[Squid]

Of course it did but liberals like yourself just cannot seem to give Reagan any credit for pursuing the strategy that sealed the deal.

What a moron. Did I say that Reagan gets no credit at all? I pointed out that wingnuts like yourself continue to pass off your revisionist history, by implying that Reagan single handedly beat the Russians. I give Reagan credit for many things - but not for being the God that an ideologue like yourself wants to portray him.

Reagan took over an economy that was in the dumps. Inflation was off the charts, and unemployment was getting out of hand. He turned that around in his first term. Had he not turned the country into a poor house during his second term, by cutting taxes for the rich and corporations (and absurd deficit spending) he would have been almost perfect in the area of the economy.

As for his advisors, he was above average in his choices. He had some very good ones (i.e. Weinberger,Baker, Smith, Baldridge, Verity), and he did listen to them. On the other hand, he had more than a couple that turned out to be problematic (i.e. John Poindexter, Ed Meese, James Watt).

Reagan did far more good than he did bad, but let's not try to elevate him to sainthood here.

[Hoot Gibson]

What a moron. Did I say that Reagan gets no credit at all? I pointed out that wingnuts like yourself continue to pass off your revisionist history, by implying that Reagan single handedly beat the Russians. I give Reagan credit for many things - but not for being the God that an ideologue like yourself wants to portray him.

Reagan took over an economy that was in the dumps. Inflation was off the charts, and unemployment was getting out of hand. He turned that around in his first term. Had he not turned the country into a poor house during his second term, by cutting taxes for the rich and corporations (and absurd deficit spending) he would have been almost perfect in the area of the economy.

As for his advisors, he was above average in his choices. He had some very good ones (i.e. Weinberger,Baker, Smith, Baldridge, Verity), and he did listen to them. On the other hand, he had more than a couple that turned out to be problematic (i.e. John Poindexter, Ed Meese, James Watt).

Reagan did far more good than he did bad, but let's not try to elevate him to sainthood here.

Are you even capable of making a post devoid of personal attacks, Squid? Tax revenues soared under Reagan, just as the did following the implementation of the JFK tax cuts. However, that simple fact has not quenched liberals' thirst for tax hikes. Keeping top marginal tax rates reasonable is sound fiscal policy but it is not a useful weapon in class warfare. Liberals depend on class envy and government checks to gain power.

[If...Then]

I'll say one thing. It's for sure NOT Obama

[Squid]

Are you even capable of making a post devoid of personal attacks, Squid?

Coming from the guy that said my head was buried in the ... sand, I find that question rhetorical, hypocritical, and self serving. When you can post a response that deals strictly with the topic of the thread, with no strawmen, and no personal attacks, I'll be glad to respond in kind. Until then, please know that I will be more than happy to sink to whatever level of insults you wish to hurl.

Tax revenues soared under Reagan, just as the did following the implementation of the JFK tax cuts. However, that simple fact has not quenched liberals' thirst for tax hikes. Keeping top marginal tax rates reasonable is sound fiscal policy but it is not a useful weapon in class warfare. Liberals depend on class envy and government checks to gain power.

You answered your own question, Hooterboy.

The key word in your post is the word "reasonable". Tax cuts, like any tool, can be overused, to the point of detriment. When you are running up the national debt like Reagan and W. Bush did, the spending must stop (or at least slow down). In both Reagan's second term, and the entire 8 years of W's disaster, the spending was absurd - especially in light of the fact that they both slashed taxes for corporations and the ultra rich.

You can't have it both ways, Hooterboy. If you don't take money in, you can't spend it. If you want to spend it (which both Reagan and W did), then you have to take it in. It's called "balancing the budget". Every family has to do it, or go broke. As a country, the same rule applies - sooner or later, you have to pay the piper.

[Squid]

I'll say one thing. It's for sure NOT Obama

Other than the mention of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I haven't seen anyone even bring him up as a contender for "Best President Ever".

