2012 Poll

[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.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by 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.

So you actually think the economic growth of the 1980s and 1990s came about because of policies enacted by the men sitting in the oval office during those decades, or perhaps their colleagues in the U.S. capital? If you actually think that, the only thing I can do is refer you to my earlier "magic wand" comment, and call it day. The U.S. president has relatively little control over the U.S. economy. Exactly how much control is up for debate, but it is certainly FAR less than you seem to think.
RR and Bubba receive far more credit than they deserve for the state of the economy during their presidencies.
W. and Obama receive far too much blame.

Oh well.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

So you actually think the economic growth of the 1980s and 1990s came about because of policies enacted by the men sitting in the oval office during those decades, or perhaps their colleagues in the U.S. capital? If you actually think that, the only thing I can do is refer you to my earlier "magic wand" comment, and call it day. The U.S. president has relatively little control over the U.S. economy. Exactly how much control is up for debate, but it is certainly FAR less than you seem to think.
RR and Bubba receive far more credit than they deserve for the state of the economy during their presidencies.
W. and Obama receive far too much blame.

Oh well.

I agree. Economies are cyclical. Presidents can implement policies that may slightly help or slighly hinder the economy, but overall there is only so much they can do. They're not going to be able to stop a recession from happening. They may be able to delay it slightly through stimulus and that type of thing, but they're not going to be able to stop it.

[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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

firing an employee over a 30 second blog without looking at all the facts because she was going to be on glen beck , know that makes the white house a comedy show that even pailn's butchering of the english language can't even top

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

An excellent point.
This is one of the areas where presidents can make a big difference. There are plenty of others too. People would be better served focusing on those areas than attributing every change in the nation's (or world's) economy to the person in the Oval Office. The bottom line with Obama will probably be:
1) if the economy is doing well or surging mightily in the summer and fall of '12....he'll win.
2) if it isn't....he'll lose.

That's stupid.

Things the president can control (Supreme Court nominees, some aspects of foreign policy, pushes for legislation on social issues, etc.) often take a back seat to things the president can't control in the minds of voters. The country re-elected the Bush administration after a truly miserable first four years on a number of fronts....many of which (Iraq) were the direct result of actions taken by the administration. People didn't care. Then the country turned against him in the second term largely because the economy fell apart "on his watch." Sure his administration only deserves about 1% of the blame for the economic meltdown, but most voters are too stupid to figure that out.....which is probably the answer to your other question about why there aren't good candidates. There aren't many good voters.

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.