There is no way we are going to get a Republican President any time soon.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan.


I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it.


No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets.

We've covered this before. With Obama and Clinton the party saw 2 viable options. With the GOP the party doesn't see any viable options.


Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican. Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states.

I'll take your wager.



I think they're linked. If Iran blows up it will put a large strain on the economy.

-spence

"I think independent voters see the debt problem as bi-partisan."

If you think independents don't see a difference on the debt issue between liberals and conservatives, I disagree.

"I think we're trending strong and the economy will continue to gain strength if global instability doesn't disrupt it."

I can't refute that...

"No, it's a mainstream opinion. Hell, the biggest critics of the Republican contestants are the leading conservative media outlets."

Spence, when all you do is look for folks who bash the GGOP, you'll find them...

"Your numbers are wrong. It's 21 Democrat, 2 Independent and 10 Republican."

Sorry, typo on my part, I meant 23 for Dems/independents...

'Additionally, the majority of Democrat races are in Blue or Purple states."

You're missing the point. The races in the purple states are exactly where you are vulnerable, as opposed to CT for example. Democratis seats being contested include the following states...NE, NM, ND, VA, WI, FL, MN, MO, MT, OH, PA).

"I'll take your wager."

$25 to the charity of the loser's choice? I win if the GOP makes gains in both the house and the senate. Otherwise, you win. Aggressively setting the bar for me, but I'm confident. Are you in?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, when all you do is look for folks who bash the GGOP, you'll find them...

No, I read just about everything.

You're missing the point. The races in the purple states are exactly where you are vulnerable, as opposed to CT for example. Democratis seats being contested include the following states...NE, NM, ND, VA, WI, FL, MN, MO, MT, OH, PA).

The only state you list where the GOP has a great chance is Nebraska, a few like Florida or Maine could go either way.

$25 to the charity of the loser's choice? I win if the GOP makes gains in both the house and the senate. Otherwise, you win. Aggressively setting the bar for me, but I'm confident. Are you in?

Deal, what charity are you going to pick?

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

At about this time Ronald Reagan's approval rating was below 40%...as the economy started to improve so did his favor-ability.


-spence

What were the tax rates back then? They must have been really low, right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

What were the tax rates back then? They must have been really low, right?

Taxes were high then. And what did Reagan do? All he did was contribute significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union, giving hundreds of millions of human beings a shot at freedom.

Lots of folks consider that money well spent.

Obama is spending more than Reagan did, with far less to show. When kids as-yet unborn enter the workplace 25 years from now and face staggering income tax rates, we're going to tell them that Obama spent their money to get unemployment (25 years earlier) down from 9% to 8%. Is that money well spent?

Maybe yes and maybe no. Time will tell.

Zimmy and Spence, how much debt are you comfortable with saddling on the backs of kids not born yet? Obviously there was lots of debt before Obama got elected, it's not all his fault. But he is adding to it more than any president in our history. I'd just liek to know how much debt you're willing to saddle future generations with.

Our current debt is around $15 trillion, and that excludes asocial security and medicare. Throw those in, and the debt is at least $60 trillion. That's $200,000 for every living American. $200,000 on top of what our current tax rates will generate.

Obviously, we cannot take an additional $200,000 from every American, not even close. That means one of two things. Either (1) the Chinese will tell us not to bother re-paying them, or (2) future generation will be burdened with debt they had lkiterally no say in accumulating.

Zimmy and Spence, what do you think?

[Nebe]

So true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[striperman36]

Those were the days..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Joe]

One of Ronald Regan's first executive orders was to cut the overtime federal withholding tax for hourly workers so it was no greater than their straight time rate.
It used to be, if you worked overtime, your federal withholding was at a higher rate than your straight 40 - and you didn't get back the additional at tax time, regardless of deductions. You effectively were penalized for working o.t..
He reached out to the clock punchers and gave them a bone, and a greater incentive to increase productivity.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

One of Ronald Regan's first executive orders was to cut the overtime federal withholding tax for hourly workers so it was no greater than their straight time rate.
It used to be, if you worked overtime, your federal withholding was at a higher rate than your straight 40 - and you didn't get back the additional at tax time, regardless of deductions. You effectively were penalized for working o.t..
He reached out to the clock punchers and gave them a bone, and a greater incentive to increase productivity.

that's how you sum up Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism and how it differs from Santorum and Palin Conservatism?

