Presidential Success v. American Success

Discussion in 'Politics' started by DamnYankee, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. DamnYankee
    Offline

    DamnYankee No Neg Policy

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,516
    Thanks Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +441
    In the opinion of Center for Individual Freedom....

    Rush is Right – Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

    American success and a President’s success are not always synonymous.

    To the contrary, a Presidential failure can often benefit America, and a Presidential success can often harm America.

    This simple truth, however, has been woefully ignored amidst the bizarre White House assault against Rush Limbaugh and other public figures who’ve dared criticize Barack Obama, such as CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, the hysterical assault from the White House, its mainstream media enablers and sycophant commentators followed his statement that he hopes that Obama fails in implementing his agenda.

    As a necessary component of that assault, Obama’s righteous defenders attempted to link his agenda and American well-being as one and the same.

    But history illustrates that a Presidential success and American welfare can sometimes be very different things.

    Consider, for instance, Woodrow Wilson’s failed attempt to include the United States in the infamous League of Nations, which merely served to disarm democratic nations while sitting idle as Hitler militarized.

    As a more recent example, Lyndon Johnson successfully implemented his “Great Society” agenda upon America, and the results have proven largely disastrous. Forty years later, the Great Society’s primary legacy has been one of bloated federal bureaucracy, deteriorating public schools, a tragic vicious cycle of underclass dependency and spiraling and unsustainable entitlement programs.

    Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

    He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

    After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress.

    The centerpiece of his agenda was massive governmental healthcare overhaul, derisively known as “Hillarycare” after the First Lady was appointed to lead the secretive effort. That plan would have bureaucratized the healthcare industry by expanding governmental coercion and dictating a one-size-fits-all system. Among other dictates, providers would have been told what treatments were permitted, and it even sought to cap the number of physicians who could be specialists at 45% of all doctors. Clinton’s healthcare plan would also have rationed services, thereby creating the chronic shortages and waiting periods seen in other nations that have socialized medicine.

    Fortunately for America, Clinton’s plan went down in flames, because success for Clinton would have been disastrous for the nation.

    The first two years of Clinton’s term also witnessed such fiascos as his embarrassing cabinet nomination failures, Whitewater revelations that led to multiple criminal convictions and the Waco disaster.

    As a direct consequence of Clinton’s failures, Republicans regained Congressional majorities for the first time in forty years. And it was only after that 1994 electoral rebuke that America witnessed the successes for which Clinton and his loyalists now claim credit – welfare reform and a balanced budget.

    After all, Clinton vetoed welfare reform legislation three times before finally having it shoved down his throat. And the budget surplus? That didn’t occur until 1998 – four years after the Contract with America and Republican takeover of Congress.

    Simply put, Bill Clinton perfectly illustrates that a President’s failure doesn’t necessarily mean America’s failure. Because of his early ineptitude, a conservative backlash limited his power and forced him to accept lower spending, sign welfare reform, cut capital gains tax rates and abandon his big-government aspirations.

    Today, success for Barack Obama in implementing his agenda will similarly bring terrible harm to America.

    That agenda includes the same socialization of the healthcare industry, abolition of the secret ballot in union elections that will cost 600,000 American jobs in the first year alone, imposition of over $1 trillion in new carbon taxes upon American industry, censorship of political speech via the “Fairness Doctrine,” a tripling of the national debt in ten years and submission of American sovereignty to international authorities and the United Nations.

    Accordingly, success for Obama in imposing his agenda will bring disastrous results for America.

    Love him or hate him, there’s simply no escaping it -- Rush is right.
    Rush is Right - Presidential Success and American Success are Two Different Things

    What do you think?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Here's a clue...WALL STREET SUCCESS is not the same as AMERICAN success.

    If 1% of the population is getting richer, while the other 99% is getting poorer, then America is failing.

    Were you complaining about that while it was happening?

    If not, why not?
     
  3. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Hmmm.. does every last person not have the right to invest like any other person?

    Does the success of business not provide the opportunity for others?

    Edit... unlike what you want to FEEL, there will always be poor in a free society... it is a fact of life... whether it be by choice, lack of effort, poor decision making, poor planning for emergencies, accidents, or whatever... but with the positives of liberty also come the negatives.. you cannot create a government, financial system, or society that only has the good... belief in anything like that is a fucking pipe dream and does you and others a disservice

    I don't complain about someone else getting rich, even if I am not doing as well as I had hoped... good for them.. shows me that that opportunity is still there
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Yeah and we all have the right to be POTUS too. But theoretical freedom and defacto freedom are two significantly different things.

    It might...depends on where it is located, doesn't it?
    Feeling have very little to do with it. Facts have much to do with it.

    Fact is that Wall street was going gangbusters even as most working Americans were slowly going broke.

    Do you deny this?

    That's true.

    Also true.



    True also. Not germane to the point, but true nevertheless.

    I suppose if I believed any of the nonsense you're attempting to foist off as what I believe, that might be germane to the point I made.

    Nor was I.

    I was merely noting that a very successful wall street was NOT the same as very successful nation.

    How you construe that as hating the rich, I surely don't know.



    That's nice.
     
  5. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    Horseshit... you have the freedom... the ability, opportunity, decisions, etc are all upon you... not society.. not wall street... but nice try... the freedom and liberty are what we are to be afforded... not some guarantee that you won't fail while someone else become rich beyond their wildest dreams (maybe even apparently for no effort)

    We are a country based on personal possibilities... not on some Democratic flim-flam guarantee or promise to get something for nothing... and with those possibilities comes the option for you to strive for it or not, to attain it or not, to be in the game.... you could be in jail for 3 turns, you could only have Baltic Avenue, you could be high on the hog and roll doubles 3 times in a row... the only freedom that is essential is the theoretical or freedom of possibility, in terms of economic freedom

    Whether Wall Street was up or down and whether X number of people went broke is of no concern UNLESS laws were broken.. otherwise, it is all part of the game.. part of the freedoms that many of us hold as important
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. mash107
    Offline

    mash107 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    570
    Thanks Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +82
    Exactly. They should be treated like normal Americans. Not bailed out when they screw up. Not given special privileges just because they have ties with Washington. That's the essence of free markets.

    And ultimately, I think the head of the bankers (Ben Bernanke/Alan Greenspan) are more powerful than the Presidents. They can create bubbles/recessions. They can spend money at will-- what a President and/or Congress does is meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  7. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    American boycotted the "UN" post WWI, WWII started 20 years later, and that was an example of success for the country?

    Huh? Poverty rates were cut in half after the Great Society programs. Not every component worked, but overall they were tremendously successful.

    Can you imagine what America would be like at the moment if there was no unemployment insurance? As it is many states deny it to a majority of people which has worsened the problem.

    Bill Clinton provides another vivid illustration that Presidential success and American success can be antonymous.

    He largely failed to implement his preferred agenda, which ultimately translated into success for America. This reality probably shocks Clinton’s reflexive supporters, who mindlessly assume that America’s 1990s prosperity somehow reflected his successful program. But quite the opposite is true.

    After all, recall Clinton’s agenda as he entered office in January 1993, and his disastrous performance while his party controlled both houses of Congress. [/quote]

    Disasterous politically, I'll agree.

    Clinton and the Dems successfully passed a 30% tax increase in 1993 over the vote of every single Republican. the Govt was flooded with additional revenue, and combined with the peace dividend, Clinton turned a record deficit he inherited into a surplus.

    Which lasted just until the Republicans took the WH, slashed revenues, and ran up new record deficits and $5 trillion more debt.

    Yep, and now there are tens of millions of uninsured in America, health care costs are burdending down the economy, and America's health care system sucks.

    Too bad the conservatives with their big Pharm and HMO supporters won out on this one.

    Big drug cos and HMOs have made shitloads of profits, tho.

    Yes, doint the right thing and raising taxes cost the Dems. The Republicans pandered tax cuts and lies, the "pass the buck" generation bought it.

    And now the country is $11 trillion in debt.

    Whose failure was that again?
     
  8. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    I think you are a moron. Obama is the leader of this country. WE, meaning the majority, elected him president. His platform was clear and he is acting on it. His popularity shows approval. Much of what he is dealing with is non partisan IE the depression Bush's non regulatory policies left us with. If Obama fails to right the sinking ship he inherited we all will have to live with the consequence. It is traitors like you that do not care about this country more than you want to tear down our only president and chance to pull ourselves out of this mess. Piss on you and your crybaby filthy neo con christian fascist traitors.
     
  9. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    @Diamond Dave - Instead of giving me neg reps for asserting there was a surplus during Clinton's years which you claim "was disproven over and over and over and over", why don't you man-up and come out and prove it instead of hiding behind neg rep comments like a coward.

    Since it has been proven "over and over and over" that there was no surplus, it should be easy for you to show the forum how wrong I am.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2009
  10. Harry Dresden
    Online

    Harry Dresden Latinum, Plantinum,Silver,Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    52,084
    Thanks Received:
    6,960
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Nv.
    Ratings:
    +13,699
    Huggy why the attack on this guy?.....all he is doing is posting an opinion piece and asking what you think.....is he not?
     

Share This Page