Even the most diehard Obama fan would have to concede that there simply isn't anything that could cause someone to consider it.

Eight years from now, it may be a different story, but as of today, there simply isn't any reason to even consider it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Coming from the guy that said my head was buried in the ... sand, I find that question rhetorical, hypocritical, and self serving. When you can post a response that deals strictly with the topic of the thread, with no strawmen, and no personal attacks, I'll be glad to respond in kind. Until then, please know that I will be more than happy to sink to whatever level of insults you wish to hurl.




You answered your own question, Hooterboy.

The key word in your post is the word "reasonable". Tax cuts, like any tool, can be overused, to the point of detriment. When you are running up the national debt like Reagan and W. Bush did, the spending must stop (or at least slow down). In both Reagan's second term, and the entire 8 years of W's disaster, the spending was absurd - especially in light of the fact that they both slashed taxes for corporations and the ultra rich.

You can't have it both ways, Hooterboy. If you don't take money in, you can't spend it. If you want to spend it (which both Reagan and W did), then you have to take it in. It's called "balancing the budget". Every family has to do it, or go broke. As a country, the same rule applies - sooner or later, you have to pay the piper.

Based on this rant, one would expect your to be a fierce critic of Obama, Frances. No president has ever contributed more to our national debt in his first year in office than the big Zero and his first year is not even over yet. If you want to be intellectually honest (and there is no evidence of that being the case), you might want to consider that no president can run up the national debt if they do not control the majority of seats in the House of Representative.

How about it, Frances? Are you not appalled at the record setting pace that Barack Hussein Obama is plunging future generations of Americans into debt? Or are you one of those liberals who has a problem with deficit spending only when a liberal is not setting spending priorities?

[Squid]

Based on this rant, one would expect your to be a fierce critic of Obama, Frances. No president has ever contributed more to our national debt in his first year in office than the big Zero and his first year is not even over yet. If you want to be intellectually honest (and there is no evidence of that being the case), you might want to consider that no president can run up the national debt if they do not control the majority of seats in the House of Representative.

How about it, Frances? Are you not appalled at the record setting pace that Barack Hussein Obama is plunging future generations of Americans into debt? Or are you one of those liberals who has a problem with deficit spending only when a liberal is not setting spending priorities?

I thought in your last post, you were decrying the personal attacks? And yet, here you have two in a two paragraph response. How is that, Hooterboy? Which is it going to be? Are you simply playing a passive/aggressive game, or are you incapable of controlling yourself? While you figure that one out, I'll move on to your questions about how I view Obama's time in office.

Obama's spending is (obviously) a concern to any fiscal conservative (which I am). Unlike the wingnuts that dominate the Republican party right now (much to its dismay), I do understand the reasoning behind his moves, in regards to the stimulus package. If he had inherited a small national debt (as opposed to the more than $9 TRILLION debt that W.Bush and Reagan ran up), I would be extremely dissatisfied. In this case, however, he was faced with trying to right the ship, without allowing it to go right over the edge. If you want to discuss the origins of the national debt, I'll be more than happy to oblige you. As a Reagan/Bush apologist, I highly doubt that you want to have that discussion.

I would ask you - how loud did you decry the runup of the debt, prior to Obama taking office? Did you campaign against the actions of W, while he was spending money like a sailor on shore leave?

Watching the rightwing pundits on TV is quite comical. When Obama took office, the talking heads were blaming the Dow's fall on him. Now that the Dow is back over 10,000 - guess what. They are giving credit for the recovery to W's economic policies. Even a diehard like you would have to admit to the hypocrisy of such blatant partisanship. Or, at least, I would think you would.

So, I don't like what Obama is doing to the economy right now, but in the long run, I don't think he has a lot of options, considering what he walked into. Over the long haul, I think his policies will pay off.

One thing is certain. He will have eight years to prove his point - for good or ill. W had his eight years, and we absolutely know what the outcome of that was.

