Smartest Conk in the Room

[kalm]

+1

The bolded part would get Reagan in trouble with the tea party however. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill to pass legislation and keep the country running. I don't think the tea party would be in favor of Boehner or anyone else working with Obama to pass compromise legislation that tries to avert a budget crisis. Pelosi and Reid aren't any better though.

BINGO..!!! ^ above
AND:
I still can't get any Republicans to tell me who exactly is a Goldwater Republican holding an office right now..?

I can honestly say:
Were there a true Goldwater Republican movement - I would be the FIRST to join
Based on what we have in the Whitehouse right now and what the Right is doing to Republicans lately

+1000.

[CID1990]

If the Tea Party was so all-powerful as to merit the end-of-the-world contortions we are seeing from the left, I doubt seriously that we would be seeing a nominee as moderate as Romney.

Last Republican nominees: Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney. The post Reagan nominees are hardly extreme.

The ascendancy of the Tea Party is as much a function of the fact that we have an extreme liberal in the WH as it is that our last Republican president was also a big spender. The Tea Party writing was on the wall loooonnngg before 2008. Bush's low numbers among the Republican base were as much due to his spending habits as they were due to Iraq.

[OL FU]

The only difference between Reagan and the current crop of conservatives is that Reagan was also a practical politician who realized in the situation that he was in he had to compromise. For those who say he was a serial tax raiser, you miss the forest for the trees. Top marginal rate from 70% to 28% is not the sign of a tax raiser. He believed in spending money on defense and did. He cut a deal with the democrats for immediate tax increases and future spending decreases and the spending decreases never came.

Which brings us to another point, the last sentence is exactly why conservatives laugh when democrats offer that same scenario. The tax cuts would be immediate and the spending decreases would be over time and would once again never occur.

Reagan may not be the end all be all that some people portray him as, but as of the moment he is still the most influential president since FDR. We may argue over whether the top marginal rate should 35% or 39.5% but no one, unless they want to get laughed out of the room, argues for 70%.

Perhaps. But still, he raised taxes 11 times (mostly on the middle class) and spent more than all the presidents before him combined, kicking the can down the road for future generations. I'd hate to see what would've happened without the compromise.

Hardly tea party material.

But the myth marches on.

So what was the final result. Tax rates went from 70 to 28%. Yep that is a tax raiser

[OL FU]

If the Tea Party was so all-powerful as to merit the end-of-the-world contortions we are seeing from the left, I doubt seriously that we would be seeing a nominee as moderate as Romney.

Last Republican nominees: Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney. The post Reagan nominees are hardly extreme.

The ascendancy of the Tea Party is as much a function of the fact that we have an extreme liberal in the WH as it is that our last Republican president was also a big spender. The Tea Party writing was on the wall loooonnngg before 2008. Bush's low numbers among the Republican base were as much due to his spending habits as they were due to Iraq.

Very good point. any one that thinks the REpubs overall have gone off the right wing ship, just needs to look at this years ( and many of the previous years) presidential candidates. and you are dead on, the tea party was as much a revolt againts the republican party as anything else. MAy not have been what has been reported on the nightly news, but the biggest lossers due to the tea party are the repubs who spent money like democrat lites

[UNI88]

If the Tea Party was so all-powerful as to merit the end-of-the-world contortions we are seeing from the left, I doubt seriously that we would be seeing a nominee as moderate as Romney.

Last Republican nominees: Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney. The post Reagan nominees are hardly extreme.

The ascendancy of the Tea Party is as much a function of the fact that we have an extreme liberal in the WH as it is that our last Republican president was also a big spender. The Tea Party writing was on the wall loooonnngg before 2008. Bush's low numbers among the Republican base were as much due to his spending habits as they were due to Iraq.

