More Hope and Change

[Midnight Marauder]

You'll learn those people simply don't exist in the real world, only in the minds of far-left pundits and talking heads. It's just a strawman deflection tactic, because they cannot defend what's going on right now. In their heart of hearts, they knew Obama was going to be a fuck-up. Now they're doing everything they can -- including falling on their rhetorical sword -- to make sure others don't start seeing it.

I would love to think that they don't exist in the real world but I've seen them at my school.

So far though, Obama seems to be bringing up a certain lyric in my head:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

In 1979 when I was close to your age, getting ready to vote for the first time, Ronald Reagan said something that resonates still, for me today and is just as relevant:

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

Today, I replace Carter with Obama in that quote.

Reagan is the ONLY Republican I ever voted for. And I lived through the Carter years, we still have not really approached that level of dismal economic failure since. I am talking double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation. Horrendous economic times. That and just the overall bad feeling, the bad feeling we all had as Americans, to be Americans. Because Carter actually RAN on that negativity. Promoted it. Went around the world apologizing for how bad we are. Running down his country and the previous administrations. Just like what you're seeing now.

So it's "meet the new boss, same policies as the last boss but with the negativity of an older boss."

 

[Modbert]

In 1979 when I was close to your age, getting ready to vote for the first time, Ronald Reagan said something that resonates still, for me today and is just as relevant:

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

Today, I replace Carter with Obama in that quote.

Reagan is the ONLY Republican I ever voted for. And I lived through the Carter years, we still have not really approached that level of dismal economic failure since. I am talking double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation. Horrendous economic times. That and just the overall bad feeling, the bad feeling we all had as Americans, to be Americans. Because Carter actually RAN on that negativity. Promoted it. Went around the world apologizing for how bad we are. Running down his country and the previous administrations. Just like what you're seeing now.

So it's "meet the new boss, same policies as the last boss but with the negativity of an older boss."

Reagan reminds me so much of Obama thus far, great at making speeches that resonate with millions of Americans but don't really follow what they said in certain areas.

If you recall (not to change the thread) Reagan's solution beyond 1981 to the fiscal area was raising taxes, and taxes he certainly did raise.

Also, the unofficial unemployment rate at the moment is well into double digits but I get what you're saying.

 

[Oddball]

Both actually. However, the Republican Party haven't had a true Conservative (fiscally anyway) President or perhaps even Nominee since Nixon if not before that.

They haven't had one since Coolidge....Eisenhower was a distant second.

Nixioid was a joke.

 

[DamnYankee]

Oh, I get it.... You're one of those "lesser of two evils" folks.... Nice to make you're acquaintance. So if you're just now eligible (?), how is it you think you know what the Conservatives were saying about Bush for the last 8 years? You been reading, taking note of what they've been saying, when you should have been doing your homework?

Both actually. However, the Republican Party haven't had a true Conservative (fiscally anyway) President or perhaps even Nominee since Nixon if not before that.

Yet you seem to think that the majority of us are not aware that Bush was not fiscally conservative? How condescending, not to mention immature.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Oh, I get it.... You're one of those "lesser of two evils" folks.... Nice to make you're acquaintance. So if you're just now eligible (?), how is it you think you know what the Conservatives were saying about Bush for the last 8 years? You been reading, taking note of what they've been saying, when you should have been doing your homework?

Both actually. However, the Republican Party haven't had a true Conservative (fiscally anyway) President or perhaps even Nominee since Nixon if not before that.

The Democrat Party hasn't had one of those since JFK.

And don't bring up Clinton for fiscal responsibility, he had the happy luck of having a GOP Congress who gave him power no other President has ever had -- a strong Paygo law, Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto. And we all saw the result, no matter who the POTUS was. Fiscal responsibility was the law of the land, for Clinton's time.

 

[Oddball]

And don't bring up Clinton for fiscal responsibility, he had the happy luck of having a GOP Congress who gave him power no other President has ever had -- a strong Paygo law, Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto. And we all saw the result, no matter who the POTUS was. Fiscal responsibility was the law of the land, for Clinton's time.

He also had the numbers on his side.

Perot pointed out numerous times during the '92 campaign that the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002, then go back into big deficits again.

 

[Modbert]

They haven't had one since Coolidge....Eisenhower was a distant second.

Nixioid was a joke.

