US Politics Mega-thread - Page 888

On February 20 2014 09:12 xDaunt wrote:
At $50k per year in a reasonable suburban or even metropolitan environment, you can definitely survive, but you're not living high on the hog at all. You have minimal disposable income, and saving for retirement is difficult. And let's not even talking about finding the money to make a down payment on a house.

On February 20 2014 07:21 Nyxisto wrote:
What I basically want to say is that there is a very huge group of 'ordinary people' that are part of an eroding working class that have not benefited from the economical changes of the last few decades. The democrats seem like a good party for well educated academics and the Republicans seem to be a great choice for an oil tycoon.

But there's an insanely large group of people that have basically fallen off the political grid. Only 58% percent of people who could have voted in the last presidential election actually did. I don't know why people are obsessing over some swing states when there is a giant group of people that's not even voting for anyone.

Problem is these people are not going to vote for stupid laissez - faire policies or supply side economics that are going to hurt them even more, so if the GOP wants to win over some of these people they'd probably have to over-think their ideological position.

On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:


I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done.


My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you.




The Republican's talk tough and then give up.

They keep picking moderate Republicans that NO ONE is excited to vote for.



Funny. But contrary to popular belief, conservatives don't care where you were born (so long as you are a citizen and thus able to run, that is!).

Federal outlays (total spending) rose by 40 percent under Reagan’s first four budgets (fiscal year 1985 vs. Carter’s last budget for fiscal 1981). That was two-and-a-half times faster than the rate of inflation, which rose 16 percent during the same period, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

And far from cutting debt, Reagan borrowed more heavily than previous presidents. In Reagan’s first term, debt owed to the public increased by nearly 91 percent by the end of fiscal year 1985, compared with what it had been at the end of Carter’s fiscal 1981.

On February 20 2014 13:50 Mercy13 wrote:
Okay... but he allowed spending to rise, which is completely anathema to conservatives today.

On February 20 2014 14:03 Introvert wrote:
besides that, he was 10x better for the American people than Carter, who was rightly viewed as weak and demoralizing.

On February 20 2014 14:03 Introvert wrote:


"allowed" is an odd word to use. But was he perfect? No. The reason I brought him up, apart from the record that we could delve into some other time, is that A) people said he couldn't win B) he had to fight the establishment, and C) he was able to communicate his ideas and get people behind him. That's why I brought him up.

He had to deal with a democratic house his entire presidency. And let me say, Tip O'Neill was no John Boehner. Tip fought for what he wanted, helped shut down the government multiple times, and attached irrelevant things to debt ceilings and budgets. Sound familiar? When the democrats aren't whining about it, they're doing it.

If I recall correctly, under Reagan domestic spending saw either a decrease or almost no increase in his 8 years (in terms of GDP %). Most of the large spending came from dems in the House and his military spending. Reagan even wanted to get rid of the DOE, but couldn't- his own party was against it.

So he wasn't perfect (his stance and actions on gun control are unfortunate), but the point is that he actual got in with a solid conservative message and did his darnedest to achieve conservative goals. besides that, he was 10x better for the American people than Carter, who was rightly viewed as weak and demoralizing.

On February 15 2014 22:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

That's a trivial point though. The incentive to make society worse by having more prisoners is way to small to move the needle in any decision making process.

Public prisons involve people with a vested interest in keeping the number of prisoners high as well. Police officers have a vested interest in keeping crime high.

Just because an interest exists doesn't make it a relevant factor.

On February 20 2014 14:22 Cainam wrote:
Is it possible that we're heading towards a place where a third party could rise up? So many people are in a place where neither current party really represents their interests.

On February 20 2014 11:30 Danglars wrote:
Democrats are a good party if you want to call the other guys the party of the rich. That is, it's a great party for envy. The Obamacare rollout has hurt their image as the 'party of smart,' but only a little. Obama's sagging popularity heralds a return to politics as usual, not a reformed political system with a new kind of president.

As much as Democrats have damaged themselves lately, Republicans have hurt their brand more. It's more and more clear they're more interested in damaging tea party candidates in primaries than opposing the Democrats. Of course political participation is falling ... neither party rallies more support to their cause. Your vote becomes more meaningless when neither party represents a change from today's status quo. All the Republicans have going for them is Cruz, Sessions, Lee, Paul, and a handful of others. You can't even trust a reversal of current policies if Republicans win back the Senate and hold the House, giving how much spending and bloat was accomplished in the Bush years.

On February 20 2014 14:23 Mercy13 wrote:


Why is allowed an odd word to use?

It just seems odd to me that conservatives hold a president in such reverence who compromised with Democrats on multiple occasions and presided over a period of increasing deficits and spending. I cannot see the current conservative champions such as Cruz supporting either of those things, whatever the circumstances.

On February 20 2014 15:45 Adreme wrote:


"Party of the rich" becomes more then a line when the budget said party proposes cuts taxes even more for them despite the fact that the rich are the only group doing well right now. You are the party of the rich when you vote to keep oil subsidies companies testified they don't need that cost more then the unemployment insurance you voted to stop extending.

You can call what they other side is doing envy but over 30 years we did an experiment of trickle down economics where the rich were allowed to pay far less in taxes then ever before and the theory was it would trickle down to the rest of us. The end result was of course that that did not happen and that while the middle class and poor kept there wages stagnant the income of the rich exploded in a way that had not happened in the years before.

Thinking that somehow America was not a failed state before the 1980s and wanting to go back to a system that seemed to serve the middle class better before then is not exactly envy but looking at the facts of how things were then to how they are now and going "we screwed up somewhere"

On February 20 2014 15:55 Introvert wrote:

But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool]

On February 20 2014 15:55 Introvert wrote:


It's confusing to you because the common propaganda line is that the Tea Party is against compromise (nevermind it was Obama who said "I will not compromise"). Reagan had the fortitude to fight and actually make real gains. Could he accomplish everything? No. But you can only do so much, especially considering the cold war. He made deals, but unlike today's Republicans, he actually got something from them. The modern republican party just throws a hissy fit then gives Obama 90% of what he wants. It's called the "era of Reagan" for a reason. He did as much as he could. Were Cruz to become president, he wouldn't be able to undo 100 years of progressive garbage, but he could at least slow the advance.

I already explained the deficit to you. He held domestic spending relatively constant while (re)building the military. He made deals to get as much as he could. He did admit, however that his greatest regret after 8 years was the debt. But under his term the economy expanded so quickly that by the 90s there wasn't much of it left. [Edit: NOT what sub40 says. Actually the opposite lolool] Reagan could afford it because of the economic gains. The debt we have now is not his debt, for the most part.

TL;DR he did what he could, as is evidenced by the way the left hates him, while their politicians simultaneously try to claim him.