They Want to be President

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by ;1872922

Marshall check your facts- Reagan still had a high UE rate after his 1st term in fact he didn't start making progress until his 2nd year 2nd term- by the time he left office he had spent more money than all other Presidents before him combined- he raised taxes on the middle class 11 times- the deficit quadrulped you act as if Reagan had everything fixed in 2 years.
**The Tax burden got shifted more to the poor and low income under Reagan
** Reagan's lack of Deregulation eventually led to a collapse n the Savings and Loan business.
**Govt grew larger under Reagan when he campaigned to make govt smaller- spending increased trifold under Reagan

wellendowedmaninmymouth1911, ALWAYS TRYING [UNSUCCESSFULLY] TO TARNISH THE GREAT MAN.......SAME OLD DISCREDITED LIBERAL TALKING POINTS.....

PEOPLE RE-ELECTED REAGAN BECAUSE THEY COULD SEE HIS POLICIES WERE WORKING AND THINGS WERE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION....

THE TAX RATES WERE LOWER AT THE END OF HIS PRESIDENCY THAN THE BEGINNING........

LIES....DISTORTIONS...LIES.... ..YOU ARE JUST SPEWING LIES....YOU DON'T EVEN POST TO ANY DISCREDITED LIBERAL SOURCES.....YOU LAZY EVEN ABOUT LYING.......

YOU NEED TO READ UP ON THE SAVINGS AND LOAN CRISIS, BUT YOU WON'T......

REAGAN HAD TO MAKE PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THE SOVIETS HIS #1 PRIORITY.......#1 RESPONSIBILITY OF PRESIDENT......HE DEFEATED THEM......WINNING COSTS MONEY AND REQUIRES COMPROMISE WITH THE DUMBOCRAP CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE......FUNNY HOW YOU LIBERALS ALWAYS IGNORE THAT PART OF THE REAGAN STORY.....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

FUNNY HOW LIBERALS IGNORE WHICH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS.....HEY DUMBFUCK, REAGAN HAD A DUMBOCRAP CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE FOR 6 OF HIS 8 YEARS....OF COURSE DUMBOCRAPS ARE GONNA TAX AND SPEND!

LIBERALS ALWAYS SAY, "BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE VETO!"....AH, DUMBFUCKS, REAGAN HAD TO GET IMPORTANT THINGS DONE.....HE DIDN'T WIN EVERY BATTLE WITH DUMBOCRAPS, BUT HE WON THE WAR!

IT'S SHOCKING HOW SUCCESSFUL REAGAN WAS GIVEN THAT THE DUMBOCRAPS RAN THE HOUSE AND SENATE FOR 6 OF HIS 8 YEARS....THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THAT IS THE US IS A CONSERVATIVE COUNTRY......

HEY wellendowedmaninmymouth1911, I'LL BET THAT SHIT SANDWICH I FORCED DOWN YOUR THROAT DIDN'T TASTE TOO GOOD....YOU BETTER DRINK SOME OF YOUR LIBERAL-PISS-FLAVORED-KOOL-AID TO GET THE TASTE OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Guest022315]

Wow Marshall getting personal i see. Answer this question did Regan raise taxes yes or no ?
I have maintained from jump Obama will be re-elected not so much of his stellar record but the lack of any real alternative candidate. Gop best bet is HUntsman but it is not happenning. Marshall see you in 5 years clammoring again for a GOP candidate.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Thatdude

Wow Marshall getting personal i see. Answer this question did Regan raise taxes yes or no ?
I have maintained from jump Obama will be re-elected not so much of his stellar record but the lack of any real alternative candidate. Gop best bet is HUntsman but it is not happenning. Marshall see you in 5 years clammoring again for a GOP candidate.

+1 Marshy loves to make things personal. He is a "ban" waiting to happen!

Obama will probably be re-elected. Not because of all of his accomplishments during the past 3 years in office, but because of the lack of electable Republican candidates running against him. It is almost as if the Republican candidates do everything within their power to out-idiot their opponents!

[waverunner234]

Wait --- ehhh, I see here that Reagan started creating jobs in the second year of his second term? Then he must have been lucky coz I've also heard that he suffered already from Alzheimer Disease at that moment. Some people even say he suffered from Alzheimer from the first moment he started his first term.
Anyway, I don't think he was a great president.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Marshall

CuteOldGay, all you wingnuts say you like Gary Johnson and Huntsman, but other than drug legalization, none of you wingnuts say what positions they hold that you agree with.....can you list some without looking them up?

