A balanced government

[monicasilver]

Is there a value to indicting a president on failure using those numbers at the 2.5 year point in his term? I would say no and that's most likely why Reagan wasn't indicted as a failure when his numbers were slightly worse than Obama's at the same point. But that isn't the point for those who engage in it.

Most SHOULD acknowledge failure at that point is practically not knowable considering the circumstances that were inherited. Since even you acknowledge economies don't turn on a dime..isn't it reasonable to look at some history for a perspective?? Like how long it took for the economy to turn the last time u/e was over 10 pct. Like I said and will continue to say until some GOPer shill takes down that ad, just going by the raw numbers..Obama's are ahead of Reagan's.:dunno:

Well, the balance of power is only a huge point IF the opposition party to the WH is able to successfully stiff arm the administration's policies. What difference does party affiliation make if the president has the political capital to effect his will in spite of opposition?? That's is the definition of 'power'. :2 cents:

Conversely as you mentioned, Obama did enjoy (for lack of a better word) party control of both houses of congress but to what effect??? He wanted to close GiTMO and gave the exec. order...(which still stands today), yet his party control of congress couldn't/wouldn't effect the policy.:dunno: Obama wanted to do the fiscally responsible thing in letting expire the tax cuts on the top 2 pct...yet, we know what happened with that. Ergo, the shit-storm the Fed g'ment finds itself in today.

So again, party control is merely noteworthy until we can point to specific circumstances where it made a difference in the president's ability to effect his agenda.

More homework for you.:o

Duh... Uh, Monica You strike me as the type of person who loves a good Porter House steak but you believe the chef grows them in his kitchen. You seem totally divorced from the reality of what it takes to get the fine cut of beef to your plate. You want the steak seemingly without the process of slaughtering cattle and butchering it into the various cuts of beef.

You don't get policy unless you are ready, willing and able to win the politics on an issue.

That is the whole point of all this. You have theoretical perceptions of practical expectations but seem woefully naive to the mechanical reality.

When (for example) Obama is attacked on (what we shall hereafter refer to as) 'the numbers' it's not for the purpose of a practical analysis nor for the purpose of generating a solution beyond weakening Obama's stature among the target audience. So a response in kind reflecting 'the numbers' which were very similar under Reagan is correspondingly not done for practical analysis but for the purpose of making the critics of Obama's numbers then defend Reagan's under the premise they accept Reagan's presidency as a success.

It's really quite simple to understand. What do you think GOPers are intending to do every time it's offered that 43 lied us into war and they present as a defense a cut and paste of every erstwhile comment made by a Demo on Iraq?? Some of the statements are wildly out of context, were applicable at given times and not necessarily contemporary, etc. But it doesn't matter, the effect of it is to make 43's critics pause in their criticism and have those who may not know any better say, 'well, if they said this either they were lying too or Bush wasn't.... The politics of that is no longer a negative for 43 but at worse a stalemate on the issue minimizing 43's political capital damage.....for what purpose Monica?? Say it with me, so he can continue to have the capital to effect his agenda.

I think Obama has done very well on the economy as again, it wouldn't have surprise me if u/e had topped in the mid to upper teens without some of his policies. But that's my opinion.



Since you made the statement, what major policy did Reagan want but was unable to get (constitutionally, legally or even illegally) from the Demo controlled House?

Sorry, more homework.

You're insulting, incorrect, and biased. Not worth going into detail to discuss.

If you're more respectful, I'd be happy to discuss these things with you.

You are correct though, you have quite a bit more homework to do.

 

[monicasilver]

what does OBAMA or REAGAN have to do with "a balanced government"?
Neither are either

Yes, the point of this thread is balance.

Too much control is not a good thing. I think it is best when the congress is controlled by a different party than the presidency.

 

[Hot Mega]

You're insulting, incorrect, and biased. Not worth going into detail to discuss.

If you're more respectful, I'd be happy to discuss these things with you.

You are correct though, you have quite a bit more homework to do.

Meh...it was fun while it lasted.

:1orglaugh though...

'Mega: Monica if you say it was more than an anecdote that Reagan had a Demo House 6 of his 8 years. What pray-tell was the policy they prevented Reagan from deploying in his agenda?? If Reagan got all of his policies...even if merely all of his significant ones then the discussion of the House being opposition for those terms is just noteworthy. Hell, I will even give you this example. Obama sure did have a Demo majority in his first 2 years. HOWEVER, from that he only got 2 of 4 major policies in his agenda (healthcare and ARRA). He couldn't get GiTMO closed nor sunset the Bush tax cuts. So the fact that his party controlled both houses is more than anecdotal considering if it wasn't...he might have went 0-4.

Monica: You're insulting, incorrect, and biased (rude, obnoxious, insipid, etc., etc., etc.,................). Not worth going into detail to discuss.