Very good point. any one that thinks the REpubs overall have gone off the right wing ship, just needs to look at this years ( and many of the previous years) presidential candidates. and you are dead on, the tea party was as much a revolt againts the republican party as anything else. MAy not have been what has been reported on the nightly news, but the biggest lossers due to the tea party are the repubs who spent money like democrat lites

+1 for both these posts.

[Chizzang]

So then you're telling me Romney is a Goldwater Republican..?

[Wedgebuster]

So then you're telling me Romney is a Goldwater Republican..?

God Damn, that is some funny shit right there.

[Chizzang]

So then you're telling me Romney is a Goldwater Republican..?

God Damn, that is some funny shit right there.

I'm still waiting for any Republican on this forum to tell me where there is ONE Goldwater Republican holding office
Of course we already all know the answer / which is why no Republican on this forum can name even one

Because their isn't one
Well then why..?

We all know why - but we really hate the answer
The answer is because the Republican Party has REGRESSED on Social Issues
And now they have a guy who belongs to a religion that treat women like cattle and Black people didn't go to heaven until 1978 (oh thank goodness) and women go to the lower of the three heavens (Yeah there are three heavens)...

Of course God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. (Yes there are Mormons on other planets) you can't make this shit up people

They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe.
We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves...

Oh and it gets better...
But first lets ponder the fact this NUT BALL is running for President


sweet

[Ivytalk]

God Damn, that is some funny **** right there.

I'm still waiting for any Republican on this forum to tell me where there is ONE Goldwater Republican holding office
Of course we already all know the answer / which is why no Republican on this forum can name even one

Because their isn't one
Well then why..?

We all know why - but we really hate the answer
The answer is because the Republican Party has REGRESSED on Social Issues
And now they have a guy who belongs to a religion that treat women like cattle and Black people didn't go to heaven until 1978 (oh thank goodness) and women go to the lower of the three heavens (Yeah there are three heavens)..

Of course God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. (Yes there are Mormons on other planets) you can't make this **** up people

They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe.
We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves...

Oh and it gets better...

But first lets ponder the fact this NUT BALL is running for President


sweet

Chizz, if you weren't so in love with your own haiku or concerned about the crease in your jeans, you'd see that I answered your question in the last post on page 1. Why don't you respond to it?

[YoUDeeMan]

God Damn, that is some funny shit right there.

I'm still waiting for any Republican on this forum to tell me where there is ONE Goldwater Republican holding office
Of course we already all know the answer / which is why no Republican on this forum can name even one

Because their isn't one
Well then why..?

We all know why - but we really hate the answer
The answer is because the Republican Party has REGRESSED on Social Issues
And now they have a guy who belongs to a religion that treat women like cattle and Black people didn't go to heaven until 1978 (oh thank goodness) and women go to the lower of the three heavens (Yeah there are three heavens)...

Of course God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. (Yes there are Mormons on other planets) you can't make this shit up people

They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe.
We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves...

Oh and it gets better...
But first lets ponder the fact this NUT BALL is running for President


sweet

As opposed to the sitting President who believes in a God that is all knowing and powerful...but must have been pretty bored because he created some children and a whole universe in 6 days...but his ego is so big that he needs his children to love him or he will have them suffer for the rest of eternity...including babies...but maybe not since the Pope recently decided that children could be spared after much thought about how to translate the different books written about God's laws and God's odd change of mind about slaying people from different cultures...dang perfect guy didn't get it right the first time so he sent his son down to be killed and reborn to make a point to some goat herders that would be carried and distorted by word of mouth for centuries until some folks decided to put some of the most bizarre stories in writing through which some other folks would concentrate power and later tell people that they should ignore some parts of the writings while concentrating on other parts...and in the meantime they would decide to mount some Crusades to kill them foreigners because they followed a different God...all the while treating women as second class citizens that can't be leaders in their religion and whose job is to deliver more children into God's world to worship God...while the men who lead this religions are celibate and have a yearning for the young flesh of boys...and we could go on and on.

However, you and Wedgie ignore all that and focus on Mitt's religion because...well, you are simple minded, bigoted, idiots.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm still waiting for any Republican on this forum to tell me where there is ONE Goldwater Republican holding office
Of course we already all know the answer / which is why no Republican on this forum can name even one

Because their isn't one
Well then why..?

We all know why - but we really hate the answer
The answer is because the Republican Party has REGRESSED on Social Issues

You know I was so young when Goldwater was running for President that I don't even know much about what his views were. Never looked them up. I do remember that I was pulling for Johnson because I lived in a union household and my Dad was always for the Democrat.

Later, after he retired from politics, I heard him say stuff a few times and disagreed with him sometimes. But I must admit I don't even remember the content now. I just remember coming away thinking he had some views I really differ from him on.

But if you're looking for a "Republican" that you might not consider to be too bad on "social issues" there's Ron Paul. Of course he's really a Libertarian and he was just running as a Republican because he figured the only way to have any shot at all was to associate with one of the two major parties.

Note that he did not associate with the Democrats though. Given the choice, he associated with the Republican Party.

Which is similar to my way of doing things. I'm a Libertarian (the modern "right" kind, YT). And when I look at the two major parties I see big problems with each. But if a choice has to be made and one of them is going to be in power I'm going with the Republicans.

[JohnStOnge]

All irrelevant. Obama's going to win because he looks and sounds better on TV. Plus we've passed the critical point where most members of the population are a net drain on the system and look at the government as there to make sure they get what they need. Once the entitlement mentality took hold to a certain extent the handwriting was on the wall for the Republicans in the long term. They can't compete with the Democrats in the "hand out goodies to those who don't earn them" category.

Then there's the whole demographic evolution thing. Those spawned by the culture that led to belief in economic liberty and all that stuff are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

This country, for the long term, is toast. And the fact that the population would vote for someone like Obama to be President is a manifestation of the reasons for that.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I don't even know exactly what Goldwater Republicanism was. But it pretty obviously wasn't real successful in a political sense. To the extent that there was a Republican resurgence starting in the 1980s, it was associated with bringing in more enthusiasm from the "Religious Right." And alienating the Religious Right would not increase Republican chances. Anybody who thinks that it would is kidding themselves. They might gain some votes from some people but they'd lose more than they'd gain. The net would be negative.

Dimly I think that may have to do with some things Goldwater said that I disagreed with. I think he thought the Republican Party should basically hack off the Religious Right. That's insane. If they do that they've got no shot. Their future doesn't look bright regardless. But if White Evangelical Christians stop overwhelmingly voting for them and also turning out at relatively high percentages at election time they might as well just fold their tent and hand all the keys to the Democrats.

Goldwater Republicans might not like the Religious Right. But they'd better learn to live with them if they want the Republican Party to be relevant at all.

[JohnStOnge]

So what was the final result. Tax rates went from 70 to 28%. Yep that is a tax raiser

Reagan was definitely a tax cutter on balance. In any case, he is not the origin of the fix we find ourselves in today. This is the origin of that fix:

[kalm]

So what was the final result. Tax rates went from 70 to 28%. Yep that is a tax raiser

Reagan was definitely a tax cutter on balance. In any case, he is not the origin of the fix we find ourselves in today. This is the origin of that fix:

I will repeat. Reagan cut the top marginal rate and cut corporate taxes. He also raised various taxes 11 times.

And somehow, we managed to go 50 years after the New Deal with relative economic stability and without a major banking scandal. Then...deregulation, the second pillar of reaganomics started taking affect.

[OL FU]

Reagan was definitely a tax cutter on balance. In any case, he is not the origin of the fix we find ourselves in today. This is the origin of that fix:

I will repeat. Reagan cut the top marginal rate and cut corporate taxes. He also raised various taxes 11 times.

And somehow, we managed to go 50 years after the New Deal with relative economic stability and without a major banking scandal. Then...deregulation, the second pillar of reaganomics started taking affect.