Sure, Arshole.

1. Ending ridiculous illegal wars.
2. Ending the Fed.
3. Ending the income tax
4. Revitalizing the 9th and 10th amendment
5. Ending the failed attempt to regulate education by the Federal government
6. Sensible energy policy
7. Curtailing foreign aid
8. Establishing a foreign policy based on American interests
9. Limit the government's ability to spy on citizens
10. Repeal the Patriot Act

Need I go on?

[Roothead]

What Obama inherited from George B terms1&2 and from Billy C teem 1&2....

For what it is worth.... what it was like looking over the edge of the abyss from within the global finance sector, from the perspective of a Reagan Republican with 15 yrs tenure with the largest bank/i-bank in the US

In 2007-2009, I was based in London UK and working all over the EU when the Lehman Bros crap hit the fan.... then Bear Stearns fails...

In mid-June of 2008, I was traveling in the Nordic/Baltic region, when with no advanced notice, was told to return to London - upon my arrival, I was advised to go to my London office to join a mtg (this was 9pm on a Friday).... it was there that I learned that the Bank of England (their version of the Fed), was predicting failure of RBS, Lloyds, UBS, Societe Generale, HSBC and most Irish banks... the look on faces on the various video conf screens were astonishing... you would have thought it was the end of the world... while trying to absorb the concepts, implications and fallout for the general economy, I know I was thinking what the hell do I do now for my family?....

My view at the time was very myopic.... be that as it may, it was the worst feeling of helplessness I have ever felt. I can not even begin the understand how those in the major governments wrapped their heads the spaghetti bowl mix of issues and cross-impacts that they faced....

The true magnitude of what Obama and the next president (whomever he or she may be), have had to face, is something that most citizens of the USA cannot, IMHO, even begin to understand...

OK, so I guess I will get hammered now, have at it.....

[gnadfly]

Don't look now but there's a lot of chatter today that the Euro (and therefore various EU nations) is "unsaveable."

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Roothead]

being somewhat of Economics techie nerd, I would bet it all unravels.... the Euro dream is/was just that.... one of my former colleagues is a PHD in Eco (MBA also) and has worked all over the the world for World Bank and IMF (then he had kids and realized he needed to make real moola, so he joined the private sector lol) - we spent many hrs drinking and discussing the inter-connectivity of the world's Fin Mkts - he often spoke of the Euro's pending demise - the Euro's goal of creating a USA-type unified market/currency was half-hearted - leaving the political apparatuses in place was the mistake - a fatal flaw waiting for shit to hit the fan... Germany "runs" the EU these days and it appears that they are fed up with bailing out their irresponsible partners.... and with all of the others losing the trust of the owners of "capital", the whole house of cards will come a tumbling down.... then it will nail us....

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Marshall

wellendowedmaninmymouth1911, ALWAYS TRYING [UNSUCCESSFULLY] TO TARNISH THE GREAT MAN.......SAME OLD DISCREDITED LIBERAL TALKING POINTS.....

PEOPLE RE-ELECTED REAGAN BECAUSE THEY COULD SEE HIS POLICIES WERE WORKING AND THINGS WERE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION....

THE TAX RATES WERE LOWER AT THE END OF HIS PRESIDENCY THAN THE BEGINNING........

LIES....DISTORTIONS...LIES.... ..YOU ARE JUST SPEWING LIES....YOU DON'T EVEN POST TO ANY DISCREDITED LIBERAL SOURCES.....YOU LAZY EVEN ABOUT LYING.......

YOU NEED TO READ UP ON THE SAVINGS AND LOAN CRISIS, BUT YOU WON'T......

REAGAN HAD TO MAKE PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM THE SOVIETS HIS #1 PRIORITY.......#1 RESPONSIBILITY OF PRESIDENT......HE DEFEATED THEM......WINNING COSTS MONEY AND REQUIRES COMPROMISE WITH THE DUMBOCRAP CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE......FUNNY HOW YOU LIBERALS ALWAYS IGNORE THAT PART OF THE REAGAN STORY.....HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

FUNNY HOW LIBERALS IGNORE WHICH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS.....HEY DUMBFUCK, REAGAN HAD A DUMBOCRAP CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE FOR 6 OF HIS 8 YEARS....OF COURSE DUMBOCRAPS ARE GONNA TAX AND SPEND!

