Quick History lesson

[Moonglow]

Reagan landed in office at the end of a recession, Oblama the beginning.

Reagan came into office in the middle of not only a recession, but more of a national malaise. The recession actually got worse his first year in, but then things started turning around. Three years into his first term and the economy finally started showing robust growth. To put it simply, Reagan fixed the recession. Furthermore, his rapid growth in the military forced Russia to try to match it, and it broke their financial back, resulting in the fall of the Berlin wall and a truly victorious end to the Cold War. Not saying he was a perfect president, but he damn sure was a good one.

Obama also came in at what should have been the middle of a recession. Unfortunately he has done nothing to truly fix the economy, but instead has been putting on some very expensive bandages over it (stimulus, cash-for-clunkers, QE, etc) which makes the wound look better, but doing nothing to actually heal the problem.

I give Gorbachev more credit on the Berlin Wall falling, than Reagan. The losses in Afghanistan of Soviet forces, perestroika, financial hardships, lack of manufactured goods and resistance to Soviet tyranny as real reasons that the USSR failed. Not just one US president.

Reagan had a gas guzzler tax, a tax on oil profits, bailed out Chrysler, then later on it was the S & L bailouts. Ha! For many the trickle down theory never helped. Since it is not the rich that create the majority of jobs, it's small businesses.

 

[paperview]

Party of the rich? Really you are still selling those long dead fish stories?

7 of the top ten richest in congress are democrats: The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call

Obama certainly has not been and enemy of the rich. The Wallstreet bailout certainly proves that Obama takes care of his own. His record of black unemployment certainly shows his concern is somewhere else. Hell Reagan did better for blacks then does this democrat president.

What "shift" is it that you speak? The shift of those in the south sick of the interference in their lives by the federal government switching to Republicans? Really is that all you got? You really have to do better. Reagan signed into law MLK's birthday so it is incumbent on you to provide us with the legislation that the republicans have pushed that hurt blacks. Certainly I can point out how LBJ's great society has decimated the black community. With help like that who needs enemies? So enemies must be created thus the invention of the lie about the Republican party. Sal Alynski would be very proud.

Poor metrics - using a teeny subset of the population - congresscritters. lol

What party continually refuses to allow tax increases, by even a smidgeon, on the rich? We know who that party is.

Obama consistently has said he wants to raise taxes on the 1%, so that shoots down your second comment.

Third, Reagan only signed the MLK holiday because there was a veto proof majority. He didn't want to sign it.

What party? The majority party is whom anyone with logic would blame. Remember when Obama came to power and had a democrat congress behind him for a full year? Could have done anything he wanted, anything. What did he do, Obamacare. For a full year nothing on the economy, nothing to help with fuel prices, nothing to put people permanently back to work, only Obama care. For 7 long years the BS from democrats has been that elections have consequences and Republicans can't win elections. But that does not stop democrats from blaming THEIR failures on the minority party.

Obama says a lot of BS, actions speak and he has taken absolutely none, except extend the Bush tax cuts. That truth must really hurt.

Reagan signed MLKs birthday into law, end of story.

1. Bullshit. Obama never had a supermajority in the House, and for literally just a few months in the Senate.

2. A bill Reagan threatened to veto, and only had to sign because of the overwhelmingly bad optics, and the knowledge his veto would be overridden isn't much of an ownership badge.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Poor metrics - using a teeny subset of the population - congresscritters. lol

What party continually refuses to allow tax increases, by even a smidgeon, on the rich? We know who that party is.

Obama consistently has said he wants to raise taxes on the 1%, so that shoots down your second comment.

It's not only Dem congresscritters who are fabulously wealthy. Ever heard of the Kennedy's? How about George Soros? Bill Gates? Mark Cuban? Can you name one fabulously wealthy Republican besides the Koch brothers??

Yes, Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the 1% because he is using them as a scapegoat to get votes. It's like promising 99% of the population that, if you VOTE FOR ME, then you won't have to pay the bar tab. Of course most of that "1%" won't have their taxes go up anyway because they will just shift the money to tax havens - for multiple examples of this just look at the Kennedy family and how they avoided the 50% death tax in Massachusetts, or where Patrick Kennedy keeps his mega-yacht (Rhode Island vice Mass) simply to avoid the luxury tax.

 

[paperview]

Poor metrics - using a teeny subset of the population - congresscritters. lol

What party continually refuses to allow tax increases, by even a smidgeon, on the rich? We know who that party is.

Obama consistently has said he wants to raise taxes on the 1%, so that shoots down your second comment.

It's not only Dem congresscritters who are fabulously wealthy. Ever heard of the Kennedy's? How about George Soros? Bill Gates? Mark Cuban? Can you name one fabulously wealthy Republican besides the Koch brothers??

Yes, Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the 1% because he is using them as a scapegoat to get votes. It's like promising 99% of the population that, if you VOTE FOR ME, then you won't have to pay the bar tab. Of course most of that "1%" won't have their taxes go up anyway because they will just shift the money to tax havens - for multiple examples of this just look at the Kennedy family and how they avoided the 50% death tax in Massachusetts, or where Patrick Kennedy keeps his mega-yacht (Rhode Island vice Mass) simply to avoid the luxury tax.

Picking out a few people out of millions to make your point is poor logic.

Odds are, if you are super rich and want to protect every last penny of your wealth from taxes, you're going to vote for the party that works its damndest to protect every last penny of your wealth from taxes.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I give Gorbachev more credit on the Berlin Wall falling, than Reagan. The losses in Afghanistan of Soviet forces, perestroika, financial hardships, lack of manufactured goods and resistance to Soviet tyranny as real reasons that the USSR failed. Not just one US president.

Reagan had a gas guzzler tax, a tax on oil profits, bailed out Chrysler, then later on it was the S & L bailouts. Ha! For many the trickle down theory never helped. Since it is not the rich that create the majority of jobs, it's small businesses.

Of course you do, aren't you a leftist? I agree Gorbachev was a peacemaker, but all of the reasons you listed here were the actual FRONTS in the cold war. The Mujahadeen was our proxy fighting force. The financial hardships were due in part to the continual need to keep up with our military (on top of the base fact that socialism in and of itself is a severe financial hardship). And the "resistance of Soviet tyranny" was a fire fanned by President Reagan who continually told the Soviets, and the entire WORLD, that America was the greatest nation on the face of the planet.

At the beginning of Reagan's first term he did raise several taxes, however I believe he lowered taxes for everyone (well, everyone who actually paid taxes) at the end of his tenure. Furthermore I do not have blinders on, I know Reagan was not a perfect man, nor a perfect president, but he was a VERY good one.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Picking out a few people out of millions to make your point is poor logic.

Odds are, if you are super rich and want to protect every last penny of your wealth from taxes, you're going to vote for the party that works its damndest to protect every last penny of your wealth from taxes.

And there is where you are wrong. Business isn't all about avoiding taxes (although that can be extremely important). Business is all about making money.

Unfortunately many of the wealthiest in this nation did not get wealthy by creating things, they got that way by using their political influence to game the system, which often includes finding ways to get their hands on our tax money. Look at Nancy Pelosi---how exactly did she become a millionaire? How exactly did Harry Reid know what piece of land he should buy, and that it would overnight become worth millions?

What about Brian Harrison and Chris Gronet - the CEOs of Solyndra? They got fabulously wealthy because they found a way to dip into our tax money----courtesy of President Obama.

What about CGI Federal, Inc - the company paid huge money to design the Obamacare website? Want to guess how they found a way to dip into our tax money? The CEO is a college friend of Michelle Obama.

This kind of stuff is RAMPANT at all levels of our government. Money = power, and power = corruption. The more money we give our government, the more power and corruption.

