Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is an incredibly uninformed stance on this issue.
You despise Mitt because he has a track record as a man who can turn around failed enterprises and make them successful?
In what way does this not apply to a country that needs to borrow about half of everything that it spends just to keep going.
Buddy, we are sinking fast and the Captain of the ship has chosen since day 1 in office to conduct a re-election campaign rather than govern.
Oh no it's not. I am very very informed - try me.
Successful!?! Really? How so? Are you trying to imply everything he touches turns to gold?
Govt spending is NOT LIKE a person's budget. It IS called investing in the country and people. However, seeing as it is now an oligarchy run by a minority (1%) instead of a democracy run by the 99% we as a People are screwed and the con's will take full advantage. Proof is Bush outspent obama 1st term vs 1st term by 1 trillion. Bush was handed a surplus, obama not even close. I don't have selctive amnesia as you apparently do, OR you are purposely uninformed TRYING to make me out to be.
Here in reality land, and to anyone who will check out the FACTS, every "con presidenta" since and including reagan has outspent every dem president in the exact same time period.
Last but not least, you and your con ilk are making a mtn out of a mole hill in the whole scheme of things.......in fact this big arse pyramid scheme of things. Time to wake up sonny!!
Reagan was the greatest socialist in our nations history. Ronny was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent. How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagans policies? At least $3 trillion.
The Myth of Ronald Reagan
Excerpts:
There are two enemies of a real conservative society, thought Chesterton; one of them is State Socialism and the other is Big Business. In other words, the enemy is bigness, no matter on which side of the political spectrum it originates. Hayek, quoted by Kleinknecht, wrote something similar in his highly influential book The Road to Serfdom (1944): ... [T]he movement toward totalitarianism comes from two great vested interests: organized capital and organized labor. Probably the greatest menace of all is that the politics of these two most powerful groups point in the same direction. Such sentiments, Kleinknecht writes, were swept out of Washington in the 1980s. Relief from government regulation was one of a handful of core beliefs that really mattered to Reagan and his business supporters, and anything that stood in the way of the natural consolidation of the nations productive forces was a barrier to be removed. Or as Reagans good friend whom he appointed attorney general, William French Smith, put it, Bigness doesnt necessarily mean badness.
Reagan was the obvious enemy of the common people he claimed to represent, this empty suit who believed in flying saucers and allowed an astrologer to guide his presidential scheduling. ...
He enacted policies that helped wipe out the high-paying jobs for the working class that were the real backbone of the country. ... His legacymergers, deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization, globalizationhelped weaken the family and eradicate small-town life and sense of community.
Reaganomics did create fortunes, but mostly for those at the top of the economic ladder; it also brought a reversal in the slow gains that the working class and the poor had made in the previous two decades.
During a month when Republicans dug in against Barack Obamas stimulus plan, Kleinknechts words, written last year before the economic crash, ring clear. Reaganism replaced Enlightenment thinking with the corrupted Romanticism that portrays free-market purism as an article of religious faith that is the real meaning of America. The answer to any of the economic challenges of the twenty-first century is to do nothing. Cut taxes, eviscerate all regulation of private enterprise, and trust the market to guide our fates. If this sounds like hyperbole, then you werent listening to the Republican response to President Obamas bailout proposal.
Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke
How do "re-distribute" wealth from those who have none to those who have it already?
When a farmer irrigates a dry field, he is re-distributing the water from where it is to where he wants it.
Are you saying that a farmer can take the water from a field that needs water and has none and put it into the well to fill it up?
How?
In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked.
Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent.
For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits.
A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax.
How do "re-distribute" wealth from those who have none to those who have it already?
When a farmer irrigates a dry field, he is re-distributing the water from where it is to where he wants it.
Are you saying that a farmer can take the water from a field that needs water and has none and put it into the well to fill it up?
Seriously!?! Are you really that lost in space?
This is an incredibly uninformed stance on this issue.
You despise Mitt because he has a track record as a man who can turn around failed enterprises and make them successful?
In what way does this not apply to a country that needs to borrow about half of everything that it spends just to keep going.
Buddy, we are sinking fast and the Captain of the ship has chosen since day 1 in office to conduct a re-election campaign rather than govern.
Oh no it's not. I am very very informed - try me.
Successful!?! Really? How so? Are you trying to imply everything he touches turns to gold?
Govt spending is NOT LIKE a person's budget. It IS called investing in the country and people. However, seeing as it is now an oligarchy run by a minority (1%) instead of a democracy run by the 99% we as a People are screwed and the con's will take full advantage. Proof is Bush outspent obama 1st term vs 1st term by 1 trillion. Bush was handed a surplus, obama not even close. I don't have selctive amnesia as you apparently do, OR you are purposely uninformed TRYING to make me out to be.
Here in reality land, and to anyone who will check out the FACTS, every "con presidenta" since and including reagan has outspent every dem president in the exact same time period.
Last but not least, you and your con ilk are making a mtn out of a mole hill in the whole scheme of things.......in fact this big arse pyramid scheme of things. Time to wake up sonny!!
The link below shows the federal outlays by year since 1940. By any measure your claim that Bush outspent Obama is factually wrong.
The Big 0 has outspent all presidents since the dawn of the Republic.
Bush's biggest deficit was about 415 billion. Obama's smallest deficit so far is about 1153 billion.
You seem to be the one that needs to wake up.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
Oh no it's not. I am very very informed - try me.
Successful!?! Really? How so? Are you trying to imply everything he touches turns to gold?
Govt spending is NOT LIKE a person's budget. It IS called investing in the country and people. However, seeing as it is now an oligarchy run by a minority (1%) instead of a democracy run by the 99% we as a People are screwed and the con's will take full advantage. Proof is Bush outspent obama 1st term vs 1st term by 1 trillion. Bush was handed a surplus, obama not even close. I don't have selctive amnesia as you apparently do, OR you are purposely uninformed TRYING to make me out to be.
Here in reality land, and to anyone who will check out the FACTS, every "con presidenta" since and including reagan has outspent every dem president in the exact same time period.
Last but not least, you and your con ilk are making a mtn out of a mole hill in the whole scheme of things.......in fact this big arse pyramid scheme of things. Time to wake up sonny!!
The link below shows the federal outlays by year since 1940. By any measure your claim that Bush outspent Obama is factually wrong.
The Big 0 has outspent all presidents since the dawn of the Republic.
Bush's biggest deficit was about 415 billion. Obama's smallest deficit so far is about 1153 billion.
You seem to be the one that needs to wake up.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
2+2= 3
Anyone with half a brain can figure out what the contributing factors are...NONE of which Obama caused.
LOOK at Receipts and see if you can figure out why Outlay would increase.
The link below shows the federal outlays by year since 1940. By any measure your claim that Bush outspent Obama is factually wrong.
The Big 0 has outspent all presidents since the dawn of the Republic.
Bush's biggest deficit was about 415 billion. Obama's smallest deficit so far is about 1153 billion.
You seem to be the one that needs to wake up.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
2+2= 3
Anyone with half a brain can figure out what the contributing factors are...NONE of which Obama caused.
LOOK at Receipts and see if you can figure out why Outlay would increase.
With or without the receipts, the spending is increasing.
If his programs were working as he said they would during the campaign and afterward, as he is saying they will right now, the receipts would have been increased also. They are not.
2+2=3 is the math that explains the results of Obama's jobs programs.
Who exactly is Obama running against?
Meanwhile... Mr. Soetoro is spending America's birthday (July 4th) in France... How decidedly fitting for the Commander in Choom.
Very fitting considering that without help from France we would likely have lost the Revolutionary War.
But hey - don't let history get in your way.
To be honest, I don't see anybody of Reagan-calibre in either party right now.
Reagan wasn't that great of a President. He didn't really do anything great.
I disagree strongly. Reagan was a very important President, one of the most important in US history. He profoundly changed the direction of the country.
Meanwhile... Mr. Soetoro is spending America's birthday (July 4th) in France... How decidedly fitting for the Commander in Choom.
Very fitting considering that without help from France we would likely have lost the Revolutionary War.
But hey - don't let history get in your way.
France was getting even with Britain. It was no favor ,you can rest assured.
Who exactly is Obama running against?
To be honest, I don't see anybody of Reagan-calibre in either party right now.
Reagan wasn't that great of a President. He didn't really do anything great.
You can think of them - but not write them down on a message for all of us to read?Reagan wasn't that great of a President. He didn't really do anything great.
Lol Good one.
Taking the Day off from Serious Debate, but lets just say a I can think of a few great things he did.
Hell I think Obama is an Utter Failure and can Admit he has dome a few great things as well.
Wow.
He revamped and strengthened the US military.
If the military was so strong under Reagan why did he turn tale and run from Lebanon?
Yeah, I figured this was the lay of the land.
The reason you're dismissive of Reagan is because you don't want what is good for America. You want to see America ground down, and you will sneer at anyone who prevents that.
Got it.
obama doesn't just look small, but he has the classic appearance of a hard core cocaine addict.
No, actually I'm merely asking how Reagan halved black unemployment.
OK, my question is answered. Be all you can be goes for stupid people too.
Well good for you then.
You can't even name a single concrete action by Reagan that was great.
