The Great Ronald Reagan or was he.....?

How time changes perceptions, what modern liberal would ever support JFKs' fiscal agenda; today he would be maligned as a Tea Party conservative.

Not entirely true. Yes, the Dems controlled the House the entire time, however the GOP controlled the Senate during his first six years. Originally Posted by chefnerd

Thanks for the correction. Kind of like today but the difference is that Reagan was willing to work with the democrats. Obama is no Reagan.

He was not perfect but remember he had to compromise with a democratic controlled congress the entire time he was president. He wanted to cut spending but Congress is in charge of the budget and he had to compromise. Spending growth and government increase in size is the fault of Congress as much as or more than the president. Originally Posted by Laz

You clearly didn't spend much time in DC during the Reagan years.

Hmmm let's see Raised Taxes: also Google the Greenspan commission in which Reagan was responsible for all of us paying higher taxes on SS.

Amnesty I wonder how the TEA Party view Reagan's views on immigration.

Cut and Run tactics- Remember Lebanon- American soldiers killed by terrorist attacks and what Reagan do- get the hell out of dodge.

Negotiating with Terrorist Remember arms for hostages can you imagine if the Obama administration did some kind of negotiation with Al-Queada and Yes in the 80's Iranians were the Al-Queada of the 80's.

Small Govt??? Don't think so- Govt size increased and so did spending duing Reagan's years. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Are you trying to get the turd to shine by talking about the mishaps of past presidents? If that's the case talk about Carter.

His spending on the military lead to the end of the cold war. Something I think we could agree was a good thing. Originally Posted by Laz

His military spending hastened it, but did not cause it. The fall of the Soviet structure was in significant part due to their economic inflexibility, but the real disease that ate them from the inside was demographics. Read some of the 1970s & 80s articles in Moscow Statistica (amazing what was allowed in open media). A society that was eminently racist--that only trusted ethnic Slavic peoples to be in charge of the critical positions and decision structure--needs to keep a large enough Slavic base. But the Asiatic, non-Slavic peoples were becoming "too numerous". The numbers were cracking--and would have eventually split open--the "Soviet" model, which was never anything other than an ethnic driven "Slavic supremacy" structure.

It will be very interesting to observe how the US deals with the European decedents becoming a smaller fraction of the US population. How will power shift? Right now it seems to be happening more smoothly at the working level, though not as quickly as it should. That is not the case all the way up the economic ladder, and much of the RWW agenda in politics is really based on denial of the numbers game.

In the end, numbers ALWAYS win out.

So Obaminable owns "Obamacare," because he could have vetoed it?

Snick x 100

From one of the village idiots; no substance just this:

Snick x 100 Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Snick x 1000 Ocean slime wanting to up his count.

The fall of the Soviet structure was in significant part due to their economic inflexibility, but the real disease that ate them from the inside was demographics.



In the end, numbers ALWAYS win out. Originally Posted by Old-T

So, the U.S. is suffocating from the "real disease" of "demographics?

Interesting perspective.

Apparently due primarily ....

......... to the lack of motivation to improve one's stature in society.

No incentive ....

......... when one merely hands over the spoils of their risk taking and ingenuity.

Seeking to explain the decline of "empires" based on "demographics" is risky business in and of itself, and subjects one to being identified as a racist, because it requires a comparison of cultural differences as they relate to social changes impacting, if not affecting, on a given society's economic welfare and political strength. Makes interesting talk over bad tea, but can be the source of retaliation.

Ah, yes, remembering those 14% interest rates on a home loan from Ronnie's reign.

Facts are such a damn nuisance!

So Obaminable owns "Obamacare," because he could have vetoed it? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think you have it backwards. Obamacare owns Obama. You can also put another way. Those that wrote Obamacare own Obama.

I think you have it backwards. Obamacare owns Obama. You can also put another way. Those that wrote Obamacare own Obama. Originally Posted by acp5762

The "talking points" from the WH now refer to it as .... the "Affordable Care Act" .. BTW.

Already distancing themselves from the .... nightmare.

The "online" applications cannot be processed "on line" ....

................ the premiums are "locked in" ....

................some "markets" don't have websites form completing applications ....

Looking just fantastic for the "community organizer" .... !!!!

Haven't heard yet what the "accommodations" are ......

.........................to meet ADA requirements for Apps!

........................and the English-Second-Language accommodations?

Snick, snick X "17 million" WITHOUT COVERAGE!!!

The "talking points" from the WH now refer to it as .... the "Affordable Care Act" .. BTW.

Already distancing themselves from the .... nightmare.

The "online" applications cannot be processed "on line" ....

................ the premiums are "locked in" ....

................some "markets" don't have websites form completing applications ....

Looking just fantastic for the "community organizer" .... !!!!

Haven't heard yet what the "accommodations" are ......

.........................to meet ADA requirements for Apps!

........................and the English-Second-Language accommodations?

Snick, snick X "17 million" WITHOUT COVERAGE!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I've noticed that. The term "Obamacare" is being replaced with "The Affordable Healthcare Act" I keep hearing it being repeated over and over. I haven't heard anything yet that truly makes it affordable.

I've noticed that. The term "Obamacare" is being replaced with "The Affordable Healthcare Act" I keep hearing it being repeated over and over. I haven't heard anything yet that truly makes it affordable. Originally Posted by acp5762

No one has had to "cut a check" yet ... except to pay for the administrative costs.

I just heard on the news a $1.5 billion contract for "on line" apps being "vetted" for "insureds"!!! ... and the apps are only partially researched in the system. The remainder will be by "hand" ... to assure the validity of the information provided in the apps ... without a national data base on line to verify the information.

Does the word "fraud" have any meaning here?

"Circle Jerk" for the White House.