[Hoot Gibson]

I thought in your last post, you were decrying the personal attacks? And yet, here you have two in a two paragraph response. How is that, Hooterboy? Which is it going to be? Are you simply playing a passive/aggressive game, or are you incapable of controlling yourself? While you figure that one out, I'll move on to your questions about how I view Obama's time in office.

Obama's spending is (obviously) a concern to any fiscal conservative (which I am). Unlike the wingnuts that dominate the Republican party right now (much to its dismay), I do understand the reasoning behind his moves, in regards to the stimulus package. If he had inherited a small national debt (as opposed to the more than $9 TRILLION debt that W.Bush and Reagan ran up), I would be extremely dissatisfied. In this case, however, he was faced with trying to right the ship, without allowing it to go right over the edge. If you want to discuss the origins of the national debt, I'll be more than happy to oblige you. As a Reagan/Bush apologist, I highly doubt that you want to have that discussion.

I would ask you - how loud did you decry the runup of the debt, prior to Obama taking office? Did you campaign against the actions of W, while he was spending money like a sailor on shore leave?

Watching the rightwing pundits on TV is quite comical. When Obama took office, the talking heads were blaming the Dow's fall on him. Now that the Dow is back over 10,000 - guess what. They are giving credit for the recovery to W's economic policies. Even a diehard like you would have to admit to the hypocrisy of such blatant partisanship. Or, at least, I would think you would.

So, I don't like what Obama is doing to the economy right now, but in the long run, I don't think he has a lot of options, considering what he walked into. Over the long haul, I think his policies will pay off.

One thing is certain. He will have eight years to prove his point - for good or ill. W had his eight years, and we absolutely know what the outcome of that was.

Being a liberal means never having to apologize for hypocrisy. Call yourself a fiscal conservative if you want but no true fiscal conservative could possibly support Obama's outrageous deficit spending. As for Bush, I strongly criticized his spending. Bush was conservative on a few issues but nobody can argue that he was a fiscal conservative. The size of the federal government grew out of control under Bush, just as it grew under Clinton. However, compared to Obama, Clinton and Bush were Scrooges.

This country cannot survive eight years of Obama spending. There is a finite limit to the amount of money a government can borrow. Soon, interest rates and inflation will soar, just as they did under Carter, and liberals will declare one more crisis after another while they try to cling to power.

I never thought that I would live to see a worse president than Jimmy Carter, yet here I am.

[Squid]

Being a liberal means never having to apologize for hypocrisy. Call yourself a fiscal conservative if you want but no true fiscal conservative could possibly support Obama's outrageous deficit spending. As for Bush, I strongly criticized his spending. Bush was conservative on a few issues but nobody can argue that he was a fiscal conservative. The size of the federal government grew out of control under Bush, just as it grew under Clinton. However, compared to Obama, Clinton and Bush were Scrooges.

This country cannot survive eight years of Obama spending. There is a finite limit to the amount of money a government can borrow. Soon, interest rates and inflation will soar, just as they did under Carter, and liberals will declare one more crisis after another while they try to cling to power.

I never thought that I would live to see a worse president than Jimmy Carter, yet here I am.

No response to my question about the personal attacks, eh?

Okay, then - we'll move on.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less if you believe that I am a fiscal conservative. I know what I am, and I really am not seeking your approval. If you want to pretend that Bush was a "scrooge" compared to Obama, then this appears to be yet another area where you simply are not going to face reality. Bush took the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion dollars. That's an increase of just under 100%.

On the day Obama took office, the national debt was (as stated above) $10.6 trillion. As of today, it is $11.9 trillion. That is an increase of just over 10%. Now, I'm no genius, but I believe that 10% is exactly one tenth as much as 100%. So much for your claim about "Scrooge". Your desparate need to villainize Obama is clouding your ability to think. Let it go.