I was going to say Eisenhower but I'd figure I'd throw the Republican party a bone with Nixon. Everything that happened in Nixon's Presidency is overshadowed with Watergate and his impact upon US relations with China. So it's tough for me to judge whether he was fiscally Conservative as I haven't had a chance to read too much about him otherwise.

Coolidge though, that is certainly going back a long way.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If you recall (not to change the thread) Reagan's solution beyond 1981 to the fiscal area was raising taxes, and taxes he certainly did raise.

That's what is called a GFE, General Factual Error. Because Reagan didn't have much choice on raising taxes, he was saddled with a veto-proof Dem Congress who raised the taxes.

Remember, when talking about Presidents, it's actually the Congress with all the power when it comes to fiscal matters, not the POTUS

 

[Modbert]

The Democrat Party hasn't had one of those since JFK.

And don't bring up Clinton for fiscal responsibility, he had the happy luck of having a GOP Congress who gave him power no other President has ever had -- a strong Paygo law, Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto. And we all saw the result, no matter who the POTUS was. Fiscal responsibility was the law of the land, for Clinton's time.

I miss Presidents or even Candidates like JFK. Probably the last person I'd enjoy voting for as President. I would include his brother Bobby but he never got a shot at the Presidency after being shot and killed in California.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And don't bring up Clinton for fiscal responsibility, he had the happy luck of having a GOP Congress who gave him power no other President has ever had -- a strong Paygo law, Gramm-Rudman and line-item veto. And we all saw the result, no matter who the POTUS was. Fiscal responsibility was the law of the land, for Clinton's time.

He also had the numbers on his side.

Perot pointed out numerous times during the '92 campaign that the budget was going to balance all by itself by 2002, then go back into big deficits again.

Yup and he wasn't the only one. As soon as G-R and line-item veto were thrown out by the Dem SCOTUS, the congressional piglets got back on the tit ten times harder than they were ever before.

 

[Soaring]

More regurgitated, parroted blather. You really should get some new material. Preferably something original. And you might check your facts as well, Bush's approval rating was low from 2005 on. "The right" didn't turn on him, it took them quite some time to finally believe that he "turned" on them.

You continue to deflect and dissemble, trying to turn any Obama thread into a Bush thread. This is because you cannot defend the policies of this menstruation. Try to stick to the topic, which is what THIS current government is doing.

I'm not trying to turn any Obama thread into a Bush thread. Of course, you don't read my other posts in this thread which shows my obvious dislike for some of the things the Obama Administration is currently doing.

In May 2004, Gallup reported that 89% of the Republican electorate approved of Bush

Even towards the end, Republicans were the majority of his support and the only reason why his approval rating was that high. I love how you try and say that he "turned" against the right when they were hand in hand until many of Bush's actions like the War in Iraq turned out not to be going so well.

Robert you state you aren't tying to turn this into a Bush discussion, but you just did it again with this post. Quit talking about Bush. He is not a part of this discussion. Obama is the main topic. Say what you want to say about the subject of this thread, and quit turning Obama discussions into Bush discussions.

 

[Modbert]

That's what is called a GFE, General Factual Error. Because Reagan didn't have much choice on raising taxes, he was saddled with a veto-proof Dem Congress who raised the taxes.

Remember, when talking about Presidents, it's actually the Congress with all the power when it comes to fiscal matters, not the POTUS

Somewhat true. The President could always veto it if it's not veto-proof.

However in 1981, Republicans had more members in the Senate.

They even got a bigger lead in 1983, same goes for the Dems in the House.

1985 saw the Senate still with a majority of Republicans. It wasn't until 1987 that Democrats finally took both Congress, and the Senate.

 

[Oddball]

I was going to say Eisenhower but I'd figure I'd throw the Republican party a bone with Nixon. Everything that happened in Nixon's Presidency is overshadowed with Watergate and his impact upon US relations with China. So it's tough for me to judge whether he was fiscally Conservative as I haven't had a chance to read too much about him otherwise.

Nixoid established OSHA, the EPA, wage and price controls, the national 55 mph speed limit, and a whole lot of other crap that libtard politicians fall all over themselves to support. But, alas, he insisted upon carrying that little (R) next to his name, so he was a target of ridicule and derision.

Just another in a long line of republican politicians who've proved that no matter how much you give in to and appease dems, it's never ever good enough for them.

 

[Modbert]

Robert you state you aren't tying to turn this into a Bush discussion, but you just did it again with this post. Quit talking about Bush. He is not a part of this discussion. Obama is the main topic. Say what you want to say about the subject of this thread, and quit turning Obama discussions into Bush discussions.

This is what you get when you don't read the last posts first.

 

[DamnYankee]

In 1979 when I was close to your age, getting ready to vote for the first time, Ronald Reagan said something that resonates still, for me today and is just as relevant:

"A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

Today, I replace Carter with Obama in that quote.

Reagan is the ONLY Republican I ever voted for. And I lived through the Carter years, we still have not really approached that level of dismal economic failure since. I am talking double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation. Horrendous economic times. That and just the overall bad feeling, the bad feeling we all had as Americans, to be Americans. Because Carter actually RAN on that negativity. Promoted it. Went around the world apologizing for how bad we are. Running down his country and the previous administrations. Just like what you're seeing now.

So it's "meet the new boss, same policies as the last boss but with the negativity of an older boss."

Reagan reminds me so much of Obama thus far, great at making speeches that resonate with millions of Americans but don't really follow what they said in certain areas.

If you recall (not to change the thread) Reagan's solution beyond 1981 to the fiscal area was raising taxes, and taxes he certainly did raise.

Also, the unofficial unemployment rate at the moment is well into double digits but I get what you're saying.

I recall a certain Republican who challenged him as an independent....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That's what is called a GFE, General Factual Error. Because Reagan didn't have much choice on raising taxes, he was saddled with a veto-proof Dem Congress who raised the taxes.

Remember, when talking about Presidents, it's actually the Congress with all the power when it comes to fiscal matters, not the POTUS

Somewhat true. The President could always veto it if it's not veto-proof.

However in 1981, Republicans had more members in the Senate.

They even got a bigger lead in 1983, same goes for the Dems in the House.

1985 saw the Senate still with a majority of Republicans. It wasn't until 1987 that Democrats finally took both Congress, and the Senate.

The House was veto proof, and with 2/3 majority needed in the Senate, the Senate was as well. The GOP didn't have a 60-seat super majority like you see today.

Congress was virtually veto-proof under Reagan.... Although he DID have some successful vetoes. Hmmmm, some of those were vetoes of higher taxes too!

But when they stood firm, his veto had the same chance as a snowball in hell.

 

[Modbert]

Nixoid established OSHA, the EPA, wage and price controls, the national 55 mph speed limit, and a whole lot of other crap that libtard politicians fall all over themselves to support. But, alas, he insisted upon carrying that little (R) next to his name, so he was a target of ridicule and derision.

Just another in a long line of republican politicians who've proved that no matter how much you give in to and appease dems, it's never ever good enough for them.

Oh come on, nobody ever follows the national 55 mph speed limit.

The ones that do are usually going 20-30 though anyway.

 

[Oddball]

Nixoid established OSHA, the EPA, wage and price controls, the national 55 mph speed limit, and a whole lot of other crap that libtard politicians fall all over themselves to support. But, alas, he insisted upon carrying that little (R) next to his name, so he was a target of ridicule and derision.

Just another in a long line of republican politicians who've proved that no matter how much you give in to and appease dems, it's never ever good enough for them.

Oh come on, nobody ever follows the national 55 mph speed limit.

The ones that do are usually going 20-30 though anyway.

How is that relevant to the fact that it was a republican president who enacted such an overreaching authoritarian federal policy??

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Oh come on, nobody ever follows the national 55 mph speed limit.

My dad got a ticket for 59 in a 55. It was 80 bucks. They enforced that double-nickel limit stringently. The mid-late 70s were pretty much a horrible time to live in America.

 

[del]

Nixoid established OSHA, the EPA, wage and price controls, the national 55 mph speed limit, and a whole lot of other crap that libtard politicians fall all over themselves to support. But, alas, he insisted upon carrying that little (R) next to his name, so he was a target of ridicule and derision.

Just another in a long line of republican politicians who've proved that no matter how much you give in to and appease dems, it's never ever good enough for them.

Oh come on, nobody ever follows the national 55 mph speed limit.

The ones that do are usually going 20-30 though anyway.

actually, nixon imposed a national 50 mph speed limit at first. it took me 9 hours to go from rochester, ny to boston, ma on xmas break in '73.

ah, the first opec oil embargo, such great memories.