CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Is turd polishing a hobby of yours?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Liberal Class vs. The Working Class: The Party is Over!
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
Is turd polishing a hobby of yours?
That's an odd & coprolitic turn of phrase, so I'll just make a relevant claim:
People are seldom all good or all bad (heresy on RF, I know).
Examples:
As much as I loathed Nixon, I give him credit for ending the draft.
As much as I opposed Carter's many agendas, I thought he was a really decent guy.
As much as I loath Clinton, I recognize that he is wicked smart (if weak willed).
As much as I disrespect Obama, I do find him cute.
Finding merit in one's foes helps one avoid the failings of certainty & chauvinism.
Last edited:
Will Campbell
Member
Saved some money? Are you serious?
These historical figures are recorded in the bureau of the debt:
......................................Total U S Debt.......................................
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion....Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Yes, of course.
Consider the costs if the cold war had continued.
Further, consider the costs if the cold war actually became hot.
This almost happened once.....at least once that we know of.
So we have alternatives:
1) Massive military spending which arguably played a role in ending the cold war.
2) Massive military spending for a continued cold war, & possibly far greater loss if war erupted.
Your very many figures address #1, but you utterly ignored #2.
Moreover, you muddy the analytical waters by combining Reagan & 2 Bushes.
There's always some question about how much of the deficit is due to the prez, & how much is
due to Congress or even extra-governmental factors (eg, 9/11), but Bush's (#41) reign saw the
worsening of a budget trend which was improving under Reagan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Budget_Deficit_1971_to_2001.png
I presume your argument is from the perspective of Dem vs Pub. Since I'm a third party
type (Lib), I look more at individual presidents rather than as one party vs another.
Last edited:
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Actually the economic writings of the USSR's demise were already on the wall in the early 70's, and it was Carter who (knowing this) instigated the idea of literally outspending (with taxpayer monies) the failing communist economy into oblivion. It was one of the last things Carter signed before leaving office; just helping the USSR economy implode itself, but Carter wasn't in a particular rush to get it done in his term (even if he had been re-elected). Reagan just had the sense to keep Carter's idea going....although he upped the cost scale considerably, and gutted the tax base needed for that war too (sort of foreshadowing Bush Jr, eh?).
Reagan also didn't carry on the other major push of the Carter administration, which was to convert over to a more self-sustained energy efficient national power system......and we all now see where that has gotten America involved in wholesale death and massive costs. :yes:
BTW, the idea of making a big opponent spend itself into a gluttonous and early grave was the same tactic Bin Laden used in Afghanistan against the USSR (with some US funded weapons and training of course). :flirt:
Bin Laden also made it clear that he was using (and his cohort still is) that tactic on the US. Spend any of your tax dollars on the US military lately?? Yeah, we all did. :yes: A LOT of them. :sarcastic
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
- Most of Carter's agenda was sensible and wise.....AND he has clearly shown that he is a genuinely nice guy.
- Clinton is a weak-willed short-sighted skirt chaser (though he's pretty old now)....but he was able to reverse a tiny fraction of Reagan's economic failure and send our economy skyward, while also amping up and retraining our military to fight with more guerrilla/insurgency techniques (at least until Bush Jr. trashed it again).
- No one who voted for Obama actually cares about his charisma (seriously). His intelligence and ideas are what pulled my vote from the more right-ish Hillary to Obama. Although I figured that some right-wingnut would have assassinated him by now, NOBODY foresaw how much conservative politicking and nation-destroying devisiveness the righties were willing to flog their own country with, in order to halt all of the progress that Obama's campaigns had promised.
Every time I see one of those bumper stickers that asks "How's that Hopey Changey thing working for you?". I picture a playground bully snarking out "How's that breathing thing working for you?" while standing on the little kid's throat.
Will Campbell
Member
What you need to realize is that the common denominator is tax rates on the rich. Reagan slashed them and the debt went up. Bush41 idled with essentially the same rates Reagan slashed to. Bill Clinton raised tax rates on the rich and the debt ceased and even created four years of surplus. That dumbassed W. Bush didn't much more than get seated in the oval office till he cut tax rates for the rich not once but two times using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition then began to borrow money from foreign banks, Communist Chinese banks for the first time in our history then proceeded to double the debt again.
Folks ramble about the debt under Obama. The first year he took over the annual interest on the existing debt was $451 billion......almost as much as the defense budget. Republicans are rapidly running out of lies to support their tax cuts and increased spending. I was a Republican for thirty years but after voting for Reagan one time I saw the light. Ever since 1980 the gap between the haves and have nots has increased at an unbelievable rate. Here it is:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So many people payed a lot of attention to what Reagan said but all too little about what he actually did. As President, he was a far better at acting than when he was an actor. Also, Republicans today seem to forget that when he left office his approval rating was quite low, and at least part of that was due to the Iran-Contra scandal.
No argument there at all. But you aren't addressing the cost savings of ending the cold war.
Btw, the Reagan era did see then end of Jimmy Carter's economic "malaise"/"stagflation".
Those would all be interesting things to discuss, but I don't want to get into Big Two
partisan wrangling. Nothing will be resolved. And I blame both parties for our mess.
Last edited:
Will Campbell
Member
Not to mention that the last year or so he was talking to house plants and Nancy and her astrologer were acting as his advisors.
Consider:
- Reagan had a disease, Alzheimer's, at an age which few (percentage-wise) live to see.
- Astrology is certainly loopy IMO, but no more so than seeking advice from purveyors of religious myths.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, although I definitely cut him some slack on that as my father had Alzheimer's, so I can relate to just how difficult that is.
From a personality perspective, I really like Reagan, but he was not very strong in the area of truth-telling-- but then, which politician is. Plus for being the "Great Communicator", he really tended to have a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease, and how many times did a spokesman of his have to go to the press the next day after Reagan said something to explain "What the President was trying to say...", or words to that effect. I saw a list a few weeks ago from a website that listed many of the "Reaganisms" that someone posted, and did reading that bring back so many "memories".
Heh
I remember when Reagan and his supporters tried to take credit for ending apartheid in South Africa.
This despite the clear facts that the USA, Israel, and South Africa were a tight little UN voting bloc. And the USA consistently denied visas to opponents of the "legitimate" SA government.
Tom
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think we need more parties to choose from. Like Canada.
And so....Heh
I remember when Reagan and his supporters tried to take credit for ending apartheid in South Africa.
This despite the clear facts that the USA, Israel, and South Africa were a tight little UN voting bloc. And the USA consistently denied visas to opponents of the "legitimate" SA government.
Tom
Our Teflon President set a new standard of big (media savvy) lies. I voted for him myself. Carter was a weiney. He thought Christian values would matter in Washington. Look what that got us.
I see the legacy of Reagan as the big lie. Bigger the better. GWB took it to new heights. The USA under GWB managed to cut the tax rate, borrow unbelievable amounts from the grandkids, lose two wars, and still melt down the economy. 2008 should have been a banner year but it was the biggest disaster for the USA in living memory.
The big lie now is that it's Obama's fault.
Eta Enter the Tea Party
Tom
Last edited:
Is this a perspective that politicians are either saint or sinner,
the former without flaw, & the latter without any merit?
When did liberals become the elite?
Edit: Let me rephrase to emphasize the rhetoric: Since when did liberals become the elite?
Last edited:
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
When did liberals become the elite?
Edit: Let me rephrase to emphasize the rhetoric: Since when did liberals become the elite?
The liberal intelligentsia have never been considered part of the proletariat. They are the elite in such fields as higher education and they have control over the flow of information in such fields. That control makes them part of the elite.
Will Campbell
Member
I know about alzheimers.......my mother is 101 years old and has been senile for more than two years. When she was 98 she still knew birthdays, addresses, phone numbers etc. for all her five generations of family. Now she doesn't even recognize any of her family and has even forgotten how to stand up or sit down. She never smiles. Caregivers come in and stay with her 10 hours a day. They feed her, bathe her, clothe her, change her diaper and wipe her. I'd rather die tomorrow than to live till I ended up like that. The good news.....she ain't in charge of a damn thing.