Reagan and the Contemporary Republican Party

DiscussãoPolitical Conservatives

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Reagan and the Contemporary Republican Party

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

1Bretzky1
Jun 15, 2012, 3:31pm

Ronald Reagan famously once said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Bruce Bartlett, who's not exactly a fan of the current incarnation of the Republican Party, has an article in the Fiscal Times dealing with the idea of whether Reagan would be able to lead today's party. Not surprisingly his answer is no; he feels that he'd be thrown overboard as an apostate.

While I think Bartlett's argument is a little overblown, I do think that far too many Republicans would look at Reagan today in the same way they look at Romney: as someone who they tolerate, not as someone who they see as a leader. Not that Romney is in the same category of leader as Reagan was, but he is someone who, if allowed to be himself, could actually be a decent president in the mold of Bush-41 or Eisenhower. Reagan was allowed to be himself in office. He wasn't threatened with excommunication every time he sought to compromise with Democrats on an important issue that needed a resolution. In other words, Republicans of the 1980s did not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Unfortunately, there are too many Republicans today who believe than anything less than 100% isn't good enough and are far too willing to run the country off the rails even if they can get 70% of what they want.

2barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:37am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

3Bretzky1
Jun 15, 2012, 7:36pm

The question isn't whether the GOP is too far to the right. It's whether the Democrat Party is too far to the left. Obama would give Wilson and FDR a run for their money.

It's not really a question of being too far left or too far right, it's a question of a willingness to work with the other side to do things that must be done for the sake of the country. If you can make a deal in which you incrementally make things better, then you do it. The current mood of the Republican Party simply won't allow for that though. For too many Republicans today, any deal that sees the Democrats get something they want is automatically a bad deal no matter what concessions the Democrats make. Not only is that attitude immature, but it's harmful to the country as well.

And as Bartlett says, the current Republican Party would be no warmer toward Reagan today than it is toward Romney, primarily because Reagan believed in compromise and in getting things done. He believed that getting a deal done that made things incrementally better was better than getting no deal at all. That simply cannot be said of today's Republican Party.

4BTRIPP
Jun 15, 2012, 8:03pm

Re. "Ronald Reagan famously once said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him."

Funny ... that's sort of how I feel about the Republican party. I was a life-long Republican, and still have never voted for a Democrat other than Richard M. Daley, but when the GOP saddled George H.W. Bush with Dan Quayle as a blatant sop to the Religious Reich Right (as opposed to, say, Jack Kemp), I didn't feel comfortable in their ranks any longer. It's lonelier over in the Libertarian Party (well, we do have Wayne Allyn Root, and he's always fun!), but I don't have to explain why bronze-age mythologies are steering policy anymore.

I guess I want to live in a world where Penn Jillette could be President!

 

5Carnophile
Editado: Jun 15, 2012, 10:58pm

>1 Bretzky1:, 3

I don't know what you're referring to with the Republicans-never-compromise thing, and don't want to get into an argument about it, but as to Republicans' support for Reagan:

Remember that his presidency took place just after the shitty Carter years and, more importantly, during the Cold War. And we didn't know the Cold War was about to end. (Indeed, it ended significantly because of Reagan.) It is easy to forget this in retrospect. But I just read a sci-fi novel from the early 1980s (Ender's Game), which seems to be set 200 years in the future. In that novel, the Warsaw Pact is occasionally mentioned as a strategic threat to the Western world. Nobody predicted the sudden collapse of the Soviet Empire circa 1990. When Reagan was elected that would have been regarded as the most outrageous of fantasies.

Anyway, my point is this: when Reagan took office, the Communist world was aggressive, confident, and expanding. Given that, it was easier for conservatives to compromise on other things (like the run-up of the debt) for the sake of addressing a serious threat.

6lawecon
Jun 16, 2012, 12:51am

~3

I think that, perhaps, you are working from a false premise. If you goal is absolute power, compromise and "getting things done," other than getting you and your party in a position of absolute power, are not desirable. They do not promote the goal.

Other groups in the past have worked to turn their societies into "partacracies." It is nothing new.

7barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:37am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

8Bretzky1
Jun 16, 2012, 1:21pm

The sequester deal is a big example of the unwillingness to compromise. If the special budget panel that the House put together failed to come up with a deal, then there was to be automatic cuts in both defense and social spending. That is, both the Republicans and Democrats agreed to give up something if a deal couldn't be worked out. When it came time to implement the deal, though, the Republicans not only backed out by taking defense spending cuts off the table, but they replaced those cuts with more cuts in social spending.

Another example is that Republicans have consistently refused to countenance any increase in revenues as a way to help balance the budget despite the fact that the federal government's tax take is at a post-WWII low. And even despite that, the Democrats in Congress basically agreed to a plan that would cut around $6 in spending for every $1 raised in revenue, but the Republicans balked because they insisted that it all come from spending cuts.

I just don't see how anyone can look at the current crop of Republicans in Congress and not see that the bulk of them are simply taking a my-way-or-the-highway attitude to dealing with Democrats. Are their Democrats who have the same attitude? Of course (Barney Frank is notorious for being uncompromising), but they are far fewer in number.

9lawecon
Editado: Jun 17, 2012, 12:48am

~7
"How much farther to the left do you think the Republicans have to be pushed?"

Well, at least some acknowledgement of the Bill of Rights would be a nice change from the past decade. I am not sure that is Leftist, but it sure isn't the recent Republican interpretation of Rightist. The nicest thing that can be said about recent Republican ideology, and, oh yes, it is ideology, is that it is an abolition of the rule of law in favor of Caesarism (when "their guys" have the reigns of power).

Actually, that is probably a too generous interpretation.

But, of course, it has to be acknowledged that the Democrats are not the ones to do the pushing. After talking a good game in his campaign, Obama has done nothing but consolidate the tyrannies of Bush since his election.

So, there is the choice - forthright advocates of the abolition of the Constitution or those who have their back.

10barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:37am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

11StormRaven
Jun 17, 2012, 11:04am

Can't the same be said about the Democrats, that they are too far left and unwilling to compromise? They got Obamacare through. How much farther to the left do you think the Republicans have to be pushed?

"Obamacare" was modeled on a Republican plan for health care reform that most Republicans were in favor of before it was adopted by their opposition. Citing it as an example of how the Democrats are "too far left" just demonstrates a lack of familiarity with reality.

12barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:37am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

13Bretzky1
Jun 17, 2012, 12:26pm

Well, I guess it depends on who you expect to do the compromising. When I consider that there is a far left administration in charge, I am pleased to see the Republicans hold their ground. If the liberals want to "get something done," they can be the ones doing the moving.

This is what I don't get. The idea that the Obama administration is far left, at least on economic policy, just doesn't conform to reality. In the stream of American history, Obama is a fairly mainstream left-of-center politician. I would argue that there have been presidents to the left of Obama on economic policy, including Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. At most, he's two steps to the left of Bill Clinton, who was about as centrist in terms of economic policy as they come.

14StormRaven
Jun 17, 2012, 3:18pm

12: You know, the whole "I don't like reality so I'll deny it" thing didn't work out so well for Coulter when her ignorance regarding Canada and the Vitenam War was exposed. You may want to reconsider your stance before your lack of knowledge on this subject is exposed in public.

15lawecon
Jun 17, 2012, 6:21pm

~10

"Well, I guess it depends on who you expect to do the compromising. When I consider that there is a far left administration in charge, I am pleased to see the Republicans hold their ground."

Yes, indeed, they are holding their ground:

Let's not let them damn fereigners take jobs from Americans !!

Sharia law is taking over our country.

The President is another of those damn fereigners - let's see his birth certificate !!! (No, not that one, the one from Kenya.)

We're against socialized medicine - but in favor of the AMA cartel, and Medicare, and Medicaid and free prescriptions, and......... !!

What courage!! What defense of freedom!! General Custer would be proud (to say nothing of Michelle Malkin)?

16barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:37am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

17lawecon
Jun 17, 2012, 9:47pm

You left out the Y.

18StormRaven
Jun 18, 2012, 1:08pm

16: I guess you don't like reality. The bulk of the elements of Obamacare, including the individual mandate, were the backbone of Republican policy proposals on health care in the 1990s. The individual mandate was an idea developed by the Heritage Foundation, and touted by, among others, Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich touted the individual mandate as recently as 2007.

http://www.rrstar.com/insight/x760602242/Chuck-Sweeny-ObamaCare-is-a-GOP-idea-th...

http://theweek.com/article/index/226234/the-individual-mandates-republican-roots...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/newts-big-whopper-individual-mandate

The upshot here is that when you say "No, I think you're wrong about that. Nice try, though. Hi-ya." you expose yourself as a completely uninformed individual. There is no question that what is now derided as "Obamacare" was originally a Republican plan. But now, when the Democrats have adopted it as a policy alternative, the Republicans have lurched rightward and abandoned their earlier position. This demonstrates quite concretely that it is not the Democrats who have moved left (if anything, on this issue they have moved right), but the Republicans who have moved right.

In the future, you might want to research topics before you opine on them. It might save you from being publicly humiliated.

19faceinbook
Jun 18, 2012, 4:21pm

http://news.yahoo.com/americas-big-shift-141909254.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/31/37195/republican-filibusters-skyroc...
http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2008/07/28/1702741-obstructionism-senate-repub...

How on earth do some people interpret this stuff ? Or are they pretending it just isn't happening ? The country has shifted to the Right steadly since the end of the 70s..Current Republicans are not interested in governing. They want power. They were for themselves before they were against themselves...for crying out loud...WHO can not see this for what it is ?
It is so very bad that Romney can't even answer simple questions as to what he stands for.....has to check with his handlers first. Sadly he looks like a goof most of the time. Guess it is a little hard to come out as FOR something as a party when you have been AGAINST everything for the past four years. Except of course for lower taxes, which didn't work for Bush but magically will work during the next administration. When asked, Romney has no clue how he would fund further tax cuts. None...zip....zilch.

20barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:37am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

21faceinbook
Jun 18, 2012, 8:43pm

>20 barney67:
Guess the links are all wrong as then....loaded with misinformation. ALL of them are wrong, so that would leave us to believe the opposite of what you have posted, you are the only smart one, the overwhelming amount of info that is contrary to what you have posted previously not withstanding. There were six links posted with information that is directly opposite to what you just said. You pointed out that you believe that one of them is unreliable. All of them are ? Seriously ?
Didn't think any of the links posted in #18 or #19 need much of an explanation but the fact that you seem to think so explains a lot !

Asked another Republican this question just recently...what is it about being confronted with information that is contrary to what you are saying that sets you off into personally attacking someone ?

22barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:38am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

23barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:38am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

24StormRaven
Editado: Jun 19, 2012, 11:38am

If it were true, then why are Republicans fighting Obamacare?

For partisan political advantage and because they were likely being disingenuous when they proposed it in the first place. They flipped because the Democrats adopted their plan, and if they endorsed it they would not have a political issue to harp on in the subsequent elections.

Spite?

That too. The Republican party is currently in obstructionist mode. Policies that they were in favor of when Bush was in office (such as the economic stimulus package) are now derided as "socialism". It would be transparently silly if people like you didn't lap it up without question.

You haven't said what you think is wrong about the articles. Was the individual mandate not proposed by the Heritage Foundation? Was the plan not proposed as an alternative to the Clinton proposal? Did Gingrich not endorse this sort of plan as recently as 2007? Was the Massachusetts plan, now called Romneycare (which is functionally identical to Obamacare), not a Republican initiative? All you've done is stick your fingers in your ears and say "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"

You are embarrassing yourself without even knowing it. You are giving everyone on LT a lesson in the Dunning-Kruger effect.

25barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:38am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

26faceinbook
Jun 19, 2012, 1:31pm

"Before you go into another tirade about how you are so much smarter than every Republican"

That is NOT true....I know some "thinking" Republican's who are disgusted with their Party. They are not only disgusted with the actions of the past 12 years...they are sorely disappointed by the goof ball who is running in the next election. Feel bad for them. They need to demand better from their party but seems that a bunch of knot heads in this country think we can retry old stuff and get new results.

"One man's "obstructionist" is another man's principled stand. The term means nothing."

If you define "principled stand" as trying to make sure Obama is a one term President....I guess it makes sense. Otherwise it is pure horse pucky.

"Your assertion that Republicans are motivated by spite is ridiculous. I am very surprised that you would say such a thing. It's childish and I'm not even going to respond to it."

Childish ?? Like yelling out and calling the President a lier during a speech ? Or developing a comprehensive healthcare plan and deciding not to like it cause you were told not to like it ? OR sticking your finger up in the President's face ? Or bringing this country to it's knees because you think your personal agenda is more important than the good of the whole ? Oh and another mature move....having a panel of ten or so men decide what women should do about their own contraceptive care....that was a real 21st Century move.

"I have said your sources are unreliable. That is what I think of your links."

When my children were young I called this "selective hearing" Kids are all gone but it still applies....my grandkids practice this occasionally. Not sure what it would be called when it involves blind alligience to a Party that is acting rediculous....probably the same.

Typical !

Hi-ya wa-choo Ka-chop (in an adult tone of voice of course)

27faceinbook
Jun 19, 2012, 3:30pm

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/233569-mcconnell-says-romney-should-take-lead...

So the highest held position in the Republican Party is waiting for a governor who hasn't been elected President yet to have an answer to that Party's immigration stance ? How long have some of these yahoo's held office...and they are waiting for someone else to come up with a stance ?
Something is clearly wrong with this picture !

28krolik
Jun 19, 2012, 5:06pm

There's also that Reagan soft-on-terrorism thing. Secret arms sales to the Iranian mullahs, etc...

29krolik
Jun 19, 2012, 5:12pm

Or his administration's lies about Saddam not gassing Kurds. . .

There are various reasons for current Republicans (and those of other stripes) to avoid following Reagan too closely...

30Carnophile
Editado: Jun 19, 2012, 7:47pm

Can someone tell me whether the current liberal position on Romney is that he's a flip-flopper or a rigid ideologue? Thx!

If you define "principled stand" as trying to make sure Obama is a one term President...

Just to remind you, each party always tries to make sure the other party's (first-term) president is a one-term President. It's called "having elections."

31Carnophile
Jun 19, 2012, 5:44pm

Can you believe the Democrats?! First they ran Bill Clinton in 1992, and then, as if that weren't bad enough, they ran Kerry in 2004! Those ideological bastards!!!!!!!!

32barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:38am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

33faceinbook
Jun 19, 2012, 6:26pm

>30 Carnophile:
"Just to remind you, each party always tries to make sure the other party's (first-term) president is a one-term President. It's called "having elections.""

Yes indeed, however there is usually a little more grace time than three months into a presidency and it has never been a Republican Speaker's stated mission as a priority for the next four years, at least not prior to 2009. Covering new territory here ! No governing .....just sit on it till the next election cause we are going to be in charge. Is this good for anybody ? What if both Parties decide never to do anything until they are in charge....completely in charge ? Is that even a Democracy ? Does the Republican Party have any interest in keeping our government a Democracy ? It doesn't appear so.

34Carnophile
Editado: Jun 19, 2012, 8:07pm

there is usually a little more grace time than three months into a presidency

What on earth are you talking about? Presidential elections are held in November every four years.
(Same for gubernatorial elections, except when the Left gets hysterical and tries for do-over, as in Wisconsin.)

it has never been a Republican Speaker's stated mission as a priority for the next four years... No governing .....just sit on it till the next election

As is typically the case with your posts, I can't tell what you're saying. Are you saying Boehner stated that he would block all legislation he could, under the theory that this would prevent Obama from being re-elected?

35lawecon
Jun 20, 2012, 12:29am

~23

"This is so wrongheaded as to require therapy. If it were true, then why are Republicans fighting Obamacare? Spite? You don't think they are smarter than that? It must be great being a genius karate-chopper like you. Ka-chop!"

Now THERE is a good question. Why would a party in a two-party absolute district system ever take a position that is not based on principle? One might almost say, on ideological principle. How could they be imagined to do such a thing?

I guess in your former life as a journalist and whatever else, what you never were was a politician. If you had been a politician you couldn't keep a straight face while asking such a question, since the answer is so crystal clear to anyone who has any familiarity with politics.

Here is the answer: You would take such a position because there are a lot of stupid people among the electorate who will vote for you if you just identify some REALLY EVIL THING (like, ah, Kaiser Bill or Poverty or Communism) and offer yourself to lead a crusade against this GREAT EVIL.

You then gain the office you've been seeking, you can hand out favors to your friends and relatives and receive bribes from those who want favors from you, and everything is rightness and good - so long as those EVIL GUYS don't dispossess you from the cat bird seat.

That is what politics in our type of electoral system is all about. It is ALL that it is about - the piggies who have their snouts in the feeding trough and the piggies who are trying to push them aside and put their snouts in the feeding trough. Ideologues like you just can't deal with the real world (snicker).

36Arctic-Stranger
Jun 20, 2012, 3:10am

As is typically the case with your posts, I can't tell what you're saying. Are you saying Boehner stated that he would block all legislation he could, under the theory that this would prevent Obama from being re-elected?

Maybe not Boehner, but McConnell said, "“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” to the National Journal‘s Major Garrett in October.

37faceinbook
Editado: Jun 20, 2012, 10:09am

>34 Carnophile:
Sorry......Was McConnell not Boehner...should have made that clear.

""“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,”

Would like it if you could explain to me how this sentence speaks of our financial problems, healthcare crisis or our crumbling infastructure. The sentence does make sense given the record number of fillibusters and the fact that the Republicans are on record as voting against their own bills.
Are we now to be only governed by the Right with the option of nothing happening at all unless we do it their way ? Would like a definition as to how this fits into a Democracy. If a few men can buy a party....is this a Democracy ?

Did you NOT hear this from McConnell ?? and if you did hear him say it how on earth can you not connect the dots ? What is going on makes perfect sense in the context of what senior Republican party members have stated they were going to do. and it is NOT Obama's fault. This isn't only costing ME and the Democrats in this country...this is costing you and most Republicans as well.
If you haven't heard this little gem from McConnell than your opinions are uninformed and mean nothing ! Unless of course you can define McConnells sentence as meaning something other than it appears to mean.

They are like little kids on a playground with only one baseball. The kid who owns the ball isn't going to play unless they play by his rules....and he will not compromise on his rules. He will take his damn ball and go home. Nobody is going to play. Not even himself....putz !! Nice ! And they are still getting paid....

38Carnophile
Editado: Jun 20, 2012, 10:43am

>36 Arctic-Stranger:, 37
Again, each party always tries to prevent the other party's president from being re-elected. Neither of you has provided any evidence whatsoever that Republicans are blocking legislation in order to prevent Obama from being re-elected.

If you haven't heard this little gem from McConnell than your opinions are uninformed and mean nothing ! Unless of course you can define McConnells sentence as meaning something other than it appears to mean.

This is exactly what you're doing. I interpret it to mean what it says, nothing more or less. Whereas you seem to be interpreting

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”

to mean,

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president, and for that reason we will oppose legislation we otherwise would have supported on the theory that this will damage Obama politically.”

And you accuse me of misinterpreting it?!

how this sentence speaks of our financial problems, healthcare crisis or our crumbling infastructure.

Brace yourself; this is going to be a shock: Republicans think Obama won't solve those problems and will actually make them worse. An example would be the "financial problem" of the national debt, the growth of which under Obama is a big issue for Republicans. That's the whole point. If you aren't aware of this then, ahem, your opinions are uninformed and mean nothing.

39Carnophile
Jun 20, 2012, 10:41am

I also think getting Obama's ass out of the White House is currently the overriding political priority. He's a miserable fuck-up of a president.

What's the problem?

40StormRaven
Jun 20, 2012, 10:43am

An example would be the "financial problem" of the national debt, the growth of which under Obama is a big issue for Republicans.

Which, under Bush, wasn't a problem. Even though the national debt grew at a much faster rate under Bush II than under Obama. This is the sort of about face that undermines the credibility of Republican claims to be making "principled stands".

The willingness of the Republican members of Congress to pass a budget that required borrowing and then bring the country to the brink of defaulting on its debts rather than allowing the borrowing that their budget mandated take place makes all of their claims to fiscal responsibility hollow and empty.

(As a side note, I'll point out that the largest holder of Federal debt is the Social Security fund. By imperiling repayments on debts, the Republicans threatened the Social Security trust fund, which they claim to care so very much about).

41faceinbook
Jun 20, 2012, 12:01pm

> 38

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president, and for that reason we will oppose legislation we otherwise would have supported on the theory that this will damage Obama politically."

This is what they've done!!!!!! I don't have to interpret MacConnells original sentence at all....they have shown the entire country what he meant by what he said.

otherwise explain the fillibusters, the bills voted against even though they are Republican bills....what is so difficult to understand about this ? If it was all about fiscal responsibility....Bush would not have made a second term cause he spent like a wild man. You see, people don't care when the plastic is being swiped (2000 thru 2008) but when the statement comes due they whine like babies. Obama did not create that entire statement and he may not have done all of the right things but that is beside the point, (not to mention he has had no cooporation what so ever) until those responsible for a good deal of the overspending start acting like they know they made a mistake...why in the heck would they change their ways. Not their fault after all.

Read post number 40 !!! I do not get it ! Seriously, it would seem that some people just woke up on Nov. 5th 2008 and listened only to the rhetoric from the Right since then. Forgot all about the eight prior years and only hear what they want to hear. Which leaves them totally incapable of connecting the dots on much of anything other than "Obama Bad...Conservative Good" Even though the conservative they've chosen to take over, they don't much like in the first place.

Not sure how with all of the information avaiable how some individuals can remain so ignorant of the facts ? Especially those who would ridicule people of religious faith for adhereing to false truths and made up theories. They themselves are doing exactly the same with politics. Creating their own story and sticking to it no matter how often most everything that is happening points in the direction of the opposite.

42barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:38am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

43faceinbook
Editado: Jun 20, 2012, 12:49pm

>42 barney67:
Conveniant...if you can not decipher them than you need not address them.

Guess it stands to figure that the majority is full of bunk while only the two really know what is going on. Much like those you are defending, you are not addressing the points being posted. You are attacking the poster on a personal level. A good way to stop a conversation and once that happens I suppose you count yourself as victorious but for the most part, you look like you have no premise for not being aware of what is going on other than a refusal to acknowledge the issues.

Going out to see if the faires in my flowerbed are in need of some water....nobody believes they are there but as I am perfectly able to "think for myself" and I know I've seen them, well heck, then they must be there !

44StormRaven
Editado: Jun 20, 2012, 1:16pm

42 et. al. -- Broken punctuation, broken grammar, broken thoughts, outbursts of emotion, fragments of clichés -- your posts are too much of a mess to decipher. Carnophile is the only one here who seems to know how to think for himself.

deniro, your post is #42, and is a perfect description of your posts. Stick your head in the ground all you want, but like Anne Coulter on Canada and Vietnam, you are simply dead wrong. Keep shouting slogans and refusing to confront the reality that the individual mandate, like most of what became Obamacare, was originally a Republican initiative (here's an article from Forbes that lays this out in detail: (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of...). It makes you look even more unhinged than usual.

45Carnophile
Jun 20, 2012, 1:13pm

>40 StormRaven:
the national debt grew at a much faster rate under Bush II than under Obama.

Er, no.

Change in the debt on Bush's 8-year watch: 85.5%.
Change in the debt on Obama's 3.5-year watch SO FAR: 48.5%
Change under Obama, 8-year extrapolation based on current growth rate: 147% net growth!

Notes:
1. Debt data from the Treasury web site.
2. Extrapolation of growth rate uses correct compounding, not a linear approximation.
3. This is actually being gentle with Obama since he has only been in office 3 years and 4.5 months, not 3 years and six months. By giving him the extra month and a half, I’m making the growth per time unit seem a little lower than it actually is.

Neither party has actually given enough attention to the debt until it recently started growing so fast. If anything, I think they still think too little about it.

46Carnophile
Editado: Jun 20, 2012, 1:17pm

>42 barney67:
(Blush.)
Yeah, I usually just skim her posts, for precisely those reasons.

47Carnophile
Jun 20, 2012, 1:17pm

(As a side note, I'll point out that the largest holder of Federal debt is the Social Security fund. By imperiling repayments on debts, the Republicans threatened the Social Security trust fund, which they claim to care so very much about).

Gosh, wasn't there a recent Republican president who wanted to significantly reform Social Secruity with private accounts, etc.? I'm trying to think of who that was... think, think, think...

48Carnophile
Jun 20, 2012, 1:19pm

>41 faceinbook:
This is what they've done!!!!!! I don't have to interpret MacConnells original sentence at all....they have shown the entire country what he meant by what he said. otherwise explain the fillibusters, the bills voted against even though they are Republican bills.

Where do you get that they're blocking legislation to hurt Obama? Like no one ever blocks legislation because they disagree with it?

the bills voted against even though they are Republican bills.
So they're trying to hurt their fellow Republicans?

49StormRaven
Jun 20, 2012, 1:20pm

Gosh, wasn't there a recent Republican president who wanted to significantly reform Social Secruity with private accounts, etc.? I'm trying to think of who that was... think, think, think...

Yes, but even if it had passed, the largest holder of federal debt would still be the Social Security trust fund, which would not have been affected at all by Bush's proposal. In other words, your argument is irrelevant.

50faceinbook
Jun 20, 2012, 1:56pm

>48 Carnophile:
"the bills voted against even though they are Republican bills.
So they're trying to hurt their fellow Republicans?"

That is not the point...the point is that they are hurting this country as a whole. Not to mention the damage they are doing to their own party. I've mentioned before that their are "thinking" Republican's out there and they are not happy with what is going on.

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/republicans/republicans-consistently-vote-agai...

Yes....where have you been ? It is not about governing for the current Republican lawmakers The party has been about obstructionism since Obama took office. You can feel free to call it governing but you are feeling the affects the same as anyone else. Call it anything you want but it is a new way of not letting anything be accomplished even if it means being against what they were for. Doesn't make the least bit of sense unless you look at what is really going on. Of course, you can continue not to look at it at all. Again, you look uniformed !

51lawecon
Jun 20, 2012, 8:20pm

~42

"42 et. al. -- Broken punctuation, broken grammar, broken thoughts, outbursts of emotion, fragments of clichés -- your posts are too much of a mess to decipher."

You do realize that the post you are referencing is your own post?

52Arctic-Stranger
Jun 20, 2012, 9:12pm

Sounds like the "et. al." refers to all his posts.

53barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:38am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

54lawecon
Jun 21, 2012, 2:26am

You just can't get the complete words out, can you Deniro? But that is O.K., we know what you mean and understand the compulsions that cause you to say it all the time.

55Carnophile
Jun 21, 2012, 8:57am

>49 StormRaven:
The point is, the more invested people are in private investments instead of the usual SS program, the less they’ll be hurt when the SS fund runs dry.

56Carnophile
Editado: Jun 21, 2012, 9:01am

>50 faceinbook:
I clicked on one link in the link you provided. It turns out that the quote they assert McConnell said is total bullshit. Here is what the piece you linked says:
Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), “We now know that was a mistake, we didn‘t say it was at the time, or even think it was at the time when President Bush did it, but now that President Obama‘s doing it—even on taxes, Republicans are now opposed to the one thing we fought for sure they were definitely for.”
I clicked through to the link, which contains nothing like that quote. Checking to see if it was a complete fabrication, I did some Google. It turns out someone did say that: Barney Frank said it! (Though he may have been quoting Obama; it’s hard to tell from the transcript.) Note: Neither Barney Frank nor Barack Obama is Mitch McConnell. So is the rest of the article as accurate as that piece of BS?

Anyway, all that article shows, even if we take it at its word about the rest of the stuff, is that there is flip-flopping by politicians, which is par for the course. Their argument that the flip-flopping occurred because Obama did this that and the other thing is nothing but post hoc ergo propter hoc. Politicians? Flip-flopping? No way!

Cf. John Kerry on an Iraq war funding bill, “I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”

And Obama himself flip-flopped on closing Guantanamo. During the 2008 campaign, he was all for closing it. Then, after Obama got elected, he changed his mind! He’s obviously just doing that in order to hurt Obama! Er, wait a minute...

57Carnophile
Jun 21, 2012, 9:00am

Alright kids, I'm off for a long weekend. Try to use the extra time to do some fact-checking.

58faceinbook
Editado: Jun 21, 2012, 9:50am

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIOWH.NPRk0ABZ37w8QF;_ylu=X3oD...;

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIDKIONPXyAAHUb7w8QF;_ylu=X3oD...;

Get real ! Start paying attention.....the party you are backing have been yammering this stuff since day one of Obama's presidency. If you are unaware of this, you look foolish. Your post has nothing to do with what this is all about.

You can add Bachmann to the list of "one term" president yammering....as well as the Party Head Ruch Limbaugh. Doesn't matter what the country is going through or how long you "sit on it".. One Term President is the goal.

Let me just add that Mr Limbaugh makes a point in the second link. If indeed it is about Socialism and the deadly fear some have for anything that may look socialistic...I would respect that. However, coupling the fact that these statements were indeed made and then they went ahead and voted against themselves, fillibustered a record amount of times and continue to offer no solutions other than to take stuff away from those who have little to give, it stands to reason they meant what they said and will accomplish it at any cost.

59faceinbook
Jun 21, 2012, 9:35am

>56 Carnophile:
Don't even care if they flip-flop, if they were doing something but they are not. They are obstructing and it hurts everyone, no matter which party you agree with.

When you get back from your extended weekend....you may wish to do some fact checking of your own since I can not believe anyone would vote for a party and not understand exactly what they stand for. But then again, if one allows Limbaugh or Beck do the thinking.....reacting is far easier and seemingly more satisfying, since many Conservatives are adhereing to this method of "informed" voting.

60barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

61StormRaven
Jun 21, 2012, 11:38am

60: Well, she's busy talking to a conservative who has divorced himself from reality and thinks that saying "hi-ya" is the height of wit. That's probably most of her problem.

62barney67
Jun 21, 2012, 11:48am

61 -- How chivalrous. I'll check out that reality thing.

63Arctic-Stranger
Jun 21, 2012, 1:32pm

56, 57 How is YOUR fact checking going?

64barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

65faceinbook
Jun 21, 2012, 2:56pm

>64 barney67:
"Q: What kind of Republicans are extremists, racists, ideologues, pyschopaths, radicals, weirdos, hicks, idiots, elitists, prudes, potato-chip double-dippers, and meanies?

A: Today’s Republican"

How else do you explain what is going on with Republican lawmakers ? One would think if conservatives are tired of hearing this kind of thing they would decide to regain their senses, acknowledge that this country is divided, always will be and that the only way forward is through compromise.

66Carnophile
Jun 26, 2012, 4:21pm

>58 faceinbook:
The YouTube vids you provided just have Republicans saying they regard voting Obama out of office as the highest political priority. I know you don't agree, but what's illegitimate about this?

If you are unaware of this, you look foolish.
One of us does.

Your post has nothing to do with what this is all about.
Jesus, you need to look in the mirror.

Doesn't matter what the country is going through or how long you "sit on it".. One Term President is the goal.

The whole point is the belief that the country is going through what it's going through largely because of his policies, and/or his policies have made pre-existing problems worse, and/or that more of those policies would make things even worse. You keep trying to argue, it seems, that daring to have policy disagreements with Obama is in some way democratically illegitimate.

67Carnophile
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 4:31pm

they went ahead and voted against themselves
Given that Obama's own party Senators wouldn't give him a single vote on the last budget he submitted (or is it the last two? Or three?), I think it's plain that there's something going on here other than: Everyone agrees that Obama's proposals are totally awesome, but obstructionist Republicans are voting them down to hurt him!

fillibustered a record amount of times
Is this true? If it is, maybe because there's a record amount of bad legislation in the offing. If so, then what's the problem with filibustering it?

and continue to offer no solutions other than to take stuff away from those who have little to give
You're free to offer standard leftist boilerplate rhetoric, but disagreeing with such rhetoric isn't illegitimate. It is kind of scary, though, to see the mask come off and have a lefty argue, more or less explicitly, that not adhering to leftist ideas puts someone outside the boundary of civilized politics. Yikes.

68Carnophile
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 4:41pm

They are obstructing and it hurts everyone, no matter which party you agree with.

Okay, I see the problem here. You are literally cognitively incapable of grasping the idea that someone might actually honestly disagree with your notions of good policy.

Given this, I doubt any communication is possible.

Mencken (from memory): "If you don't want to buy Dr. Fraud's Snake Oil, it means you want grandma to die!"

69Carnophile
Editado: Jun 26, 2012, 5:28pm

Ah, I remember when filibusters were legitimate. They were so very legitimate that liberals compared fleeing legislators to a filibuster in order to establish the fleeing's legitimacy. See posts 9 and 56 here, for example.

70faceinbook
Jun 26, 2012, 6:57pm

>69 Carnophile:
Good grief what a bunch of BS ! You deliberately refuse to accept what is going on. Dissenting policy is one thing causing discord and obstructing in another. Maybe you can not admit that you see what is going on but I very much doubt that you can't see it. Or you simply don't really care and that is unforgivable given the state this country is in right now.

"The YouTube vids you provided just have Republicans saying they regard voting Obama out of office as the highest political priority"

They were being questioned as to how they planned on going forward in so far as their jobs were concerned and they did not say anything about VOTING Obama out of office. An entire party has done nothing but do everything they can to make this President a one term President....not a good use of my tax payer dollar. They do not have to agree with his policies but then they need to compromise. The fillibuster has changed since 2008....you can deny this but the evidence is there....those who keep denying this are looking rather foolish.

Forget it.......the knot heads who think they are marching forward in the name of "Freedom" and LESS government (at the same time trying to pass useless voter fraud laws.... 0.04% since 1996 ....looks like another government law telling people what to do to me) don't want to talk or THINK. Been over this before....you are going to see what you want to see no matter what is really there.

Have at it. Is not a winning proposition though....closing one's eyes and "pretending" never really got anyone anywhere. Have a feeling the next election will show just how much this doesn't work. "Snowballs" come to mind. "Hell" is another thought that crops up now and again.

71Arctic-Stranger
Jun 26, 2012, 7:00pm

Some people do not want the system to work, simply because they don't like the system, and if it fails, that proves their point--the the person who runs on the platform that "government is bad" then governs in such a way to prove that point.

72faceinbook
Jun 26, 2012, 7:01pm

>69 Carnophile:
You are aware that the dictionary has a different definition for the term "governing" than for term "bullying" ? Maybe that is the problem. There is a very clear and definate difference between the two. The Right seems to have gotten the mistaken idea that they are one and the same.

73barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

74faceinbook
Jun 27, 2012, 12:59pm

Yes indeed the LIBERAL mind is a closed thing. Always made up and stuck in the confines of the status quo. It is an unbending thought process that govern's the liberal way of life, making them appear to be self serving and at times backward thinking !

>71 Arctic-Stranger:
A principle which would make sense if these same individuals had an alternative. Unfortunately, it stops with failure. Guess after that there is no place to go but up.

75barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

76lawecon
Jun 27, 2012, 2:38pm

~75

Strange, I though "liberal" meant "open" and a conservative was someone who believed in traditions without any critical thought or attempt at abstract justifications. Isn't that what you have always preached?

77barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

78lawecon
Jun 28, 2012, 9:32pm

~77

ROTFL

79barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

80faceinbook
Jun 29, 2012, 2:27pm

>79 barney67:
Standard rejoinder for the unimaginative !

81Carnophile
Jun 29, 2012, 8:44pm

>70 faceinbook:
"The YouTube vids you provided just have Republicans saying they regard voting Obama out of office as the highest political priority"

They were being questioned as to how they planned on going forward in so far as their jobs were concerned and they did not say anything about VOTING Obama out of office.


What are you saying, that they're planning an insurrection?

And in the same post you tell me, You deliberately refuse to accept what is going on.

You need help.

82faceinbook
Jun 29, 2012, 8:59pm

>81 Carnophile:
You sir are not making any sense what so ever. But then, I don't think that your point is about making any sense. Not quite sure what it is but making sense isn't the top priority. What ever ! Have at it if it makes you feel any better.
None are so blind as those who will not see.

83Carnophile
Jun 29, 2012, 9:58pm

Yeah, I'm in stubborn denial about the impending Republican insurrection. Thank God we have people like you whose minds function so lucidly!

84Carnophile
Editado: Jun 29, 2012, 10:11pm

The New York Times on filibusters.

• When Republicans were in the minority, filibusters were an outrageous violation of democracy.

• Then, when Democrats were in the minority, filibusters were an important safeguard of democracy.

• Now that Republicans are in the minority again, filibusters are an outrageous violation of democracy again.

It is exactly like the blatant changes in official Party "truth" from Orwell's 1984. Utterly unbelievable that anyone takes that rag seriously any more.

85lawecon
Jun 29, 2012, 10:19pm

~79

Much better. Now if you will just spell it out you can earn another suspension. Of course, for you perhaps that is a greeting?

86faceinbook
Jun 30, 2012, 8:45am

>84 Carnophile:
It is NOT the filibuster it is the number of filibusters.....it is the level of disrespect for an adminsitration,and any or all who would tend to think along the same lines, which has started at the top and tricked down to threads such as this !
Trying to justify it is kind of like covering one's head with a blanket and saying that everything around them disappears. Like a little kid ! Not sure what a child's reasoning is when doing this but eventually MOST of them out grow it. Unfortuantly, it seems that some do not.
To the list of insanities we can add the comments made by Right wing legislators regarding Justice Roberts who is not supposed to be "Right Wing" although in the hearts and minds of many, the Supreme Court was a done deal...a Right Wing political tool. "I lost a friend"......."Looks like I can't be friends with him" ....childish high school tweets because the Right did not get it's way ! Imagine that....the Right with no power over the Supreme Court ??
Don't agree with Roberts most of the time but he did indeed perserve the integrity of the Supreme Court, for that he deserves my respect.

"What are you saying, that they're planning an insurrection"

Well if you want to put it that way .....Yes. They haven't done it with violence by they have accomplished just that by refusing to do anything.

87Carnophile
Jun 30, 2012, 9:26am

"What are you saying, that they're planning an insurrection"

Well if you want to put it that way .....Yes. They haven't done it with violence by they have accomplished just that by refusing to do anything.


LOL!!! One of us is putting a blanket over the head and thinking childishly. Hint: Not me.

88barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:39am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

89Carnophile
Editado: Jun 30, 2012, 11:54am

Funny how when Republicans are in the majority and Democrats go beyond a filibuster and flee the state, it's legitimate. See your posts 77, 87, 91, 131, and 134 here, for example.

But when Democrats are in the majority and Republicans merely filibuster, it's not legitimate.

How convenient!

90Carnophile
Editado: Jun 30, 2012, 11:55am

Here's how to apply political principle a la faceinbook:

When there's a Republican majority and a Democrat minority blocks legislation, it's either a good thing, or it's a bad thing and the blame lies with Republicans.

But when there's a Democrat majority and a Republican minority blocks legislation, it's a bad thing and the blame lies with... Republicans.

91Carnophile
Editado: Jun 30, 2012, 11:43am

You don't even have to check facts. Just yell, "Republicans are bad!"

What a timesaver!

92lawecon
Jun 30, 2012, 12:07pm

~88

Ah, the great master of English style, the master of the FY, speaks again for the enlightenment of the plebs. We thank you for taking your time to address such as us.

93barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

94lawecon
Editado: Jun 30, 2012, 12:37pm

~93

Yes, I do. After all, you post a lot, and since most everyone thinks what you post is silly, you resort to such a mindless vulgarism a lot. Russell would be proud.

95barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

96lawecon
Jun 30, 2012, 12:46pm

Now, now, shouldn't give away honors to which one is well entitled.

97barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

98lawecon
Jun 30, 2012, 4:11pm

~97

Oh, I'm not passive at all. Ask any of the people who have litigated on the other side of a case where I represent a party.

You, on the other hand, might look up "coherent," "effective" and "critical thought" in a dictionary. It would be an educational experience for you.

99barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

100lawecon
Editado: Jun 30, 2012, 9:19pm

Just did. Saw an older distinguished gentleman with a big grin. Could be he was thinking about this thread.

Strangely enough, he didn't look all that passive. Maybe it was the large staff.

101StormRaven
Jun 30, 2012, 9:59pm

95: Umm, no deniro. lawecon may be generally disliked, but the honor of most disliked poster on LT is a little closer to home for you.

102barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

103StormRaven
Editado: Jul 1, 2012, 11:40am

102: Its funny to see someone projecting as hard as you are accusing other people of projecting.

You're engaged in selection bias. You dislike me (probably because I've shown that many of your comments are ignorant and foolish) and so you see the comments where people disagree with me.

But lets look at some "like" criteria that might be a little more objective. How many LT "friends" do you have? Oh, let's check. Zero. I guess no one likes you. I have a couple dozen, lawecon has not quite as many but a respectable count.

How many public comments have been left on your profile? Zero? I guess no one wants to be seen talking to you. Oh well, I guess your assessment in this case is just as wrong as so many others have proven to be.

104faceinbook
Jul 1, 2012, 11:37am

>102 barney67:
O.K. So I checked on your library shelves. You have 66 books on Christianity and 132 books on Conservatism. Can't help but be a storm of contradiction going on with that mix. Perhaps the ratio should be switched around. Having twice as many books advising one to treat others as they would want to be treated, may be far more beneficial than owning twice as many volumes which explain to you the benefits of self rightousness.

You are sounding like the average Yahoo poster ...... the one's who seem to find nothing good to say about anyone or anything. Start wondering how these people deal with others face to face. Then one realizes that this medium is limited and those who have nothing good to say are usually too cowardly to say it to anyone face to face so they have at it on people they know little about. Was raised better than that. But, it is apparent that Dr Spock wasn't around for the computer age and some parents didn't think it all that important to teach techno manners.

105barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

106barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

107faceinbook
Jul 1, 2012, 1:04pm

>106 barney67:
"It is a difficult thing to disagree without being disagreeable."

I do not believe that to be true...in fact I believe that one can be totally disagreeable even if they tend to agree.

Disagreeing with someone and being disagreeable are two totally different things. But, the fact that you seem to think that they are one in the same explains a lot.

108StormRaven
Editado: Jul 1, 2012, 1:34pm

105: Do you really measure your worth by how many "friends" you have on a web site? That's sad. And nonsense if you think it means anything applied to me. I don't use the "friends" feature. Never have. Also, I don't make many comments. When I do comment and get a reply, they are usually private, therefore invisible to you.

Its the only data available, and the data at hand shows you to be a sad, lonely person projecting their insecurities on those around him. You claimed that lawecon was the least liked member of LT. You then claimed I was as well somehow (I guess the meaning of what a superlative like "least liked" means eludes you). One measure of how "liked" someone is is how willing people are to engage in friendly interactions with them. The measures we have show that no one interacts that way with you, and many people choose to do so with the people you claim are "least liked". Sorry, but once again, facts prove to be your undoing.

Your comment is the equivalent of claiming that "lurkers support you in e-mail". In other words, its worthless puffery. Like so many other of your posts. Have you figured out that you are Anne Coulter saying Canada was involved in Vietnam yet?

109lawecon
Jul 1, 2012, 2:25pm

~105

"103 --- This is childish stuff. Do you really measure your worth by how many "friends" you have on a web site?"

But it is just fine and completely rational to measure one's worth by how much one is "disliked"?

You know, dinero, I have to say this in your favor, you practice what you preach. You preach that no one should become obsessed with consistency (aka "ideology") and you sure aren't obsessed with consistency. In fact, you can't seem to hold a consistent thought for more than a couple of posts. (Incidentally, my aggression says "hi." Unfortunately, he is unable to be his usual robust self in the face of such a pitiful target.)

110BTRIPP
Jul 1, 2012, 7:13pm

(sigh) ... The general tenor in this group makes me all sentimental for the old AOL chatroom "flame wars"!

Really ... the run-of-the-mill Talk group on L.T. is so full of "delicate flowers" that they run screaming at the first hint of biting sarcasm, let alone full obscenity-laced broadsides.

While I'm semi-retired from the snark-trolling biz, it does my cold black heart good to see a corner of this site where people just plain don't like each other and are willing to make a show of that distaste, over and over again. If I didn't hate getting greasy fingerprints on the papers on my desk, I'd make popcorn!

 

111lawecon
Jul 1, 2012, 7:24pm

~110

You should feel welcome any time, but only if you share the popcorn and have available salt along with the butter.

112barney67
Editado: Mar 11, 2013, 8:40am

Mensagem removida pelo autor.

113StormRaven
Jul 2, 2012, 9:30am

I have to defend myself against the bullies who start them.

People telling you that you are wrong is not "bullying" you. You really need to climb down off the cross you've nailed yourself to and join reality.

114faceinbook
Jul 2, 2012, 11:16am

From earlier posts:

"Look up something else in that psychological book: projection."

"My God, the insecurity…just drop the subject and move on."

" But it is interesting, neverthless, to see your pathological capacity for self-delusion."

" Read a psychology book and look up "passive-aggressive."

"How chivalrous. I'll check out that reality thing."

"26 and 27 are just hysterical nonsense."

Sounds like a therapy session gone horribly awry !!!

115StormRaven
Jul 2, 2012, 11:22am

114: That's a pretty good summary of deniro's combination of a persecution complex and attempts to bully others (while falsely claiming to be bullied himself).