“Mr. Conservative” – Barry Goldwater and the Genesis of the Conservative Movement

In the 1950s, Barry Morris Goldwater emerged as the nation’s leading conservative politician. It was Goldwater, along with his growing legion of “Goldwater Conservatives,” who brought the concepts of small government, free enterprise and a strong national defense into the national public debate. These were the original planks of the conservative movement and remain the heart of the movement today. In the late 1950s, Goldwater became closely associated with the anti-Communist movement, and was an avid supporter of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Goldwater stuck with McCarthy until the bitter end and was one of only 22 members of Congress who refused to censure him. Goldwater supported desegregation and civil rights to varying degrees. He got himself into political hot water, however, with his opposition to legislation that would eventually turn into the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Goldwater was a passionate Constitutionalist, who had supported the NAACP and had backed previous versions of civil rights legislation, but he opposed the 1964 bill because he believed it violated states’ rights to self-govern. During the Republican National Convention in 1964, Goldwater gave perhaps the most conservative acceptance speech ever uttered when he said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I don't think Reagan varied much from Goldwater on issues of smaller government, states rights, individual liberty, free enterprise and national defense....nor do Palin or Santorum as far as I know...

from Kengor's book....Mr. Kengor wrote, “[Reagan’s] belief in God was a key source of his optimism and his boldness, his daring and self-security, and his confidence; these essential intangibles carried him throughout his presidency — and career as a whole — and enabled him to achieve what he did.”

Reagan’s words "Those who created our country — the Founding Fathers and Mothers — understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion. ... The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they’re sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive."

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
Mr. Reagan was a loyal supporter of the unborn and spoke of the need for a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer.


where Goldwater differs from Reagan, Palin and Santorum politically and what some would like to include in their version of "Goldwater Conservatism" is his later libertarian views on pot, abortion and gay marriage...they don't embrace his Conservative views but rather, his moderation on these issues.......Goldwater and Reagan had a little problem with Communism and Socialism...get yourself to and democrat or leftist rally and notice how much Communist and Socialist literature is being handed out...the democrat party is the home to America's socialist and communists...still waiting for Spence to name a Democrat Constitutionalist in Congress

Joe....if you long for the Reagan and Goldwater Conservatism based on small government, Constitutional governance, free enterprise, state's rights, individual liberty.... I'd suggest to you that the only place where this still resides is among the "nuts" that you appear to have a problem with...these principles are completely absent in the current democrat party...

so Joe...who do you vote for???

[Joe]

Your lead is one sentence. That's why my reply was short. Yet your retort is about 900 words? I'm familiar with Goldwater Conservatism, but I prefer the Objectivism of Ayn Rand that influenced Goldwater considerably. Moreover, what you've done here is bad form; you should bait fish, not people.

I cited one Reagan policy. But it was that policy which did more for working Americans to dispel the idea that republicans "are all for the rich" than all the talk that never improved a working person's life.

I did not cite Goldwater policy because there is none. He lost. Goldwater is regarded as a conservative theorist. Theorist is a charitable term they designate to losing politicians who influence other politicians. Whatever the loser does later when his marbles start to go is amusing or disturbing, but not policy.

Reagan pulled from Goldwater, but was astute enough not to go too far. "Morning in America," was a better approach to the people than Goldwater's failed, scary warnings. I voted for Reagan.

Communism failed worldwide in 1989, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, and China (which has moderated considerably) - and it's not making a comeback.

Reagan won the Cold War by engaging in an arms race that bankrupted the USSR when they tried to keep up. Sure, it ratcheted up debt, but the nukes were never launched. The Cold War was won through diplomacy, and by outspending the Russians - the best formula for victory we could reasonably hope for. It's behind us now. Regan possibly saved the world.

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

Your lead is one sentence. That's why my reply was short. Yet your retort is about 900 words? I'm familiar with Goldwater Conservatism, but I prefer the Objectivism of Ayn Rand specifics? that influenced Goldwater considerably. Moreover, what you've done here is bad form; you should bait fish, not people. I don't baitfish....much....not sure how you feel I've baited you..just looking for some context to your statement

I cited one Reagan policy. But it was that policy which did more for working Americans to dispel the idea that republicans "are all for the rich" than all the talk that never improved a working person's life. so putting a little more money in your pocket as a result of policy guided by the Conservative Principle that you shouldn't be punished with higher taxes/rates as a result of working harder was enough to dispel the myth that republicans "are all for the rich"?...who coined that phrase anyway?