I will repeat on your Reagan comment, you are lost in the trees.

[kalm]

I will repeat. Reagan cut the top marginal rate and cut corporate taxes. He also raised various taxes 11 times.

And somehow, we managed to go 50 years after the New Deal with relative economic stability and without a major banking scandal. Then...deregulation, the second pillar of reaganomics started taking affect.

I will repeat on your Reagan comment, you are lost in the trees.

Ahhh, those pesky inconvenient facts.

[Chizzang]

As opposed to the sitting President who believes in a God that is all knowing and powerful...but must have been pretty bored because he created some children and a whole universe in 6 days...but his ego is so big that he needs his children to love him or he will have them suffer for the rest of eternity...including babies...but maybe not since the Pope recently decided that children could be spared after much thought about how to translate the different books written about God's laws and God's odd change of mind about slaying people from different cultures...dang perfect guy didn't get it right the first time so he sent his son down to be killed and reborn to make a point to some goat herders that would be carried and distorted by word of mouth for centuries until some folks decided to put some of the most bizarre stories in writing through which some other folks would concentrate power and later tell people that they should ignore some parts of the writings while concentrating on other parts...and in the meantime they would decide to mount some Crusades to kill them foreigners because they followed a different God...all the while treating women as second class citizens that can't be leaders in their religion and whose job is to deliver more children into God's world to worship God...while the men who lead this religions are celibate and have a yearning for the young flesh of boys...and we could go on and on.

However, you and Wedgie ignore all that and focus on Mitt's religion because...well, you are simple minded, bigoted, idiots.

Wait...
So you're saying that Obama isn't a Muslim..?
I did NOT know that

Secondly everybody knows in a general sense (globally the world wide) about Christianity - it's common knowledge.
Very few people in comparison know about the cult sect of Christianity called Mormonism / LDS & FLDS

Do you think a Scientologist could get elected president..?
Let me put it more like this - if a liberal scientologist were running that is THE ONLY THING Republicans would be talking about ... And Scientology ain't got shit on Mormonism in the CRAZY department

Thirdly: this is about Goldwater Republicans = Republicans that actually agree with Government staying OUT of citizens lives BOTH Socially and Fiscally... but unfortunately today we get neither

[Chizzang]

Chizz, if you weren't so in love with your own haiku or concerned about the crease in your jeans, you'd see that I answered your question in the last post on page 1. Why don't you respond to it?

I believe the words Jeb and then Bush came out of you r mouth... in that order
Gosh isn't he the guy who said: "Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected if he ran today"
and didn't the wall street journal say he didn't even have a place in his own party

Okay what office does Jeb Hold right now..?

[JohnStOnge]

And somehow, we managed to go 50 years after the New Deal with relative economic stability and without a major banking scandal.

And with a general trend towards accelerated deficit spending. FDR established the entitlement mentality; the idea that government is responsible for taking care of each individual's personal financial problems. And that is the fundamental basis for the degradation. Short term stability, in historical terms. in exchange for long term degradation.

[kalm]

And somehow, we managed to go 50 years after the New Deal with relative economic stability and without a major banking scandal.

And with a general trend towards accelerated deficit spending. FDR established the entitlement mentality; the idea that government is responsible for taking care of each individual's personal financial problems. And that is the fundamental basis for the degradation.

Reagan continued that acceleration while destabilizing the economy.

[JohnStOnge]

Reagan continued that acceleration while destabilizing the economy.

I don't think the economy was destablized during the Reagan years. I think, on the contrary, it became more stable between the time when he took office and the time that he finished his first term. Also, I don't think the situation associated with the mild recession that followed his second term was nearly as bad as it was when he took office. Things were really, really bad when he took office. So bad, in fact, that I think it's really misleading for Obama to say that he inherited the worst economy since the great depression. It was worse in 1980 than it was in 2008.

But the fundamental underlying problem, regardless of what any particular President has done during recent history, is acceptance of the idea that the national government is responsible for attempting to ensure the well being of each individual. And FDR was key in fostering that.

[JohnStOnge]

Look, this stuff of Ronald Reagan promoting tax raising because he "raised taxes" 11 times is a Democratic talking point. It's propaganda. Ronald Reagan clear was a net tax cutter.

You can see that by using the numbers on historical tax bracket rates at http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-fed ... d-brackets" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It's complicated and takes some work to get to the bottom line. But if you use the "inflation adjusted" tables you can, for instance, calculate that a couple "married and filing jointly" with an income of $50,000 per year had an effective tax rate of 18% in 1980 vs. 15% in 1988 (again, an inflation adjusted comparison).

This kind of stuff is nonsense. Income tax rates were lower (and much simpler in that there were far fewer brackets) when Reagan left office than when he took office. It's possible that if you really searched you could find some situations where tax rates got slightly higher for some people. But they were lower when Reagan left office than when he took office for the overwhelming majority and not just "the Rich." To say that he promoted tax raising because he compromised with Congress on some occasions on tax rate increases when the big picture is that tax rates were generally lower when he left office than they were when he took office is ridiculous.

Democrats and the people who parrot their propaganda want to have it both ways. They want to say Reagan reducing taxes was the reason for the increase in deficits. But at the same time they want to, when it suits their purposes, say he was a proponent of raising taxes.

[kalm]

Reagan continued that acceleration while destabilizing the economy.

I don't think the economy was destablized during the Reagan years. I think, on the contrary, it became more stable between the time when he took office and the time that he finished his first term. Also, I don't think the situation associated with the mild recession that followed his second term was nearly as bad as it was when he took office. Things were really, really bad when he took office. So bad, in fact, that I think it's really misleading for Obama to say that he inherited the worst economy since the great depression. It was worse in 1980 than it was in 2008.

But the fundamental underlying problem, regardless of what any particular President has done during recent history, is acceptance of the idea that the national government is responsible for attempting to ensure the well being of each individual. And FDR was key in fostering that.

1) Reagan era deregulation enabled the S&L crisis. The philosophy of Reaganomics contributed heavily to Clinton era deregulation both of which led to banking crises including the current shit storm of trouble which we're not out of yet. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, the current administration has done very little to fix the fundamentals - a further continuance of the Reagan Legacy which assumes the banksters and the FED really know what's best.

2) Patently bullshit on what FDR was trying to do. Your projecting your own beliefs on to that one. FDR recognized the need for economic parity and justice. Some of his ideas are problematic, but he also created an infrastructure that private industry is benefitting from to this day.

[JohnStOnge]

1) Reagan era deregulation enabled the S&L crisis. The philosophy of Reaganomics contributed heavily to Clinton era deregulation both of which led to banking crises including the current **** storm of trouble which we're not out of yet. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, the current administration has done very little to fix the fundamentals - a further continuance of the Reagan Legacy which assumes the banksters and the FED really know what's best.

2) Patently bullshit on what FDR was trying to do. Your projecting your own beliefs on to that one. FDR recognized the need for economic parity and justice. Some of his ideas are problematic, but he also created an infrastructure that private industry is benefitting from to this day.

On 1): Do you think investment should be devoid of risk? Do you think that's possible?

On 2) Again: FDR was critical in establishing the premise in the minds of the American People that the national government should be doing things to insure each individual's well being. I'm sure private industry at times benefits from some of the things he started. But the underlying reality is that the entitlement mentality he fostered is responsible for a slow, consistent, degradation. The nation cannot sustain it. No nation can.

You can not tell people that they are going to be taken care of regardless of the circumstances then expect that all people are going to continue to do their best to make their own way. And we have reached a point in this country where the majority of the people are net drains on the system.

It sounds really nice and warm and fuzzy to say government is going to make sure everyone has what they minimally need. But it doesn't work.