LIBERALS ALWAYS SAY, "BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE VETO!"....AH, DUMBFUCKS, REAGAN HAD TO GET IMPORTANT THINGS DONE.....HE DIDN'T WIN EVERY BATTLE WITH DUMBOCRAPS, BUT HE WON THE WAR!

IT'S SHOCKING HOW SUCCESSFUL REAGAN WAS GIVEN THAT THE DUMBOCRAPS RAN THE HOUSE AND SENATE FOR 6 OF HIS 8 YEARS....THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THAT IS THE US IS A CONSERVATIVE COUNTRY......

HEY wellendowedmaninmymouth1911, I'LL BET THAT SHIT SANDWICH I FORCED DOWN YOUR THROAT DIDN'T TASTE TOO GOOD....YOU BETTER DRINK SOME OF YOUR LIBERAL-PISS-FLAVORED-KOOL-AID TO GET THE TASTE OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

MY mY MY Marshall how quickly have you forgot- I want you to tell me if the following is true:Time heals all wounds (and erases memories):
=================
In his 2nd year, 35% Job Approval rating.
In his 2nd year, 10.8% Unemployment.

Granted BLANKET amnesty to 1.7 million Immigrants.
Pro Choice as CA Governor.
Traded Arms for Hostages.
Cut & Ran from Lebanon after 250+ soldiers were killed.
Raised taxes in more years than he cut taxes.
Increased Medicare coverage
Tripled the Debt.
Grew the size of government more than any other President before him.
Reagan signed the largest peacetime tax increase in American history into law. (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982)
Selling arms to terrorist- selling Weapons to Iran back than was the equivalent of selling weapons to Al-Queada today

Again Reagan wasn't a terrible President he did a helluva alot better than his predecessors but he didn't fix things over night.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Obama has faced a unique set of circumstances in the 3 years since he was elected that no other President in recent memory has been confronted with.

That's not quite true. What about FDR? he had to contend with depression and 2 wars.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Marshall

Ummm, bigmex, Ronald Reagan faced similar or worse conditions in 1981.....

You're wrong with Reagan in comparision to Obama's situation. The only other president in a similar situation is FDR.

Its not even close.

Reagan wasn't faced with 2 major wars and depression like economic conditions.

What he faced was an economy in a state of recession and high unemployment.

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, it certainly looks like President Obama will be re-elected. Let's meet back here in four years and review where we are. If we are better off, I will buy each one of you a drink. If we are worse off, or if it is still Bush's fault, you guys owe me an evening of lap dances. Fair?

I'll go for it

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That's not quite true. What about FDR? he had to contend with depression and 2 wars.

I can't speak for your "recent memory" but I can certainly speak for mine. The Great Depression and WW II do not register in my personal "memory" bank. Thus my use of the phrase "recent memory!" I would consider the term "recent memory" to be something that occurred much later than WW II.

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Don't look now but there's a lot of chatter today that the Euro (and therefore various EU nations) is "unsaveable."

Happy Thanksgiving.

Yesterday a GERMAN bond auction only sold out for 65%. That has happened before but with the current problems in the EuroZone this is a very bad sign.
If Germany (powerhouse of Europe) loses trust the chances are a lot bigger that the Euro collapses. If that happens you can count on a deep recession in Europe and of course that will take the USA into another recession also.
And there is not very much that the USA can do about it.

[Marshall]

I'LL GLADLY PAY YOU TUESDAY FOR A TAX INCREASE TODAY

November 23, 2011


Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn't implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge." They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they'd refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it's Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

At Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Terrorism can wait -- first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan's statement in his autobiography, "An American Life," that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted -- implying that today's Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they'd refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes "in return for (the Democrats') agreement to cut spending by $280 billion," but, Reagan continues, "the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts."

Maybe that's why Republicans won't agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats' history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans' opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That's why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 -- which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats' subsequent caterwauling -- he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes -- though not income taxes -- in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts."

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion -- only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan's tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years -- as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan's tax cuts couldn't pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats -- more than twice as much as Reagan's spending on defense.

Reagan's defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O'Neill's domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit -- created exclusively by their own profligate spending -- Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a "balanced budget" package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his "read-my-lips, no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn't care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush's defeat in the next election.

On CNN's "Crossfire," then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: "All the spin control in the world can't undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes."

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that "with his three words, ('tax revenue increases') Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign."

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a "Reagan Democrat," who said: "Bush says, 'Read my lips.' Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt."

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party's central defining issue -- low taxes -- and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, "He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don't have to read his lips; we can read his record."

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats' record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It's been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it's time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these "deals," the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER