Rubio makes a Reaganesque pitch for free enterprise, growth

If you talk real nice about that fella maybe you’ll get a chance to kiss his ring one day, Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

Geeeez, Kyle !!! You have regurgitated and posted this nonesense yet again. Rubio is nothing more than a fraud being overhyped by the Republicans. They now have him exactly where they want — by the balls — to do their pitching for them.

But eventually, Rubio wouldn’t know what hit him. He is being used as little placeholder who will be dropped by the cons in a heartbeat as soon as the “appropriate” white boy emerges.

Rubio should give the following pawns a call to find out what awaits him: Bobby “Priush” Jindal, Michael Steele, Alan Keys, and most recently, Herman Cain.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ayn Rant, your 7:26 is the pure nonsense.

“Maybe they need some opportunity!”

Please. Opportunity abounds for people who are willing to work and willing to learn. Don’t blame those who work hard and recognize what learning can do, for the failures of those who squander those same opportunities.

“How can an American save for his future if he can hardly find employment, doesn’t know how to do much useful, inherited nothing from the parents, and will never earn a living wage in his lifetime?”

Why isn’t he not doing better 3-5 years following graduation? Oh, that’s right, he failed to graduate! So now it’s my responsibility to take care of him from cradle to grave because he didn’t do what about 70% of his fellow American do every year? Cry me a freakin’ river!

“There’s at least 40 million Americans, mostly ethnic minorities, like that.”

Shame on them, Ayn. Shame on THEM!

This has ALWAYS been the land of opportunity – if you are willing.

Unfortunately, it’s now become the land of nanny-state if you are not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Come on Kyle, calm down. The guy just spoke normal, like any true American would.

You just haven’t heard very much of it lately with obozo running his filthy mouth and all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Look, I don’t glorify Ronald Reagan as many others do on the conservative side, because his record of doing as he said wasn’t as good as all that. He was a great orator and a man who knew how to lead (something this President could really learn).

But he was President in a different time, which mars his record a bit more than if he were serving in this time period. He had a severely Democrat Congress, led by one of the Kings of government spending, Tip O’Neill D-MA. He had the Cold War still ongoing. As such, for him to get the military spending he needed to counter the Russian threat, Tip was able to get increased social spending.

But Reagan didn’t take any guff from those air traffic controllers when they decided to strike, which more Presidents should do when it comes to dealing with unions. And he stayed true to his core principles when he could, which is something even more Presidents (Bush in particular) should do.

All-in-all, one of the better Presidents for the time in which he served.

And puts the current imposter to shame.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another deregulation nut who would like more of the failed republican agenda like dubya brought to the table and then left all the dirty dishes that may take 20 years to clean up. No more of that kookyness with my vote.

• Link
• Report this comment

How ironic that you’re singing the praises of someone who has tacked the same path as the current President, who you believe is inexperienced. Rich.

• Link
• Report this comment

“On top of it all, we made these changes without regard to cost…”

True, cost did not matter. Not to Reagan. And it all started with President Reagan. Reagan, the first President to triple the national debt. Reagan who expanded Medicare beyond recognition. Reagan who “saved” Social Security as we now know it.

If Rubio wants to make this speech, and I do not disagree with the speech, do not make it at the Reagan library. Make it at the library of the last president to sign a balanced budget into law. Or make it in the Senate. Or make it at home.

Kyle you need a reality check on Reagan. As a fiscal conservative Reagan was a joke. As a small government president Reagan was a joke.

Reagan said all the correct things but did all the wrong things.

• Link
• Report this comment

jconservative,

Just because you can’t remember the great things that Reagan did, doesn’t mean the rest of America has forgotten. He was an inspiring orator. a diplomat extroidinaire. He is remembered for having “torn down that Wall”! He showed leadership in whatever he did and America knew it.

No president is perfect and Reagan was not either. He recognized some mistakes but never lost his equilibrium or his leadership. His optimism was uplifting with no childish exhibitions. Americans are still pleased to remember Reagan and the good will he engendered.

Too bad you have long missed out on any optimism.

• Link
• Report this comment

jconservative, I suggest you read my 9:10 post, then go out and read a biography of Reagan, rather than rely on some liberal talking points and meaningless statistics without an appreciation of the era under which Reagan served. Oh, and do so with an open mind.

Then, and only then, can you come back and make a valid point about the Reagan presidency.

• Link
• Report this comment

again; two words: Alzheimer’s. You want to name an airport after him; fine. His most signficant accomplishment as POTUS was, as jcon observed; tripling the federal debt. beyond that; killing 300+Marines in Beruit and providing aid to a known terrorist state (Iran) would be 3 and 4. Rubio and the rest of the revisionist historians can spout whatever mastabatory fantasies they like. the bottom line is’ we were not “better off” in 1989 than 1980. in fact, we were 300% less “better off”. (and “The Wall” came down in 90; almost two year AFTER he left office).

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Rubio makes a Reaganesque pitch for free enterprise, growth [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

The gipper was a failure. “Bedtime for Bonzo” was the closest Reagan ever came to success and that was only because Bonzo dragged him along on his coattails. What movie can we expect to see Rubio costar in and how will he make it without a star such as Bonzo to show him how to get the banana out of the jar, as he did for Reagan.

• Link
• Report this comment

Conservatives have fond memories of an America that exists only in their minds. Just when exactly did this magical place exist? It must have been before we drove the native peoples from their lands. Before we bought millions of black people here in chains to work as slaves. Where were the kindly social institutions you referred to when children worked fourteen hours a day in dangerous unhealthy factories. Was this before women could vote perhaps? Where is this magical place you’d take us back to . How many times must we cut taxes and deregulate industry before we arrive at this magical place?
Of course conservatives aren’t concerned about global climate change. That only exist in the real world.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you keep repeating the same lie, Rubio, simple people might believe it.

For those whose brain stems are still connected to oxygen, you know that nostalgia is just your inability to remember things in context.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/even-better-than-the-real-thing

• Link
• Report this comment

A couple of readers called me out on my criticism of Reagan as a conservative and as a fiscal conservative.

No one denied a word that I wrote.

If one wants to base a president on his speeches, how he looked, his philosophy, then OK to do.

I base a president on what he does. I look at the legislation signed into law. And if you actually look at the legislation signed into law, Reagan was one of our more liberal presidents.

And in looking at the candidates being trotted out by the Republicans this cycle, we will have another fiscally liberal administration starting in January 2013.

• Link
• Report this comment

All figures quoted are from OMB. The deficit/surplus is based on Receipts – outlays.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The free enterprise system does not leave people behind. People are poor and people are left behind because they do not have access to the free enterprise system because something in their lives or in their community has denied them access” to it. It is a system that pulls “millions of…people out of poverty,” one which “creates prosperity, not denies it.”

Sorry, but Rubio is totally wrong! Corporations, medical, and educational institutions, through technology, rules, credentials, etc., have been denying people jobs for a long time. Just try to get a job online these days–you’re lucky if you hear back. And the jobs that are offered are frequently at lower salaries and wages (and require more credentials, skills) relative to Reagan’s time, so that more people are indeed headed into poverty. They can’t keep up with all that’s asked of them. The failure of our gov. has been its failure to put working citizens first, while propping up corporate policies.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Gipper would have been proud”

This kind of speech certainley causes broad smiles on the faces of Big Business CEO’s. Rubio wants to take us back to the good ole days of laissez faire which featured such good things as 6 day work weeks, 12 hour work days, no overtime, no paid vacations, no paid holidays, no sick leave, no insurance, no Workman’s Comp, and lots and lots of child labor. If any of you truly think today’s “Captains of Industry” just would not do the above, I have some excellent oil well stock in Snellville for sale to you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Business is the common denominator that has changed since Reagan not people. Weak government has invited business to be the real head of state in this country. To big to fail is not an individual’s problem in this country it is the problem of monopoly in the business sector that trickles into all America. There are public companies sitting on trillions of dollars, holding this nation hostage. This is a total disconnect to what free enterprise is all about. If we had not bailed these banks out, there would be a hungry sector looking to compete for the positions the big banks left when they failed. And with the big banks there would have been public corporations that fail too. No money would be sitting on the sideline waiting for these conditions to be met before they invested in a country that saved them from bankruptcy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Time for some schooling on the Wingfield blog so that the liberals on here understand reality a bit.

First, Streetracer is correct. YOu gauge spending issues by who is in charge of Congress, not who is President. Not for the fact that spending bills originate in the House (that matters), but for the fact that we have been operating under a weak Executive Branch for the past 60 years or so, where Congress exerts more power than ever before. Want proof? Check out the number of Presidential vetoes in the last 60 years. Dropping steadily from their historic highs, and overridden more when they are used.

Next, to say that “He used classical Keynes(liberal) economics to stimulate the economy with deficit spending” as Moderate Line asserts is just plain wrong. Reagan had two main agendas: get the economy back on it’s feet after 4 years of Jimmy carter, and ending the Cold War. His counterpart in the House, Speaker Tip O’Neill had HIS own agenda: expand the social welfare state.

Neither could get what they wanted without working together.

So they compromised. Reagan knew (and had lived under) the threat of nuclear weapons and what the prospects of a long-term Cold War (and the potential of a real war would do to America and the world. He knew the Soviets couldn’t keep up with our economy if we focused it on military upgrades and readiness. So he spent like crazy on the Defense side (which also helped to stimulate the economy). Tip O’Neill got his social agenda and his spending. The deficit and debt grew.

But even though the Berlin Wall came down in 1990, two years after Reagan left office, it was the policies of Ronald Reagan that caused that to happen, not George H.W. Bush. And for the first time in 40 years, the threat of the end of the world through nuclear holocaust was gone.

For some of you too young to remember fallout drills and hiding under your desks at school during air raid drills, this may not seem as important as it does to those who did. But Ronald Reagan’s deficit spending changed the face of this planet forever, and to blithely assign “classical Keynes(liberal) economics” to his term of office is about as ignorant as you can get. You liberals need to do a better job of understanding history and context before you use raw statistics without historical background.

I, for one, will be forever grateful for the world Ronald Wilson Reagan left us.

• Link
• Report this comment

I wonder why Rubio failed to mention that Reagan raised taxes and took away tax deductions from ordinary folks?

• Link
• Report this comment

“No one denied a word that I wrote.”

jconservative, if you like living in the world of black and white with no contextual basis, then acceptance and denial is all you’ll ever get.

However, that way of life is one of ignorance to the reality surrounding you.

I suggest you read my 8:48 to understand WHY Reagan signed bills that expanded spending and social programs.

Without the “why” you will forever have an empty argument.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Corporations, medical, and educational institutions, through technology, rules, credentials, etc., have been denying people jobs for a long time.”

Denying people jobs, Eric?

What makes you think that anyone OWES you a jobs? Because that what your term “denying” implies.

They don’t owe you a job, and in a scarce job market, companies can afford to be a bit choosier in deciding what skills and requirements are needed to fill them.

Because it is THEIR job and THEIR money to do with as THEY please, not as you want.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

Rubio and the Big Business types are far too smart to actually come out and say they want to take us back to the days of runaway Corporate greed. The fact that you cannot see this shows you have only a slight understanding of human nature and know even less about the true nature of sociopathic Corporate personalities.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Rubio and the Big Business types are far too smart to actually come out and say they want to take us back to the days of runaway Corporate greed.”

And just when did you discover your ability to see inside the minds of others you’ve never met, Carlos? Have you been tested for psychic abilities?

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Republicans have not had a president in years get the majority of the vote; they win by tricks and court decisions with a minority of the vote.”

There’s your sign . . .

“Democrats are far more answerable to the masses than corporate sponsored Republicans.”

Corporate donations to both sides belies THAT statement. But you keep thinking otherwise.

• Link
• Report this comment

‘Morning, @@!

• Link
• Report this comment

In Ronald Reagan’s America large corporations like Apple, Exxon, General Electric get by without paying corporate income taxes, while the middle class does.

In Ronald Reagan’s America a working class stiff pays income taxes at a higher rate than the gazillionaire creating a broadening gap between the rich and the poor. As Buffet says, he pays taxes at a lower rater than his secretary.

In Ronald Reagan’s America regulations are trashed in the mistaken notion that big business can be trusted to do the right thing — to protect our financial institutions, environment, water, air and the safety of employees — and we know that’s horse hocky.

In Ronald Reagan’s America politicians are able to say one thing, but do another and create a myth that’s totally incongruent with the reality.

Ronald Reagan’s America the folks are looking backwards and the politicians are operating from a model that no longer exists.

Ronald Reagan’s America is lying in ruins, so we need to move the country away from the failed economic policies that didn’t work for the Gipper and won’t work today to a global model that offers the opportunity to cooperate and be a leading member of the global economy.

But the truth is without this idealized and inaccurate portrayal of Ronald Reagan, the Republican/Tea Party has nothing to offer.

• Link
• Report this comment

In Clinton Tyree’s America, hyperbole is substituted for facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Reagan would be EMBRACED by the GOP and Tea Party if he were running today,”

LMAO! Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Those immigrants, their children, and now their grandchildren are now voting for Democrats! The Tea Party would love another round!

Remember Rubio, DEFICITS DON”T MATTER!!!! Get busy Rubio, raise some taxes!

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius …

You are delusional this morning! “Reagan brought down communism” like Perry invented Texas! The Soviet Union tottered for many years before it finally collapsed from economic malfunction.

Reagan’s stupid military spending program, “Star Wars”, heartened the Soviet military, but may have caused some of the Soviet literati to die laughing at the notion of the enemy spending itself into oblivion on a mathematically-preposterous cold war weapon.

The Russian Federation is now debt-free, has an embarrassing trade surplus, sits on 1/6 of the world’s land mass and mineral riches, has shaken off responsibility for the troublesome Asian “stans” and Ukraine, and has a growing economy and a prospering citizenry. Unfortunately, Russia’s economic development is retarded by Russian politicians that are as corrupt and self-serving as their American counterparts.

Our own country is dependent on the yearly federal budget deficit for 10% of its GDP, and has no hope whatsoever of paying off the accumulating national debt that Reagan shrugged off as “big enough to take care of itself”.

So, who won what in that “cold war” that never came to blows?

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan was an actor. His political acting career was the highlight of his ‘b-list” career. He played the role of politician very well.

During his first run for governor of California Reagan promised to tackle all of California’s budget problems without raising taxes. What do you think was one of the first things he did as governor? He raised taxes. He later explained that a tax increase early in his term could be blamed on his predecessor, he also said the voters would forget all about the tax hike come reelection time, they did.

Reagan raised taxes, something the Tea Party hates. Why did he raise taxes? Because he did not want to weaken California’s expanding university system, probably the first place our new Tea Party friends would start cutting. Texas and Georgia are modern examples of Republicans slashing education.

Reagan wasn’t nearly as rigid as the new Tea Party Republicans. If Reagan were “Tea Party” there may not have been the tech revolution in California that has changed our society.

Reagan would never ever be welcomed by the Tea Party folks. Reagan was far too “liberal” and not nearly as rigid as the Tea Party crazies. He wouldn’t stand a chance. Ever hear of a “Reagan Democrat?” You’ll never hear “Rubio Democrat,” or “Perry Democrat.” Why?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Reagan winning the cold war” is a part of the mythology of Reagan, a simplistic fantasy of Reagan’s admirers. Which does not mean that RR did not play a part, that his policy did not contribute to the fall of the Soviet Union. But there were many before him, and many factors other than Reagan’s policy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice try, DannyX on rewriting the definition of a term, but it doesn’t fly.

From Wiki: “The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that “Reagan Democrats” no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the “malaise” of the Carter administration. They also supported Reagan’s strong stance on national security and opposed the 1980s Democratic Party on such issues as pornography, crime, and high taxes.”

Economic and national security issues drove Reagan Democrats, DannyX, NOT social issues.

You did study history in school, didn’t you?

• Link
• Report this comment

“and you want to blame the Democrats for the sudden increase in the deficit. I am sorry but I can’t buy that. ”

Then you don’t know a thing about Tip O’Neill, Moderate Line,

• Link
• Report this comment

Thank you, Dusty.

And good morning!

• Link
• Report this comment

In the real world a company might be given special tax incentives to build a plant in certain community. The theory being that the newly hired employees will spend their money locally and offset the additional cost the plant places on the existing infrastructure. The Kia plant in west Georgia is a good example of this type of tax incentive. In the fantasy world, we give the wealthy massive tax relief and trust them to create the new jobs that are to replace the lost revenues.
the truth is the new jobs were created. They just weren’t created here. In a capitalist society money flows to where it will create the greatest return for the investor. Why invest in America when the low lying fruit’s in Asia? The wealthy even need us less and less as consumers. The emerging markets of India and China are also providing new consumers for the new plants. It seems that we’re not the only people in the world that can afford Wal-Mart junk. If you live off your portfolio, Reaganomics was a roaring success. On the other hand, if you live off a paycheck, It pretty much sucked.
Ayn Rant’s observation is correct. Short term, a society can indulge itself in this kind of economic nonsense. Long term, the pidgins come home to roost. Libya’s elite lived it up for decades on the counties oil revenues. In the end, their gated communities weren’t as safe and secure as they’d allowed themselves to believe. The right is fond of accusing the left of class warfare. I firmly believe progressives don’t promote class warfare. They’re doing their very best to prevent it. Vast income inequity is not the hallmark of a sound economic system, and in the end, paybacks are hell.

• Link
• Report this comment

Read the following quotes from Ronald Reagan, DannyX. If you were alive and paying attention back then, remember the voice, the inflection, and the style of his delivery. This man was a master orator and motivator. If you don’t think that these quotes wouldn’t have endeared him to today’s Tea Party, then you don’t know Ronald Reagan, and you don’t know the Tea party at all.

“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.”

“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

“The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

That certainly was the case when Bush W was destroying the country. He brought in all his incompetent “you’re doing a heck of a job” people.

In the mean time all the smart people, liberals, were building a whole new economy based on technology. While Bush was destroying the country our smart liberals were building Google, Apple, Microsoft, and all the others, and yes, creating the internet you love. The liberals were out creating capitalist giants. Bush was spending tax $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

• Link
• Report this comment

“While Bush was destroying the country our smart liberals were building Google, Apple, Microsoft, and all the others, and yes, creating the internet you love.”

DannyX, you REALLY need to quit exposing yourself to intellectual ridicule. Not only do you not know history and politics, you now have shown yourself to not know about business.

Google began in 1996

Microsoft in 1975.

Apple started in 1977.

And The Internet was started in 1982.

All these companies were founded and in full flower years (in some cases decades) before George W. Bush became President in 2001.

Facts. They’re the lifeblood of intelligent debate.

• Link
• Report this comment

Too many posters here blinded by Progressive ideology. I remember presidents back to Ike. Carter by far has been the worse. It took Reagan to turn the country around. Was he perfect? No, but he has thus far been the best in my lifetime. Obama may surpass the peanut farmer into the toilet. If not, he will be just above Carter on the scale. It will take a Republican to again put the country on the road to prosperity. We really don’t have a choice; Obama is killing the goose.

• Link
• Report this comment

True, cost did not matter. Not to Reagan. And it all started with President Reagan. Reagan, the first President to triple the national debt. Reagan who expanded Medicare beyond recognition. Reagan who “saved” Social Security as we now know it.

I guess LBJ’s Great Society was free………….

• Link
• Report this comment

And how many private industries are hiring former Obama economic advisers into their companies?

Larry Summers (he of the support for derivative deregulation,btw) – back to Harvard University.

Christine Romer – back to Berkeley to teach.

Austan Goolsbee – University of Chicago.

Looks as if the business world doesn’t think too highly of our President’s former economic “Dream Team”. I wonder why that is . . . . ?

• Link
• Report this comment

No More Progressives, your 11:46 is proof positive that repeating the same data over and over again does not make it any more valid than the first time it was invalidated.

I suggest you read something about the HISTORY of the Reagan years, and not rely on talking points without context.

• Link
• Report this comment

Out for a bit.

I suggest you liberals THINK a bit before posting more of your nonsense Your morning contributions have been pretty bad.

• Link
• Report this comment

Regan is dead and gone…move on.

• Link
• Report this comment

Regarding Reagan and the Cold War I defer to Alexander Haig, former secretary of state and commander of NATO. He said that claiming Reagan won the Cold War was an insult to every other president who served during the 40+ years of the cold war. Every president contributed to that victory. The Kennedy commitment to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth took America from 2nd to 1st in space. That event was real and did more than Reagan ever dreamed of in space. Also, Kennedy gave the first and best speech at the Berlin Wall at a moment when the issure was still in doubt.
Roosevelt’s program to insure and regulate banks gave the country 50 years of a successful banking system. Reagan’s deregulation of the S&Ls collapsed within 10 years and cost $80 billion. The deregulation of insurance companies and banks in the 90s led to the financial collapse within 10 years and cost $800 billion. No serious person could suggest that another round of deregulation will improve anything.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah and by the same token to claim obumer got Osama is equal to the claim Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall and ended the cold war.

You liberals can’t have it both ways. When it happens on their watch the “CREDIT” is deferred to them!

Like the trillions of dollars obumer has spent to lose millions of jobs. That deficit belongs to him and so does the unemployment – it does not belong to Bush!

• Link
• Report this comment

How are you able to erase any and everything your democrats have done wrong throughout history, including obumer’s massive screw ups? Damn miracles just keep happening no matter whose in charge.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Regarding Reagan and the Cold War I defer to Alexander Haig, former secretary of state and commander of NATO.”

You mean Alexander “I’m in charge” Haig who didn’t know the Constitutional line of succession, Another Vet? That Alexander Haig?

Saying that every President contributed to the end of the Cold War is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow. Duh!

But it took ONE President to end it WHEN IT DID.

Ronald Wilson Reagan.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe, I’ve got to take you to task on the NASA funding drop.

Current funding levels in place today are the result of GWB’s final budgets, not the current mistake’s. And I don’t blame him for not restoring those cuts in this economic time.

• Link
• Report this comment

what miraculous political party starts most of these wars? who usually has to fight them? do tell everyone again how the miraculous political party that starts all of these wars is on the side of the poor and working poor?

• Link
• Report this comment

Anyone seen our welfare checks?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bad news Republicans. Al-Qaida’s second-in-command has just been killed in Pakistan.”

So? If you think that this next election in any way, shape or form will be about national security or terrorism, you’re delusional.

“Don’t mess with Obama.”

What did he do?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Good AFTERNOON, Tiberius. How goes the empire?”

Well, I’m not fiddling while Rome is burning, if you know what I mean . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
August 27th, 2011
10:45 am

“and you want to blame the Democrats for the sudden increase in the deficit. I am sorry but I can’t buy that. ”

Then you don’t know a thing about Tip O’Neill, Moderate Line,
+++++
Tip O’Neal became Speaker of the house in 1977. The deficit did not break 3% until 1982. Also, note as soon as the Republicans lost the Senate in 1987 the deficit went down.