I did not cite Goldwater policy because there is none. ?? He lost. Goldwater is regarded as a conservative theorist. Theorist is a charitable term they designate to losing politicians who influence other politicians. Whatever the loser does later when his marbles start to go is amusing or disturbing, but not policy. I don't recall Ayn Rand(talk about theorist) ever winning an election whereas Goldwater was elected and served for quite some time practicing his "Conservative Theory"...many on the left were happy to jump on board the Goldwater train after he "lost his marbles"...I think Rand later "lost her marbles" too

Reagan pulled from Goldwater, but was astute enough not to go too far. "Morning in America," was a better approach to the people than Goldwater's failed, scary warnings. I voted for Reagan. both times?

Communism failed worldwide in 1989, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, and China (which has moderated considerably)??? - and it's not making a comeback.

Reagan won the Cold War by engaging in an arms race that bankrupted the USSR when they tried to keep up. Sure, it ratcheted up debt, but the nukes were never launched. The Cold War was won through diplomacy, and by outspending the Russians - the best formula for victory we could reasonably hope for. It's behind us now. Regan possibly saved the world. possibly

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it. I bet a lot of democrats said the same thing about their party just a short time ago

you said "think Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism....not Santorum/Palin's brand of"......I asked for more regarding your take on the differences....you've not offered anything so far....I was just wondering as you threw that out there...... as though the differences were obvious

glad to see someone else gets up early too

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Joe

America is not going socialist regardless of how much leftist literature is handed out by the Occupy Movement. We simply can't afford it.

You're right that we can't afford it. You're wrong if you say that's not where we're headed. When Obama explicitly tells a church that it must abandon its beliefs and provide a service which it teaches is immoral, that's at least socialistic, if not outright totalitarian.

Our 2 largest entitlement programs are social security and Medicare. Those programs are currently underfunded by at least $50 trillion, possibly as much as $100 trillion - that's trillion with a "t". There are 300 million Americans. You do the math to figure out how much more we need. Many states are in the same boat, with insane peomises made to public labor unions.

We sure cannot afford it, but for some reason, that's not stopping us from pursuing it. That's what Obama, and most liberals, cannot grasp.

[Joe]

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

not really...maybe a lot of passion....you don't learn much about people if you don't engage them, you really learn about people when you challenge their views....it's not a bad thing...actually a pretty good learning experience for everyone ......usually

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Joe

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

I assume you're referring to me, if not, you can ignore.

I'm sorry if I offended you, really I am. But (1) if you say that liberals protest by voting silently, and conservatives are the ones who aggressively yell at those they disagree with, you have to admit, that's a provocative statement (and one that I happen to think is demonstrably false). And (2) email language often conveys a tone that is harsher than intended, at least in my case.

[RIJIMMY]

the angry right????
Love the free education part.......

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - Dozens of protesters angry over fee hikes and budget cuts at California's public universities were arrested on Monday night during a boisterous but peaceful demonstration inside the state Capitol building.

The arrests capped a day in which hundreds of students and others marched on the statehouse and rallied outside the Capitol before many of the activists moved the demonstration inside the building, clogging hallways in and around the rotunda.

One group chanted, "No cuts, no fees. Education must be free," as they sat crossed-legged on the black-and-white tiled floor of the statehouse.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

One group chanted, "No cuts, no fees. Education must be free," as they sat crossed-legged on the black-and-white tiled floor of the statehouse.

This is liberalism sumed up in one sentence, thusly...

"gimme, gimme, gimme..."

"Education must be free"...

Education will be free when teachers are unpaid volunteers. These protesters should go to the next Board of Education meeting in their towns, and watch what happens when they suggest that we don't spend a cent on education. I was on my town's board of education, and when I suggested that teachers switch from pensions to 401(k)s like the rest of the planet, they told me that clearly I hate children.

Obviously, these idiots don't mean that education should be "free" - they know that education costs money. They just don't feel like they themselves should bear any of that cost. Rather, others - preferably mean, white, male conservatives - should pick up the tab for them to go to college.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

What a way to go through life. And here in my state of CT, I lose to these people every single year. The only question is the magnitude of the rout.

Education should be free. These same kooks are the ones who want to give teachers guaranteed jobs for life, ridiculously bloated pensions, and Cadillac healthcare benefits. That's what liberals want. Oh, and one more thing...THEY don't want to have to pay for it.

Calgon, take me away...RIJIMMY and ScottW, how exactly, do we lose to these people??

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

This is liberalism sumed up in one sentence, thusly...

"gimme, gimme, gimme..."

True,and it all started with Franklin D Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers Bill of Rights included the following:

Right to equal freedom, independent of other human beings.
Right to aquire property.
Right to Relegion according to the dictates of conscience.
Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights in 1944 were:

Employment with a living wage.
Freedom from unfair competition and monopoly.
Housing
Medical care
Education
Social Security

So therefore we have this huge Government who conrols close to
50% of our economy and now THEY want Gimme -Gimme -Gimme.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

True,and it all started with Franklin D Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights.

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

Agreed, to a point. I could be wrong, but from what I know, at least FDR wasn't in the habit of giving checks to people for doing nothing. Back in his day, in order to get government relief, able-bodied folks had to do something to earn that money, through things like the Civilian Conservation Corps.

No one (without extenuating circumstances) should get a check just for sitting on their couch. You should either have to be in school, or doing some work for somebody.

You're dead-on about crippling these people by making them addicted to welfare, which provides zero economic upward mobility. The ironic thing is that (in my opinion) a tea party-type economic plan (stimulating job growth by nurturing the free market) is exactly what these folks need to get on the path to prosperity, but they've become addicted to welfare, and Obama is now telling them that wealthy people are the reason they are poor...a despicable tactic. One person's wealth does not create someone else's poverty (except for criminals obviously).

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

Bingo JD, the "Nice to Have" has now become "the expected" and "I'm entitled."

I am all for helping the truly needy, as I think most American's are,
but we are now at a point with the spending and borrowing we will eventually
all be needy and looking for the Gov't to bail us out.
There will be nothing left except the burden of it all on our kids to try and survive.
The American Mind used to want the American Dream, to leave a better life for our children.
Now it looks like the Dream is done and there's very little left of the American Mind.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country.

Yeah, you are right. I would have much preferred the standard of living before the new deal.

[Duke41]

You know who really sucked as president Busch and who really sucked as Speaker of the House Gingrich and what do they have in common??? Both of those jackasses are Republicans.

[The Dad Fisherman]

[spence]

The problem is people throw around words that don't have a lot of meaning.

Very few people in this country are self described liberals. The majority of Democrats in the US are still way to the Right of moderates in the EU or Australia.

Few who call themselves Republicans actually behave like Republicans say they should behave. Many Republicans will quite often behave like Democrats.

The problem with the GOP today is that since they don't often behave like they say they should...nobody believes them.

The problem with the DNC today is that they say they believe in a lot of what Republicans stand for but then don't actually do it...so nobody believes them.

The majority of voters are really independents and will vote for character above anything else, knowing that it probably doesn't really make a difference if the president is a D or a R.

-spence

[MarshCappa]

I learn more from reading threads like this than watching the news. Good stuff.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The problem is people throw around words that don't have a lot of meaning.

-spence

most experts, most economists, most people, very few, moderates, nobody, the majority

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The majority of voters are really independents and will vote for character above anything else, knowing that it probably doesn't really make a difference if the president is a D or a R.

-spence

How is this voting "for character above anything else" thing been working?

Maybe "independents" are poor judges of character?

Or, maybe, "character," which is in the eye of the beholder, and which is usually manufactured by political and media spin (which is why half the folks love the same guy that half the folks hate), is as irrelevent as the D or the R?

It seems, by your formula, that the "independents" might just as well not vote since "liberals" are not liberals and Republicans are not Republicans and they are all going to do the same thing anyway and the character thing is phony.

[Duke41]

China can you imagine. 50 years ago they were getting massacared by Japan. If they become a Global military power, Japan better look out.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Duke41

China can you imagine. 50 years ago they were getting massacared by Japan. If they become a Global military power, Japan better look out.

Forget Japan, if we keep borrowing from China at this rate they will
take us over without a shot fired.