? I know you were not a Dem cheerleader, but I always thought you leaned left?[/quote]

It’s time, UL.

It’s time for the GOP and Conservatives to “step up to the plate” and govern.

I’m not only pulling for the GOP in 2016; I want them to have the most Conservative candidates that can be elected, and a Veto-proof majority in both Houses, while also occupying the White House.

The time for talk, obstruction and rhetoric is over.

Mufasa

251

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?

252

Ad we speak Obamar is changing the constitution so he can have a third term:)

254

255

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.

256

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.[/quote]

Quite true. But the question then is, do you like her track record on the matters she attended to while Secretary? Experience is invaluable, but people also have to like what she did while she was in place.

257

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
H-Factor wrote:

“…I would probably rather the Republicans win in 2016 because maybe eventually people will realize they are both agents of intrusion instead of pretending only the other side is…”

That’s essentially where I stand.

Mufasa [/quote]

Yeah, yeah that’s all well and good: “agents of intrusion bla bla bla” I do not disagree with it. But you see the problem is that every time a democrat is elected my taxes go up. And every time a republican is elected my taxes go down. This happens on a local, state and national level…every freakin time! Why anyone who is hard working and makes a reasonable dollar would vote for a democrat is beyond my comprehension.

I like keeping the money that I’ve made as opposed to handing it over to an inefficient machine that has no regard or value for a buck— I’m funny that way.

Of course that’s not the only reason I support the republican party there are many other issues. But that is the main reason.
[/quote]

Sounds a little suspicious to me, Zeb…but hey…you know your finances better than me!

Mufasa[/quote]

Suspicious? How so?

When Reagan took office I received a massive tax cut. When Clinton took office a tax hike. When GW Bush took office another tax cut. And of course the hater of all who succeed Barackatack Obama raised my taxes higher yet!

What is suspicious?[/quote]

This is almost undoubtedly false though Zeb. Unless you happened to jump tax brackets under President Obama you should not have paid more under him while the stimulus tax cuts were in effect.

You may have paid more later, but unless you jumped tax brackets your taxes probably didn’t increase once Obama took office (though they may have later depending on your personal situation). [/quote]

Obama raised the top tax bracket from an already too high 35% to 39.6%. He also raised the capital gains tax for those in the upper bracket to 28%. He has also passed countless smaller tax hikes on things that people usually don’t pay much attention to (like you apparently).

And…if you do a history check you’ll find that Bill Clinton raised taxes as well. Not to the tune of what Obama did. And Jimmy Carter also raised taxes.

As I said I work hard and like to keep as much of my money as possible.

Democrats think that they can help the poor by punishing those who have succeeded. This does not work and it never will.

258

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Suspicious because I doubt that this was all so clear-cut and simple.

Mufasa[/quote]

But, it is clear cut and simple. Democrats as a rule try to punish those who have succeeded in the name of helping those who have failed.

Simple and clear cut and I hate it!

259

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.[/quote]

I have never faulted Hillary for her lack of experience. I fault her because she failed while gaining that experience. While also skirting the law numerous times and lying about it.

260

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Quite true. But the question then is, do you like her track record on the matters she attended to while Secretary? Experience is invaluable, but people also have to like what she did while she was in place.[/quote]

I often wondered if the animosity between her and Obama was why he appointed her to a position that she would fail spectacularly at, thus preventing her from becoming a POTUS as he saw her as the next D-candidate.