Instead of using facts and/or logic you use counter arguments like ” I don’t know Tip O’Neal.” Ok. Then you don’t know Ronald Reagan. The facts are what they are Reagan ran Presidency had 5 of the largest deficits since 1950. Plus in 2011 who is going to get the blame for the deficit Boehner or Obama.

1977 -2.7 O’Neal/Carter
1978 -2.7 O’Neal/Carter
1979 -1.6 O’Neal/Carter
1980 -2.7 O’Neal/Carter
1981 -2.6 O’Neal/Reagan
1982 -4.0 O’Neal/Reagan
1983 -6.0 O’Neal/Reagan
1984 -4.8 O’Neal/Reagan
1985 -5.1 O’Neal/Reagan
1986 -5.0 O’Neal/Reagan
1987 -3.2 Wright/ Reagan
1988 -3.1 Wright/ Reagan
1989 -2.8 Wright/ Reagan

• Link
• Report this comment

Moderate Line, if you’re going to rely on an argument based solely on data without context, then there is no hope for you.

None.

Why do you continue to do so, when the evidence you need to EVALUATE the data has been pointed out to you time after time after time?

Repeat after me, Moderate Line:

Reagan had an agenda (Carter did not).

Tip O’Neill had an agenda.

Neither one could do what they wanted without the other.

Reagan’s agenda was to end the Cold War and improve the economy.

Tip O’Neill’s agenda was to increase social programs.

They both agreed to help the other one out so that both got what they wanted.

Deficits and debt increase because of BOTH agendas.

Are we clear on that, Moderate Line?

Look, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. If you continue to rely on statistics alone, you’ll never be able to make an intelligent argument to people who actually do know what is going on. Now, do you wish to repeat your incomplete data again in hopes that it will magically make a point that cannot be made, or do you wish to go back and actually study the Reagan years IN THEIR FULL CONTEXT in order to learn something?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Is this all it takes to become a republican front-runner?”

Uh, MM?

A “front-runner” is someone who is actually – you know – RUNNING for something!

Pay attention, please.

• Link
• Report this comment

The commander in chief who saw a war through from beginning to the virtual end was FDR. Since that was the biggest international crisis of the 20th century, FDR was clearly the most successful commander in chief of the 20th century.
While Reagan deserves some credit for the cold war success, $12 a barrel oil was a more critical factor limiting what the soviets could do. Central European uprisings had more support from the Pope that inspired people.
Twelve years after America landed a man on the moon, Reagan said the government was the problem. Given Reagan’s simplistic view of life, he might have thought two postal workers got lost and ended up on the moon.
Given the failure of his deregulation, the fact that he had to raise taxes to make up for mistakes during his first tax program, the fact that he traded guns for hostages with Iran, and the fact that he retreated from Beirut, I find the adulation of Reagan difficult to understand.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet and Granny Godzilla lost their welfare
August 27th, 2011
3:24 pm

“Wingfield, is this your idea of leasdership?”

What is with left wingers and horrible grammar?
+++++
After Bush and his mastery of the English language you are going to go there. lol

• Link
• Report this comment

Ronald Reagan was not a bad president, because he realized, unlike his heirs today, that he is the President of all the people in this country, not only those who believed in his ideas.

Still, many of his remembered statements are demagogic slogans without any substance. The following are good examples:

“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.”

“The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The former is an inanity. The latter would suit in a monologue of late night show host, but hardly as a pronouncement of a President. It is on the intellectual level of “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Nice rhetoric, MarkV.

Got anything else?

I didn’t think so.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
August 27th, 2011
4:07 pm

Priorities.
++++
If the economy was a priority and he believe government spending and deficit spending hurt the economy why did he not do more to reduce government spending and defcit spending.

Did he believe that government spending and the deficit would improve the economy as most of the Republicans now believe?

You can make the argument he the cold war was higher priority to him than the economy but you still have to explain how the economy improved with no shrinkage in the government and deficit spending.

• Link
• Report this comment

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War — saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

• Link
• Report this comment

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following question:

Would you trade 2.8 million jobs? Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent — a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year.

• Link
• Report this comment

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following question:

Would you trade the stock market boom? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.

And don’t forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.

The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.

All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, “there you go again.”

Heritage Foundation

• Link
• Report this comment

“President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War — saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction. “

The usual simplistic fantasy of conservatives.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan’s legacy, part 2,

Standing next to a Mexican/American border fence, Reagan said “… if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity, if you seek liberalization, come here to this fence. Open this gate. America, tear down this fence!”

Of course those weren’t his exact words that speech put a tear in the eye of 22 million Mexican, now Democratic voters.

Mexican Americans see Ronaldo Reagan as the “Padre of our Country!” In fact I think May 5th will soon become Ronaldo Reagan Day here in America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan’s legacy
August 27th, 2011
4:36 pm
Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following question:
+++++
Are you arguing that deficit spending improved the economy because I don’t think that is what most Republicans believe?

I would have to give most of the credit to Paul Volker by using Monterist policies with the Fed to lower inflation.

Also, you are minimizing the impact of Volker and his monterist policies during the 1980’s. Volker’s primary goal was to lower inflation by raising interest rates. When Reagan cut taxes Volker immediately raised interest rates to combat inflation. Some would argue he over corrected which threw the economy back into a recession.