'Mega: Uh...okayy? (You'd think your skin would be thicker being a GOPer wrapped in sheep's skin too.:dunno

 

[ragincaucasian]

Yes, the point of this thread is balance.

Too much control is not a good thing. I think it is best when the congress is controlled by a different party than the presidency.

but you don't think this is a flawed premise, though?
You're assuming "the system" actually works - it doesn't.

The Executive branch has proven it is consistently asleep at the wheel
The Judicial branch has proven it is consistently asleep at the wheel
The Legislative branch has proven it is consistently asleep at the wheel

All those in power are just along for the ride and serving major corporate interests. In this day and age, I highly doubt slavery could be abolished with the entrenched hold of industry interests and perverting influence of the 'free press'.

You really think these people get elected to advance some particular righteous agenda?:rofl2:

 

[monicasilver]

but you don't think this is a flawed premise, though?
You're assuming "the system" actually works - it doesn't.

The Executive branch has proven it is consistently asleep at the wheel
The Judicial branch has proven it is consistently asleep at the wheel
The Legislative branch has proven it is consistently asleep at the wheel

All those in power are just along for the ride and serving major corporate interests. In this day and age, I highly doubt slavery could be abolished with the entrenched hold of industry interests and perverting influence of the 'free press'.

You really think these people get elected to advance some particular righteous agenda?:rofl2:

I don't remember saying any of that. lol, seems like everyone likes to spin hyperbole to try and make a point.

Slavery wasn't going anywhere without a war.
Rome also became and Empire, then fell.

Nothing is perfect (I guess someone could open a thread to debate that statement!).

What I am saying, is that it is better to have the conflict, than control. That way the flawed people with who are mostly interested in themselves are put in check.

Look at the Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign contributions. They voted along party lines and there isn't a check beyond that one.

So minus your incorrect hyperbole and sarcasm, I agree with you, because you make my point.

 

[Trident1]

Too much control is not a good thing.

Indeed it only slows down growth to a trickle, and breeds bureaucratic incompetence. That's the socialist way.

 

[ragincaucasian]

I don't remember saying any of that. lol, seems like everyone likes to spin hyperbole to try and make a point.

I thought you were suggesting that a TEAM A Executive branch needs the conflict of a TEAM B Legislative branch to function optimally.

That statement is true if either actually did shit or held the other accountable (not just friction) with reasoned arguments. I am not buying there is any difference between "R" and "D" politician.

Conflict for conflict's sake may as well be anarchy. Even with an opposite 'team' in the branches of government, the same "team" (corporate influence) always wins.

 

[mikexmoran]

You're insulting, incorrect, and biased. Not worth going into detail to discuss.

If you're more respectful, I'd be happy to discuss these things with you.

You are correct though, you have quite a bit more homework to do.

Regarding the whole Reagan comparison nonsense, I think this article does a nice job in outlining the reality of Reagan. It is aligned with your point.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...mocrats-and-republicans-both-get-reagan-wrong

The problem is that people are fully bought into the Washington spin - they think that is reality. What is going on today in Washington is theater. Pure politics. However, the political spin has more control over what happens than the law.

Both parties are guilty of it. Obama has a well financed and well oiled political machine behind him and the poster who you replied to is simply a bully and a member of the Democratic party's equivalent of the Tea Party.

For this very reason, I think we need to prevent the scenario we had over the last two years of a single party controlling two of the branches of government.

 

[mikexmoran]

I thought you were suggesting that a TEAM A Executive branch needs the conflict of a TEAM B Legislative branch to function optimally.

That statement is true if either actually did shit or held the other accountable (not just friction) with reasoned arguments. I am not buying there is any difference between "R" and "D" politician.

Conflict for conflict's sake may as well be anarchy. Even with an opposite 'team' in the branches of government, the same "team" (corporate influence) always wins.

I wouldn't argue with that.

I try to be less cynical, but am unsuccessful at that attempt most of the time.

 

[monicasilver]

Indeed it only slows down growth to a trickle, and breeds bureaucratic incompetence. That's the socialist way.

Nostrovia! Comrade! :angels:

 

[Hot Mega]

Indeed it only slows down growth to a trickle, and breeds bureaucratic incompetence. That's the socialist way.

Flawed statement. Too much control is 'bad' in the hands of incompetence and poor policy making.

If GWB had competent policy...he would have most assuredly have gone down as one of the best as he and his party members in both houses got every policy he articulated (even some he went around congress to effect).

Beyond the faults of his policies and management of them, there's nothing that suggests party control inherently leads to incompetence.

 

[ragincaucasian]

I wouldn't argue with that.

I try to be less cynical, but am unsuccessful at that attempt most of the time.

drinks on me, mothafucka

 

[Trident1]

Nostrovia! Comrade! :angels:

Brotherhood and Unity!!!!!1111

 

[Hot Mega]

Regarding the whole Reagan comparison nonsense, I think this article does a nice job in outlining the reality of Reagan. It is aligned with your point.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...mocrats-and-republicans-both-get-reagan-wrong

The problem is that people are fully bought into the Washington spin - they think that is reality. What is going on today in Washington is theater. Pure politics. However, the political spin has more control over what happens than the law.

Interesting analysis. You suggest on the one hand that what's going on in Washington is theater (agreed). But on the other hand you endorse a person's perspective who can't see the fact that a measure of it is theater for dwelling on the belief a solution can arise without someone winning the battle of theatrics.

Again, that's like believing you can enjoy a good cut of beef without the process of slaughtering and cutting up a head of cattle happening.

Didn't read all of the opinion piece you posted but from the little bit I did read it suggests rift between GOPer piety for Reagan and Demo disdain for him.

I haven't really paid attention to this in some of these threads if it's happened as that certainly wasn't my point. I accept Reagan had a successful presidency. His accomplishments are certainly overstated by those who revere him (to say the least) IMO. But comparing Reagan with Obama was never done...economic numbers were side by sided politically in response to politics.

 

[monicasilver]

I thought you were suggesting that a TEAM A Executive branch needs the conflict of a TEAM B Legislative branch to function optimally.

That statement is true if either actually did shit or held the other accountable (not just friction) with reasoned arguments. I am not buying there is any difference between "R" and "D" politician.

Conflict for conflict's sake may as well be anarchy. Even with an opposite 'team' in the branches of government, the same "team" (corporate influence) always wins.

Good post. Reps from me!

 

[monicasilver]

Regarding the whole Reagan comparison nonsense, I think this article does a nice job in outlining the reality of Reagan. It is aligned with your point.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...mocrats-and-republicans-both-get-reagan-wrong

The problem is that people are fully bought into the Washington spin - they think that is reality. What is going on today in Washington is theater. Pure politics. However, the political spin has more control over what happens than the law.

Both parties are guilty of it. Obama has a well financed and well oiled political machine behind him and the poster who you replied to is simply a bully and a member of the Democratic party's equivalent of the Tea Party.

For this very reason, I think we need to prevent the scenario we had over the last two years of a single party controlling two of the branches of government.

That article gets the gist.

Nice analysis on the Tea Party Democrat. I'm going to poking the Pillsbury Doughboy.

 

[Straight Shooter]

 

[ragincaucasian]

I'm still stuck on what his opponents would be saying if u/e was over 10 pct. for 10 straight months in his first 2.5 years.:surprise:

what about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

 

[monicasilver]

Regarding the whole Reagan comparison nonsense, I think this article does a nice job in outlining the reality of Reagan. It is aligned with your point.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...mocrats-and-republicans-both-get-reagan-wrong

The problem is that people are fully bought into the Washington spin - they think that is reality. What is going on today in Washington is theater. Pure politics. However, the political spin has more control over what happens than the law.

Both parties are guilty of it. Obama has a well financed and well oiled political machine behind him and the poster who you replied to is simply a bully and a member of the Democratic party's equivalent of the Tea Party.

For this very reason, I think we need to prevent the scenario we had over the last two years of a single party controlling two of the branches of government.

The balance of government was interesting in 80's. Reagan submitted 8 budgets to The House and all were rejected. His budget in 1984 was actually for about 1.2% more than the government actually spent.

During the period revenues went up, but spending out performed it.

It is a good debate - who grew the revenue and the debt in the 80's - Reagan or Congress? They both take credit.

The debate over tax cuts is a good one, when it isn't all idealistic rhetoric. Some tax cuts have shown that it causes a reduction in tax avoidance and an increase in tax revenue. If they are just applied without strategy and for political reasons, like the Bush (43) cuts, they don't show those results. Just stupidity if you ask me.

Now, it would be nice if the Republicans and Democrats could come together and drop the immature posturing and pandering, and get what they both want. Implement tax reforms to cut out loopholes and reduce the tax burden (maybe even help the guy in the middle!), which will increase revenue, and actually take pen to paper and write down what you are going to cut in spending. Then the taxpayers would get their money's worth?

Will they do that? I doubt it.

 

[Hot Mega]

what about this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

'Investigators call the tactic letting guns "walk." In this case, walking into the hands of criminals who would use them in Mexico and the United States.'

LT. Vincent Hannah has an explanation.:dunno: Probably just another version of a LE tactic done all the time. Besides, if I'm not mistaken I believe this program was piloted and started under 43. :2 cents:


Now back to the thread topic.:hatsoff: