2012 Poll

[Antitrust32]

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?


my lord a trillion dollars has a ton of zero's

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?


my lord a trillion dollars has a ton of zero's

Speaking of ways to waste a trillion dollars, in the end if it was a waste or not, I'd rather "waste" a trillion bucks trying to do something to help our economy that waste it invading other countries and killing people.

That's just me though, I know how much some people love war, maybe not you personally, but I don't want to step on any toes.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

invading other countries and killing people.
.

I agree. That entire Hussein family got a bum deal just because of a little bit of torture and genocide. Nothing even near what the State of Arizona is doing now.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Speaking of ways to waste a trillion dollars, in the end if it was a waste or not, I'd rather "waste" a trillion bucks trying to do something to help our economy that waste it invading other countries and killing people.

That's just me though, I know how much some people love war, maybe not you personally, but I don't want to step on any toes.

I love how when someone says something.. the return 100% of the time is "Well Bush wasted all this money too"

No fucl<ing sh1t Bush wasted WAY TOO MUCH

No fucl<ing sh1t Bush royally fucl<ed up by going to war with Iraq & we will be repaying that for as long as the two of us live... AND then our hypothetical homosexual offspring will still be paying for it.

How is that an excuse for this new guy who spends like Bush on freaking steriods? How does that make the $1,000,000,000,000 spendulus program not a horrid waste of tax payers money?

THEY BOTH FUCl<ING SUCK BALLS.



Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

Bush freaking blew, so its not right to just start this hypothetical converation in 2009.

Substitute Bush for Reagan and Obama for Clinton, and I would say that things would be significantly different right now.

& I've posted many times that one man cant single handidly ruin or save the world. Tho supposedly Bush ruined the world all by himself.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Bush freaking blew, so its not right to just start this hypothetical converation in 2009.

Substitute Bush for Reagan and Obama for Clinton, and I would say that things would be significantly different right now.

& I've posted many times that one man cant single handidly ruin or save the world. Tho supposedly Bush ruined the world all by himself.

So you agree that if Reagan or Clinton took office in '09 things in the country would look a lot like they do now? Some things (health care) would be different, but many of the big things - like the 3 examples I gave - would look the same.

But okay, let's take your example and say RR took office in 2001 instead of Bush. Would 9-11 still have happened? I think the answer is yes. Would America/NATO have invaded Afghanistan in response? Yes. Would the surplus of 2000 have been spent on large tax cuts? Probably still yes. Would the era of deregulation (begun under Clinton) have continued under RR as it did under Bush? Almost certainly yes. Would the world/American economy have collapsed in 2008? Almost certainly yes. Would DADT have been repealed? Probably not. etc. etc.

You say "Bush freaking blew," but with the possible exception of Iraq, how different would 8 years under RR really have been? I realize these counterfactuals are pure guesswork, but I think they illustrate an interesting and important point.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So you agree that if Reagan or Clinton took office in '09 things in the country would look a lot like they do now? Some things (health care) would be different, but many of the big things - like the 3 examples I gave - would look the same.

But okay, let's take your example and say RR took office in 2001 instead of Bush. Would 9-11 still have happened? I think the answer is yes. Would America/NATO have invaded Afghanistan in response? Yes. Would the surplus of 2000 have been spent on large tax cuts? Probably still yes. Would the era of deregulation (begun under Clinton) have continued under RR as it did under Bush? Almost certainly yes. Would the world/American economy have collapsed in 2008? Almost certainly yes. Would DADT have been repealed? Probably not. etc. etc.

You say "Bush freaking blew," but with the possible exception of Iraq, how different would 8 years under RR really have been? I realize these counterfactuals are pure guesswork, but I think they illustrate an interesting and important point.

I agree with you.

[Antitrust32]

if 2000-2008 would have been under RR, and not Bush, things would be totally different. Bush doesnt even deserve to be in the history books as POTUS next to Reagan.

Would 9/11 have happened? Most likely yes.

You do realize that just cutting out the Iraq war alone saves us a ton of and assets. So RR focuses entirely on Al Queda after 9/11.. instead of all this other mess.. Afghanistan wouldnt nearly be in the mess it is now without the Iraq war.

On the Economy? RR was an economic master. Bush an economic moron.

Do you understand the differences of the economy in the 80's when Reagan entered, to when he left?

Reagan cut taxes and also DOUBLED the total federal revenue at the same time!!

Here are some more facts:

Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12





so yes.. I truely believe it would have been a world of difference.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Let's say Ronald Regan or Bill Clinton took over in January, 2009 instead of Obama. How do you think the economy would be doing right now? What would Afghanistan and the Gulf of Mexico look like?
I'm pretty sure the answer to those three questions is:

economy - crap
Afghanistan - crap
Gulf - crap

In other words....not that much different from the way it looks now. Presidents don't have magic wands, no matter how much you wish they did.

and as an add on to the above how much worse could we have been today if Palin had become president in Jan '09 - fact probably not any worse than this mess either

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

and as an add on to the above how much worse could we have been today if Palin had become president in Jan '09 - fact probably not any worse than this mess either

seeing how mccain is still alive and kicking, i'm not sure how palin would be prez in '09.

had mccain chosen a decent running mate, instead of that dipshit, he'd have most likely won. wonder if things would be any different? i'm guessing no.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seeing how mccain is still alive and kicking, i'm not sure how palin would be prez in '09.

had mccain chosen a decent running mate, instead of that dipshit, he'd have most likely won. wonder if things would be any different? i'm guessing no.

i was a hypothetical danzig , i know mccain was the nominee for president

there is talk about palin running in '12

if she had been elected president and took over in jan '09 , we wouldn't be any worse off today than what we are and no one can prove that statement wrong

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Damn. I wish we could re-incarnate Reagan and make Clinton live forever and just do 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton, 8 years Reagan, 8 years Clinton. for ever and ever. that should at least make everyone happy!

Hell no. God and baby Jesus no.

[dellinger63]

At least the census people are working.



I sent back the form, have been visited twice (by two different people, the 1rst a local) and was just called on the phone to verify a census worker had visited.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

how about the arguement that it was a waste of $1,000,000,000,000 of taxpayers dollars?

Is that similar to the sky is blue comment?

Of course not. Whether or not it was a wise decision is a position two reasonable people could disagree about, and I think there are valid points to be made on each side.

Whether or not it kept unemployment below 10% is not like that. It didn't, and nobody is saying that it did. Those that predicted it would accomplish that statistical feat were incorrect. That's obvious too. It also didn't cure cancer, or improve top Republicans' education levels, or other difficult things to accomplish. That doesn't really prove that it "worked," or "didn't work."