I give Reagan credit for not interfering with Volker and appointing Greenspan who did a good job until the last recession

• Link
• Report this comment

RUBIO?? This is NOT EVEN A CANDIDATE!! Kyle, you kill me… How can you even begin to frame this person as a serious candidate for Presidency? I’m all ears…

They say shallow water isn’t deep, this will be the extent of Rubio’s “greatness.” He spoke at the Reagan Library. And, almost forgot, “looked Reaganesque.” Seriously. As much as you Cons want to hate the President, you have a splintered party that cannot present a unifying candidate. Thank your fractured base, we Liberals certainly do. Thank your, fractured leadership (Limbaugh, Hannity, Murdoch), we Liberals certainly do. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I see that to be a candidate in good standing with the constantly changing Tea Party, one must only say something negative about the President, whether it is factual or fabricated (the latter is the norm), and booya, frontrunner. Funny, we have yet to hear a plan that has any substance. We don’t need rhetoric and that goes for the President too. But we also know that the sole mission of the ReNopelicans is to deny the Presiednt any successes, even at a price to the GOP ad their constituents.

Rubbio, Kyle? That’s all you got? What happened to Cain, Bachmann, Romney, Palin….

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, I was not aware that Dubyah cut NASA, and I agree that in this Obama economy, now is not the time to reverse any cuts in spending.

MM
You noted somewhere above that Conservatives trot out the same old answers. You are right, they always work, so let us try something that works for a change.

Obama is trotting out the same old liberal, Robin Hood, agenda that has failed in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and the United States. We have been fighting this war on poverty since LBJ and we have as many poor people as a percentage of the population as we did when we started. Talk about wasted government spending, trillions of dollars that could have been used to lift people out of poverty, was spent mantaining them in their state of dispair.

When will you ” progressives” learn that the Democrats do not want these programs to succeed, they just want to clear their consciencous and feel humane, while they count the votes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan’s legacy
August 27th, 2011
4:36 pm
Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.
That would that millions would have had to drop considering the quintiles are evenly divided. I bet they are not so happy about that. I didn’t realize Reagan was against the rich.

Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s
According to OMB revenues dropped from 19.6% of GDP to 17.3% in 1984.

The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history.
I am not sure what you mean about boom. The same president who seems to skirt blame for the deficit now seem to get credit for what everything that happen for 20 years.
The longest economic expansion occurred from 1991 to 2001 at 120 months. Started under Bush I and ended by Bush II. I believe Bush I and Clinton should get some credit.
The second longest was from 1961 to 1969.
The third largest expansion was 1982 to 1990.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

• Link
• Report this comment

There are a bunch of us out here in agreement. The government is completely out of control and growing. I don’t feel represented at all anymore. How many of you feel as if you We’d really like to see our borders secured, immigration under control, and to stop all the aid to foreign countries.

• Link
• Report this comment

You still have (not)said he had any responsibility for the deficit.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan’s legacy @4:36 pm: “Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s”

Neat trick comparing the 1980s with 1970s, rather than with 1990s. But still false.

• Link
• Report this comment

Prosperity and compassion, very nice. The government is out of control and still growing. There are lots of us who would agree.

If you’re listening out there while we’re striving for prosperity and compassion please let us know we’re represented and address these issues:

Enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.

Stop all the foreign aid to countries where the leaders and citizens want to kill us.

Renegotiate terms on trade agreements so they’re no lose-lose propositions for us.

I’m an independent voter waiting for our government to step out of private business and start addressing these national needs. I’ve been feeling as if I’m not represented for decades now.

.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV, answer the questions.

• Link
• Report this comment

“seems like moderate and another vet kicked some butt here today”

Yeah, if you believe up is down and left is right, they sure did.

Otherwise, not so much.

• Link
• Report this comment

seems like moderate and another vet got their butt kicked here today

• Link
• Report this comment

The American economy is rather like the water and drought we have in the mainland of this country. In New York there are floods while in other parts of the country like Texas there are droughts. I have often thought we could come up with a system to distribute water from one location to another instead of wasting it.

The economy is the same. Millions are looking for jobs but there are jobs in the market place. The problem is we define ourselves as a cook, or an accountant so we don’t look where there are jobs we look at our profession where there may not be jobs. What we really need to do is look at the overall picture and say there is a demand here or a problem there that needs to be fixed. Instead of having someone hand you a job, make a place in the market for yourself. We are a country that loves to complain, turn that complaining into employment, fix the problem, it may be worth money, and it certainly will stop some complaining. The distribution of services and work in this country has gotten worse and worse. Banking in particularly has gotten bad, airlines, service in some restaurants. If we take action this country gets better and the people who don’t deserve our business that we are forced to use will be the ones looking for jobs. This country is far from efficient; the original idea of the economy was this would be replace by more efficient people. In mainland America it has not because we have been invaded by the too big to fail world of strangers who could care less about the fly over country except to feed their bonuses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reagan’s legacy August 27th, 2017:55 pm: ”MarkV, answer the questions.”

Why should I answer your dumb questions? This is a stupid political game both sides are playing, which I refuse to play. When I see false information, like your statement that “Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s,” I point it out, but I won’t bother with claims that nobody can prove.

The essence of all you questions is that it was Reagan’s policy and actions that caused the effects you cite, such as:

“Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent — a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year

In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.”

“In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the average household’s annual disposable income increased $13,000. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, these incomes surged $28,000.”

Prove that Reagan’s tax relief caused the unemployment to drop. Prove that Reagan’s tax relief caused the S&P 500 to increase 120 percent. I could just as well say that the unemployment would have been even lower without the Reagan’s tax relief, that the S&P 500 would have increased more than 120 percent, that the average household’s annual disposable income would have surged more. You cannot disprove it any more than I can prove it.

Want me to show you, by the same reasoning, that Obama is the most successful President in recent history in economic terms? Easy. When he was inaugurated, the GDP growth rate in the first quarter of 2009 was –6.7%. In the first quarter of 2010 it was 3.9% That is a positive change of 10.6% in one year. Show me a president with that record. The argument is stupid, but it is no more stupid than what you have cited.

• Link
• Report this comment

No doubt MarkV will be crediting our President Bush for OBL’s demise. After all, He started the global war on terror and put OBL on the run, and put policies in place that allowed the U.S. to gather the intelligence that led to Abbottabad.

• Link
• Report this comment

We are only consumers that make them more money by purchasing products and services the businesses offer which we find value in.
—————————

Fixed.

• Link
• Report this comment

They know we want or need their products. They have us by the nads and they do what they want (good, bad or indifferent)because of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

lester, would you buy from polluters?

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t have a choice but to buy from polluters, barry. Unless I want to do without electricity.

• Link
• Report this comment

You missed my point, barry. Without some kind of government regulations businesses that were big polluters would have continued to be big polluters. If we take those regulations away, they will go back to there old ways.

• Link
• Report this comment

“isn’t going to be free.”

Great point Lil’. We are lucky we have a state government that believes in old fashioned conservative principles.

Our Republican Socialists created a great financing scheme that proves to Georgia Power residential customers that green energy won’t be cheap. Our Republican socialists devised a scheme that requires only Georgia Power residential customers prepay for the new nuclear plant. Yep, only residential GP customers. The other utilities are not required by law to force their customers into doing the job of investor. This socialist scheme also puts the customer on the line for most cost overruns, we all know how that will end up.

Oh its expensive all right, if you are a Georgia Power residential customer.

• Link
• Report this comment

“What you idiot liberals don’t want to get is a “constitutionally limited” (sic) federal government.”

At least that “idiot liberal” Richard Nixon got his at the end. Idiot Nixon gave us the EPA. Idiot Nixon gave us the Endangered Species Act. Idiot Ford did his share too.

What is with the idiot Republicans turning this place into a liberal socialist nation??????

All the liberal things come from Republicans. W gave us socialized Medicare Part D. Reagan handed out amnesty to 22 million illegal aliens, (what don’t you understand about “ILLEGAL???) “Read My Lips” Bush 1 raised taxes.

Stop electing Republicans.

• Link
• Report this comment

“breian dead people think,” A nice contradiction in terms.

• Link
• Report this comment

1819 McCulloch v.Maryland upheld the right of Congress to create a Bank of the United States, ruling that it was a power implied but not enumerated by the Constitution. The case is significant because it advanced the doctrine of implied powers, or a loose construction of the Constitution.

If that truly be the case then the above fascist socialist brain dead liberal should have acknowledged such a “loose construction” of the Constitution makes the document null and void.

Though, it is very doubtful that loose interpretation is as broad as marxists would make it out to be.

Any event a ruling on ObamaCrae may clarify just how broadly the right of Congress is in regulation commerce or the lack thereof?!

All the more reason Conservatives need to gain sufficient power to amend the Constitution in such manner necessary to nullify McCulloch v.Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden which gives federal supremacy the absolute power never intended by the founders according to the federalist papers and furthermore to render any future contrary court actions moot.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If that truly be the case then the above fascist socialist brain dead liberal should have acknowledged such a “loose construction” of the Constitution makes the document null and void.”

Take it up with the Supreme Court.

Nope! Rather take it up with the Constitution to overrule the court and restrict its hand forevermore in this matter once and for all. No more pee-gressives a.k.a. “fascist socialist liberals”

In fact, a complete overhaul of the constitution is long overdue – Conservatively speaking of course.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Nope! Rather take it up with the Constitution to overrule the court.”

Quite a remarkable nonsense. Since the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

• Link
• Report this comment

This Country has a problem, because people vote for the media darlings!!
STOP LISTENING AND VOTING FOR THE “MEDIA CANDIDATE”!
RUBIO AND RICK PERRY BOTH, ARE SELF SERVING AND NOT RIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY !!

• Link
• Report this comment

WHAT HAS RUBIO DONE???
NOTHING!!!!
A LOT OF MOUTH !!

• Link
• Report this comment

reusha2000: STOP LISTENING AND VOTING FOR THE “MEDIA CANDIDATE”!
—————————-

Amen to that! Look at the retard we’ve got now, and all because the media thought it would be cool to elect a black guy!

Next time, vote for someone who loves America.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV

August 27th, 2011
6:00 pm
Reagan’s legacy @4:36 pm: “Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s”

Neat trick comparing the 1980s with 1970s, rather than with 1990s. But still false.
+++
According to the OMB tables Revenues grew by 18.19% under Reagan. However, in the previous 8 years they grew by 31.9%.
Also, if we look at the 70’s vs the 80’s the 70′ grew by 31.9% while the 80’s grew by 25.8%.

• Link
• Report this comment

“WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE???
NOTHING!!!!
A LOT OF MOUTH !!”

reusha2000, fixed your typo on the current office holder’s accomplishments when he began running for President.

Now, don’t your posts about Rubio seem a bit silly?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I see that HillBilly D is here and that is always good news. For those who haven’t met HillBilly D before, he is the guru of good sense.

Now he suggests that the Pope did have a lot of influence. I”m inclined to agree with that. John Paul was a man of great and good influence. OUr enemies don’t want that now and they did not want it then. The Soviets are suspect in the shooting..

• Link
• Report this comment

Snoqua

Reading your post makes me think you were a big fan of Daniel Ortega. Probably want admit it now, but remember how Ortega was loved by the media and portrayed as this great liberator and leader of the compassionate Sandanista party. He was treated like a Rock Star showing up in NYC with his sunglasses and cool Sandanista attire.

Kinda reminds me of the media love affair with Barry Oblamer.

• Link
• Report this comment

wall st greed machine

never seen one, but it has to be exciting to behold. Does the greed go into the machine or come out of the machine.

I know how a welfair broodmare works, but this greed machine is something I can’t quite figure out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Quite a remarkable nonsense. Since the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

That claim is totally absurd non-sense, as the Declaration of Independence makes it very clear power is derived from the hands of the governed. Therefore, the governed are last and final arbiter of what shall be their government (which includes the branch of the court) and under what laws we shall oblige ourselves to live.