Apparently we agree that the idea of deficit spending cannot be allowed to go unchecked. It is very possible that inflation will soon soar, however, at this point in time, it is not. The October report from the Fed (just released this last week) shows that inflation is actually very much under control, and is actually shrinking.

Interest rates are not currently rising, and are actually quite low. Again, though - we agree that, sooner or later, we have to pay the piper in terms of the runaway debt. China has bought so much of the US debt that we may all soon be eating with chopsticks. That is NOT a good thing.

The question with Obamas policies is, over time, will they actually begin to shrink the debt? The truth is that, right now, none of us truly KNOW the answer to that question. We do, however, KNOW what happens when you have unchecked deficit spending, coupled with massive tax cuts for the wealthiest of our society and the corporations that they own. The answer is not pretty. We KNOW that.

[congressman]

We give too much credit to presidents and their role in making laws and policy. They obviously sign them, but the truth is.. With tax politcy, it was the Democratic Controlled house that originated, allowed, and passed, every tax rate setting piece of legislation under Reagan. As it was the Republican controlled house that set tax policy and spending priorities for the last 6 years of Clintons tenure. Those who study the federal government will know that presidents are spokes people and commanders of the military. Besides that, they are typically restricted by Congress...

The House Ways and Means committe is quite possibly the most powerful body in government. The president has little power to 'balance a budget', or to set policy. History shows this. And let me make it clear, Clinton didn't ever 'balance the budget'. He signed a balanced budget that wasn't drastically different than the one he submitted to Congress. These are 'blueprints' with exact numbers, but not, and let me repeat, NOT the budgets that pass. No president has his budget passed. Only used as a guide, and most often not even that.

[Hoot Gibson]

No response to my question about the personal attacks, eh?

Okay, then - we'll move on.

To be honest, I really couldn't care less if you believe that I am a fiscal conservative. I know what I am, and I really am not seeking your approval. If you want to pretend that Bush was a "scrooge" compared to Obama, then this appears to be yet another area where you simply are not going to face reality. Bush took the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion dollars. That's an increase of just under 100%.

On the day Obama took office, the national debt was (as stated above) $10.6 trillion. As of today, it is $11.9 trillion. That is an increase of just over 10%. Now, I'm no genius, but I believe that 10% is exactly one tenth as much as 100%. So much for your claim about "Scrooge". Your desparate need to villainize Obama is clouding your ability to think. Let it go.

Apparently we agree that the idea of deficit spending cannot be allowed to go unchecked. It is very possible that inflation will soon soar, however, at this point in time, it is not. The October report from the Fed (just released this last week) shows that inflation is actually very much under control, and is actually shrinking.

Interest rates are not currently rising, and are actually quite low. Again, though - we agree that, sooner or later, we have to pay the piper in terms of the runaway debt. China has bought so much of the US debt that we may all soon be eating with chopsticks. That is NOT a good thing.

The question with Obamas policies is, over time, will they actually begin to shrink the debt? The truth is that, right now, none of us truly KNOW the answer to that question. We do, however, KNOW what happens when you have unchecked deficit spending, coupled with massive tax cuts for the wealthiest of our society and the corporations that they own. The answer is not pretty. We KNOW that.

Earth to Frances - A 10% increase in the national debt (a number that greatly understates the impact of Obama's impact on ourdebt) in less than one year is a pretty hefty increase. A 10 percent increase in the national debt per year would result in its growth to $20.66 trillion by 2016. Fortunately, Barack Obama will not be anywhere near the Whitehouse in 2016 but the financial mess that he is creating will. It is also likely that Republicans will retake control of the House in 2012 and put a halt to Obama's wild spending spree.

The bigger problem is that Obama is trying to ram through budget busting, economy crippling measures like "universal" healthcare and cap and trade legislation while his party still controls Congress. The currently forecast budget deficits are based on some very rosy economic scenarios that are very unlikely while a socialist occupies the presidency.