 

[rightwinger]

They still do, supporting real freedom is the ultimate in caring for Americans, supporting slavery to the government feeding trougth is the ultimate is not caring.

you have it totally backwards, norton. too much time breathing sewer gas?

Thanks for reminding us how great the Republican Party used to be. It is part of the reason I became a Republican. They were the party that cared about working Americans. The party of equal rights
But then, a radical shift occurred. They became the unabashed party of the rich. Trickle down was their mantra......take care of the rich and they will take care of you
The working class became the enemy

Party of the rich? Really you are still selling those long dead fish stories?

7 of the top ten richest in congress are democrats: The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call

Obama certainly has not been and enemy of the rich. The Wallstreet bailout certainly proves that Obama takes care of his own. His record of black unemployment certainly shows his concern is somewhere else. Hell Reagan did better for blacks then does this democrat president.

What "shift" is it that you speak? The shift of those in the south sick of the interference in their lives by the federal government switching to Republicans? Really is that all you got? You really have to do better. Reagan signed into law MLK's birthday so it is incumbent on you to provide us with the legislation that the republicans have pushed that hurt blacks. Certainly I can point out how LBJ's great society has decimated the black community. With help like that who needs enemies? So enemies must be created thus the invention of the lie about the Republican party. Sal Alynski would be very proud.

Interesting reply...

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

 

[Freewill]

Poor metrics - using a teeny subset of the population - congresscritters. lol

What party continually refuses to allow tax increases, by even a smidgeon, on the rich? We know who that party is.

Obama consistently has said he wants to raise taxes on the 1%, so that shoots down your second comment.

Third, Reagan only signed the MLK holiday because there was a veto proof majority. He didn't want to sign it.

What party? The majority party is whom anyone with logic would blame. Remember when Obama came to power and had a democrat congress behind him for a full year? Could have done anything he wanted, anything. What did he do, Obamacare. For a full year nothing on the economy, nothing to help with fuel prices, nothing to put people permanently back to work, only Obama care. For 7 long years the BS from democrats has been that elections have consequences and Republicans can't win elections. But that does not stop democrats from blaming THEIR failures on the minority party.

Obama says a lot of BS, actions speak and he has taken absolutely none, except extend the Bush tax cuts. That truth must really hurt.

Reagan signed MLKs birthday into law, end of story.

1. Bullshit. Obama never had a supermajority in the House, and for literally just a few months in the Senate.

2. A bill Reagan threatened to veto, and only had to sign because of the overwhelmingly bad optics, and the knowledge his veto would be overridden isn't much of an ownership badge.

Ignorance in full display: Reasons for supermajority:

• Impeaching: In cases of impeachment of federal officials, the House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote. The Senate then holds a trial to consider the articles of impeachment passed by the House. Actually convicting an individual requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the members present in the Senate. (Article 1, Section 3)
• Expelling a Member of Congress: Expelling a member of Congress requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in either the House or Senate. (Article 1, Section 5)
• Overriding a Veto: Overriding a presidential veto of a bill requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in both the House and Senate. (Article 1, Section 7)
• Suspending the Rules: Temporarily suspending the rules of debate and voting in the House and Senate requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the members present. (House and Senate rules)
• Ending a Filibuster: In the Senate only, passing a motion to invoke "cloture," ending extended debate or a "filibuster" on a measure requires a 3/5 supermajority vote - 60 votes. (Rules of the Senate) Rules of debate in the House of Representatives preclude the possibility of a filibuster.

Note: On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted to require a simple majority vote of 51 Senators to pass cloture motions ending filibusters on presidential nominations for Cabinet secretary posts and lower federal court judgeships only. See: Senate Democrats Take the ‘Nuclear Option’

Supermajority votes in US government and politics, what are they and when are they required?

Obama's supermajority lasted 4 months. 4 months that he used to shove Obamacare down our throat.

Reagan was right, liberals are not ignorant they just know so much that isn't so. Or something like that.

 

[paperview]

Interesting reply...

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

There is no denying this reality:

The GOP's every action is guided primarily by their subservience to the wealthy.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

No they don't. Wealthy Dem's vote for their "friends" who will give them special perks - see my previous post about Solyndra, CGI Fed, etc. Unfortunately the same thing happens with the Republican party.

Republican's don't "only support the wealthy". They support the working class by trying to remove the barriers that prevent them from gaining wealth - ie: laws/regulations.

 

[Freewill]

Thanks for reminding us how great the Republican Party used to be. It is part of the reason I became a Republican. They were the party that cared about working Americans. The party of equal rights
But then, a radical shift occurred. They became the unabashed party of the rich. Trickle down was their mantra......take care of the rich and they will take care of you
The working class became the enemy

Party of the rich? Really you are still selling those long dead fish stories?

7 of the top ten richest in congress are democrats: The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call

Obama certainly has not been and enemy of the rich. The Wallstreet bailout certainly proves that Obama takes care of his own. His record of black unemployment certainly shows his concern is somewhere else. Hell Reagan did better for blacks then does this democrat president.

What "shift" is it that you speak? The shift of those in the south sick of the interference in their lives by the federal government switching to Republicans? Really is that all you got? You really have to do better. Reagan signed into law MLK's birthday so it is incumbent on you to provide us with the legislation that the republicans have pushed that hurt blacks. Certainly I can point out how LBJ's great society has decimated the black community. With help like that who needs enemies? So enemies must be created thus the invention of the lie about the Republican party. Sal Alynski would be very proud.

Interesting reply...

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

I keep hearing that SAID but where's the beef? Where is the tax increase on the wealthy? Where? Democrats are the majority party and they have not fought to raise taxes on the rich they only give it lip service. They could have dropped Bush's tax cuts, but didn't. They had a 4 month supermajority Senate and didn't raise taxes, could have but didn't. What is so disingenuous about the rich democrats is how they pretend they would raise taxes on themselves if only the MINORITY party allowed them too. Elections have consequences so we are told yet one consequence certainly isn't raising taxes on themselves. Besides the tax system of the US is voluntary, so we are told. If the rich democrats think they should pay more then there is absolutely nothing stopping them.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

There is no denying this reality:

The GOP's every action is guided primarily by their subservience to the wealthy.

This is only a reality in your mind. If you ever evolve into having an open mind, one that has the ability to receive, comprehend, and digest discordant information, you may some day come to realize that the GOP is not the party of rich white men trying to keep all the money to themselves.

 

[paperview]

lol.

It's like this Freewill character hasn't been paying attention for, oh, I dunno the last decade or so...

 

[Freewill]

Interesting reply...

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

There is no denying this reality:

The GOP's every action is guided primarily by their subservience to the wealthy.

How many times must you be smacked down until you realize you really don't know the difference between reality and just repeating the same old liberal talking points?

You didn't know about supermajority.

You have not produced on initiative from the rich democrats who pushed for a higher tax and didn't get it.

You just keep repeating the same damn propaganda.

 

[Destroyer2]

13th amendment: abolished slavery
100% republican support, 23% democrat support

14th amendment: gave citizenship to freed slaves
94% republican support, 0% democrat support

15th amendment: right to vote for all
100% republican support, 0% democrat support

Obamacare
0% republican support
100% democrat support


Need I say more?

yes, actually

you forgot the southern strategy and the shift in party bases during the FDR era

 

[rightwinger]

Party of the rich? Really you are still selling those long dead fish stories?

7 of the top ten richest in congress are democrats: The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call

Obama certainly has not been and enemy of the rich. The Wallstreet bailout certainly proves that Obama takes care of his own. His record of black unemployment certainly shows his concern is somewhere else. Hell Reagan did better for blacks then does this democrat president.

What "shift" is it that you speak? The shift of those in the south sick of the interference in their lives by the federal government switching to Republicans? Really is that all you got? You really have to do better. Reagan signed into law MLK's birthday so it is incumbent on you to provide us with the legislation that the republicans have pushed that hurt blacks. Certainly I can point out how LBJ's great society has decimated the black community. With help like that who needs enemies? So enemies must be created thus the invention of the lie about the Republican party. Sal Alynski would be very proud.

Interesting reply...

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

I keep hearing that SAID but where's the beef? Where is the tax increase on the wealthy? Where? Democrats are the majority party and they have not fought to raise taxes on the rich they only give it lip service. They could have dropped Bush's tax cuts, but didn't. They had a 4 month supermajority Senate and didn't raise taxes, could have but didn't. What is so disingenuous about the rich democrats is how they pretend they would raise taxes on themselves if only the MINORITY party allowed them too. Elections have consequences so we are told yet one consequence certainly isn't raising taxes on themselves. Besides the tax system of the US is voluntary, so we are told. If the rich democrats think they should pay more then there is absolutely nothing stopping them.

Where have you been the last five years? Dems have done nothing but fight for a return to pre-Bush tax rates for the wealthy......Repubs held the country hostage and fought to preserve those rates
Think of where this country was in 2009... Colapsing economy, massive unemployment. All the Republicans fought for was preserving their tax rates on the wealthy while they complained that the poor don't pay enough in taxes

 

[paperview]

There is no denying this reality:

The GOP's every action is guided primarily by their subservience to the wealthy.

This is only a reality in your mind. If you ever evolve into having an open mind, one that has the ability to receive, comprehend, and digest discordant information, you may some day come to realize that the GOP is not the party of rich white men trying to keep all the money to themselves.

One word: 47%.

 

[paperview]

Interesting reply...

The main difference is that the wealthy Democrats actually vote against their own interests. They support higher taxes on the rich, more programs to help working Americans and the poor.
Republicans only support the wealthy......heap more benefits on the top and eventually it will trickle down in jobs and prosperity for all

I keep hearing that SAID but where's the beef? Where is the tax increase on the wealthy? Where? Democrats are the majority party and they have not fought to raise taxes on the rich they only give it lip service. They could have dropped Bush's tax cuts, but didn't. They had a 4 month supermajority Senate and didn't raise taxes, could have but didn't. What is so disingenuous about the rich democrats is how they pretend they would raise taxes on themselves if only the MINORITY party allowed them too. Elections have consequences so we are told yet one consequence certainly isn't raising taxes on themselves. Besides the tax system of the US is voluntary, so we are told. If the rich democrats think they should pay more then there is absolutely nothing stopping them.

Where have you been the last five years? Dems have done nothing but fight for a return to pre-Bush tax rates for the wealthy......Repubs held the country hostage and fought to preserve those rates
Think of where this country was in 2009... Colapsing economy, massive unemployment. All the Republicans fought for was preserving their tax rates on the wealthy while they complained that the poor don't pay enough in taxes

It's like they've been living in a bubble.

Oh yea. That's right. They have.

It's unskewable!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

13th amendment: abolished slavery
100% republican support, 23% democrat support

14th amendment: gave citizenship to freed slaves
94% republican support, 0% democrat support

15th amendment: right to vote for all
100% republican support, 0% democrat support

Obamacare
0% republican support
100% democrat support


Need I say more?

No, it’s already well established you’re an ignorant idiot.

Your OP fails as it manifests a false analogy.

 

[Freewill]

13th amendment: abolished slavery
100% republican support, 23% democrat support

14th amendment: gave citizenship to freed slaves
94% republican support, 0% democrat support

15th amendment: right to vote for all
100% republican support, 0% democrat support

Obamacare
0% republican support
100% democrat support


Need I say more?

yes, actually

you forgot the southern strategy and the shift in party bases during the FDR era

I assume you believe in all myths.

Oh gosh you get the Canard Award.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)