Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Unemployment continues to rise and Obama is off to MV today
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I imagine that there is a lot of sadness in your life. Obviously you have some demons to confront. It's not your politics, it's the crazy in you. |
Anonymous
Why do you feel Reagan is #1? |
Anonymous
|
Democrat or Republican, the problems in our country is the fault of BOTH parties, and lately our politics have crossed over from the inane to the pathologically farcical. If you still believe that your vote makes a whit of difference in Washington, you are sadly mistaken. But the two party system is still a genious system which seeks to come to moderate compromise when it works. Sadly, that hasn't happened in many years. Whoever comes into power next year will not be able to fix the mess we're in, and all they will do is pass the buck until time
passes and the economy naturally recovers. This country could care less about the average family, as we slip into a nation of highly paid professionals and dog walkers. Get a clue. |
Anonymous
I am that PP, and mainly because Reagan won the Cold War almost by himself with little support from allies, plus the way he worked with Tip O'Neil to reform taxes and set in motion an incredible run of economic growth. Lastly, the negative mood of the Carter years was like nothing I've seen until now (unfortunately), and Reagan's optimism and leadership went a long way in turning that around. He really made a difference. FDR would honestly have to be 1A though. Hard to discount serving that many years in office through the Great Depression and defeating Hitler and Japan. Only reason I credit Reagan more, is because FDR had Churchill and others. (no offense to Mags) |
Anonymous
|
Democrat or Republican, the problems in our country is the fault of BOTH parties, and lately our politics have crossed over from the inane to the pathologically farcical. If you still believe that your vote makes a whit of difference in Washington, you are sadly mistaken. But the two party system is still a genious system which seeks to come to moderate compromise when it works. Sadly, that hasn't happened in many years. Whoever comes into power next year will not be able to fix the mess we're in, and all they will do is pass the buck until time
passes and the economy naturally recovers. This country could care less about the average family, as we slip into a nation of highly paid professionals and dog walkers. Get a clue. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
AAAAAAAND again, it's all about who's rugged leader of men. You know FDR had no game, right? |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
What's so genius if it's not working? And even when it "worked," as you point out in your last sentence it's worked for a few decades now to our detriment. Regardless of its efficacy, I don't see anything great about two parties - it strikes me as the simplest, laziest system. |
Anonymous
you off your meds again? |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Reagan had Gorabchev. We should probably put Churchill and Gorby at the top of the list of leaders who did most for America. |
Anonymous
Wouldn't you say that was really timing, luck, and probably just coincidence? Wouldn't it have happened at that time his history regardless of who was in office? Is Reagan really personally responsible? |
Anonymous
While it might be debatable that the two party system is currently viable, it's still a lot better than twenty parties like India or a complete dictatorship. Still, I think this post is closest to the truth. Obama's biggest failing is probably is he came into the presidency ideologically believing he could really change things. He came without cynicism although I'm sure he will leave with some if not sooner than later. Jeff once said (and sorry if I misquote) that the two party system in this country is like two wolves and lamb trying to decide what's for dinner. Plus who'll get to continue to pick what's for dinner for the next four years. |
Anonymous
|
I think the issue is that people expect a President to reverse 5 points of inflation, 4 earned during Bush and 1 earned in his presidency. The only way to do that is heavy, sustained spending. Tax cuts just go to paying down personal debt, so they don't employ people.
So there is no political will for the spending solution, and no point to the taxation solution. Checkmate. We wait this one out. |
Anonymous
Is that your opinion of most things that happen during a presidency--just a matter of timing, luck or bad luck, and coincidence? |
Anonymous
According to average approval rating the list goes: LBJ 1st Term JFK 1st Term Ike 1st Term Bush 43 1st Term Bush 41 1st Term Clinton 2nd Term Ike 2nd Term Truman 1st Term Nixon 1st Term Reagan 2nd Term Clinton 1st Term Ford 1st Term Carter 1st Term Truman 2nd Term Nixon 2nd Term Basically, there is always a way to manipulate the data to get the statistics you want 
|
Anonymous
| We're talking about BO here. But hey everyone needs time off but it could also jeopardize your continued employment with your employer. Hello to the next POTUS! |