I predict that liberals will be fighting to keep Obama off the list of the five worst presidents ever by the time he leaves office. Jimmah may live long enough to lose his title as the worst living president and the worst living former president.

[Hoot Gibson]

We give too much credit to presidents and their role in making laws and policy. They obviously sign them, but the truth is.. With tax politcy, it was the Democratic Controlled house that originated, allowed, and passed, every tax rate setting piece of legislation under Reagan. As it was the Republican controlled house that set tax policy and spending priorities for the last 6 years of Clintons tenure. Those who study the federal government will know that presidents are spokes people and commanders of the military. Besides that, they are typically restricted by Congress...

The House Ways and Means committe is quite possibly the most powerful body in government. The president has little power to 'balance a budget', or to set policy. History shows this. And let me make it clear, Clinton didn't ever 'balance the budget'. He signed a balanced budget that wasn't drastically different than the one he submitted to Congress. These are 'blueprints' with exact numbers, but not, and let me repeat, NOT the budgets that pass. No president has his budget passed. Only used as a guide, and most often not even that.

Well said, Congressman. However, I do give Clinton credit for working with Republicans to sign some good legislation into law. George W. Clinton and Bill Clinton both passed bipartisan legislation in their first year in office, while Obama cannot even get anything done with a heavily Democratic Congress. When he loses control of the House next year, I do not believe that Obama's arrogance will allow him to compromise with Congress to pass legislation. I will welcome the return of gridlock to Washington.

[Squid]

Earth to Frances - A 10% increase in the national debt (a number that greatly understates the impact of Obama's impact on ourdebt) in less than one year is a pretty hefty increase. A 10 percent increase in the national debt per year would result in its growth to $20.66 trillion by 2016.

Earth to Hooterboy - you are now condeming Obama for what you THINK might happen. If you can get your foot out of the stirrup, get down off that horse and join the rest of the world. You want to project his spending out to what it MIGHT be, and he hasn't even been in office for one year yet? Holy cow. We are just now beginning to see the effects of the stimulus efforts. Can you at least wait until the man has finished his first cup of coffee before condemning him?

Fortunately, Barack Obama will not be anywhere near the Whitehouse in 2016 but the financial mess that he is creating will.

He'll be on the way out the door in 2016. And, just in case you didn't notice, the financial mess was created before he took office - or didn't you notice that first $10.6 trillion dollars in the national debt? Even for a myopic apologist like you, that's a pretty big number, with a lot of zeros.

It is also likely that Republicans will retake control of the House in 2012 and put a halt to Obama's wild spending spree.

Wow. You are farther down the path of denial than I thought. You didn't even bother to say "might take control ...". I'm guessing that you're one of the guys that bought into Karl Rove telling the RNC not to worry in both of the last elections - that his numbers were adding up nicely for the Republicans. hh:

The bigger problem is that Obama is trying to ram through budget busting, economy crippling measures like "universal" healthcare and cap and trade legislation while his party still controls Congress.

Now isn't that a pickle!! The party that won the election is attempting to put their policies in place! Your use of hyperbole to describe the policies that you don't like is kinda funny, but hey - you're hurting right now.

The currently forecast budget deficits are based on some very rosy economic scenarios that are very unlikely while a socialist occupies the presidency.

... and that would differ from the economic scenarios used by W (and every other President) in what way? W was so out of touch with reality that he was telling us that the economy was in great shape, even as his absurd tax cuts and deficit spending were taking us swirlging down the toilet. Try again.

I predict that liberals will be fighting to keep Obama off the list of the five worst presidents ever by the time he leaves office. Jimmah may live long enough to lose his title as the worst living president and the worst living former president.

I'll put as much stock in that prediction as I do your earlier claim that you'll be back in control in 2012. I hope you'll understand why it'll be a while before I'll be asking you to pick my lottery numbers for me.

[Squid]

I will welcome the return of gridlock to Washington.

Spoken like a true obstructionist that sees himself as one of Hannity's "Great Americans".