Governments must be granted powers, which the givers thereof can take away. We are endowed with our powers(rights) which governments cannot take away.

You have been trumped. Goodbye.

• Link
• Report this comment

Those on the Left support the free enterprise system, as well as social safety nets. Those on the Right also support the free enterprise system, but they refuse, likewise, to support social safety nets for the American people.

Dead wrong! Not only dead wrong but it is a completely false statement. As for the rest that I’ve yet to visually purge, it is likely more of your highly inaccurate rigid ideologically biased opinion, which I for one would gladly leave behind, if only I could leave it behind quickly enough.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Is there a difference between real historian and a major historian? ”

Well, one must first be a REAL historian, before one can become a MAJOR historian . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

Did anyone else see the bozo lib media weatherman in NY clinging to the railing for his life during the “hurricane,” while passerby stood behind him eating popcorn from a bag?

They blew this one and outed themselves as frauds.

Nothing but government controlled stooges trying to cover for the mindless disruption of millions of people’s lives.

Go away government, don’t come back.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul Krugman?

OMG! That piece of socialist garbage I wouldn’t wipe a soiled butt with if they stopped making toilet paper.

• Link
• Report this comment

The private enterprise advocates should attempt to work in harmony with those who advocate for social safety nets. America can build social safety nets as part of our long-ranged commitment to citizens and still promote the American free enterprise system.

Capitalists cannot work with fascist socialist liberals that think they have the right to control a.k.a. REGULATE every aspect of liberty and freedom within life and economy .

• Link
• Report this comment

reporter

Good afternoon – long time?

**Notice how Iran seems to be pleased with these events?**

I quess they are most happy with our invasion of iraq. They couldn’t do it in eight years but we kind of gift wrapped it for them…

• Link
• Report this comment

tiberius

Man are you fired up? Just curious, since you have the goods like wisdom and knowledge, why not Augustus, you know, the magnificent one?

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t why krugman brings out the ugly

Ever stop to think ugly begets ugly and that’s the tune krugman brings out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Remember a couple of years ago during the floods in the Northeast? A reporter was doing a live shot from a rowboat going down a flooded street (hyping some hundred-year kind of flooding), and two guys got in the shot walking behind her in about 6-8 inches of water?

Gotta hype that story!

• Link
• Report this comment

Mick- When Bush left office, mookie sadr, the Iranian stooge of Iraq, along with his mahdi “army,” were hiding in Iran after having got their butts kicked across the border, thoroughly humiliated, like so many dogs.

I see that you noticed how that has changed with obozo around, like I was saying.

• Link
• Report this comment

smith

I’m an old fashioned newspaper reader so that means a lot of the stories are written by AP or UPI writers, I try to read both sides. The conservative writer for the post, kathleen parker had a great column today, and that’s the way it goes..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perry-the-republicans-messiah/2011/08/26/gIQAGnY5gJ_story.html

• Link
• Report this comment

tiberius, reporter, smith

Nice visiting with you all…reporter, keep on punching – its what you do….roger out

• Link
• Report this comment

The social safety net became so layered it turned into a comfortable king size bed where poverty is bred.

• Link
• Report this comment

I stand corrected. Republicans do have a plan for continuing Social Security and Medicare, such as vouchers given to the elderly so that they can try to find their own insurance company to give them a policy at age 85. Or, a private model for Social Security recipients in which they will furnish their own, individual Social Security accounts through a private model, or another SS plan that would both raise the age for receiving benefits while insisting on a 30% cut in present benefits. Why even call these plans “Social Security” and “Medicare”?

Anyone who can’t see through those smokescreen attempts to dismantle the present safety net programs for average Americans has little hope of seeing into the even more profound manipulations of average Americans, which is causing them to vote against their own interests, while many corporations, Wall Street, and the top 2% of wealthy Americans continue to flourish.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey, just citing some facts that the MSM refuses to admit and no I was not a fan of President Ortega to reflect on the Reagan legacy. No one I know approved of trading guns for money, trading hostages for money, traing guns for hostages, trading cocaine for money or guns. I’m sorry if these facts offend Mr. Rafe, as I said previously, history was my occupation.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m not so sure: Reagan’s policies were left of Rubio’s. By today’s standards, Reagan would be called a moderate Republican while Rubio is of the more deluded Tea Party flavor. Wages have steadily gone down as we’ve waited for wealth to trickle down, by the way… wealth should trickle up instead for better effect.

• Link
• Report this comment

2012.

U R so cute!! A bit cracked too.

I believe they are calling you on Twitter. That’s where the strange birds fly.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gotta love those republicans. “GOPers Using McCarthy-esque Watch Lists with Facebook Profile Pics at Town Hall Events”

• Link
• Report this comment

GT, if the American spirit is indeed dying, it’s because of people like you who believe that taking from people who earn a living and giving their hard work to people who didn’t in all-too meaningless government adventures has sapped that spirit from them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rubio is another right hypocrite, his mother was on medicaide and he said it saved their family, now they hypocrite is against it.

Thanks Obama for killing all these terrorist not bad for someone that hates America and not born here, you are truly a real American.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] En er was meer symboliek – Rubio kwam samen met Nancy Reagan de zaal binnen. De voormalig first lady is niet goed ter been en leunde daarom zwaar op haar wandelstok. De wandelstok gleed weg en Nancy Reagan viel in de armen van Rubio –  als ware hij de redder van het gedachtegoed van Reagan. Zijn speech ging over de proper role of government, een van de lievelingsonderwerpen van Reagan én de Tea Party. Hij maakte zich hard voor een kleine overheid, met weinig regelgeving in een samenleving die voornamelijk gestuurd wordt door de markt. [...]

• Link
• Report this comment