Ranking the presidents

[Rob's House]

Fascism

 

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

 

Sounds like about 99.9 of republicans and about 80% of Democrats.

 

Where'd you get this definition. This bit about the fear of the rising power of the working classes is garbage. Among other things, they were afraid of the industrialists (rich business men) having too much power. Fascists were big on nationalism which I suppose you could compare to the patriotism of the right, but according to fascism, the state (government) was an extension of the people who were bound by their volk (basically tradition and culture evolving through time as a people) as Hegel called it, and ultimately an all powerful force for good. Those who opposed were to keep silent or be silenced. No offense to you, but this definition you've found I believe to be intentionally misleading and obtuse.

 

 

I'm sure the all knowing and wise sunshine troll will tell me I'm wrong without sinking so low as to explain, but that's the best I can do with one paragraph.

[....lybob]

Where'd you get this definition. This bit about the fear of the rising power of the working classes is garbage. They were afraid of the industrialists having too much power, among other things. Fascists were big on nationalism which I suppose you could compare to the patriotism of the right, but according to fascism, the state (government) was an extension of the people who were bound by their volk (basically tradition and culture evolving through time as a people) as Hegel called it, and ultimately an all powerful force for good. Those who opposed were to keep silent or be silenced. No offense to you, but this definition you've found I believe to be intentionally misleading and obtuse.

 

 

I'm sure the all knowing and wise sunshine troll will tell me I'm wrong without sinking so low as to explain, but that's the best I can do with one paragraph.

 

 

take it up with -Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: fascism

 

If you don't like the word Fascism, I'll use the corporatist to describe 99.9% of republicans and 80% democrats- my guess is that this doesn't represent a conscious and consistent philosophy as much as pure self-interest but it is the De facto result.

[Rob's House]

take it up with -Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: fascism

 

If you don't like the word Fascism, I'll use the corporatist to describe 99.9% of republicans and 80% democrats- my guess is that this doesn't represent a conscious and consistent philosophy as much as pure self-interest but it is the De facto result.

 

I couldn't give two shts and good goddam what half-assed definition of fascism the politically motivated socialist editor for Brittanica used, it's not what the word means. It was used to define a specific movement, and his description is far from the mark. Again, no offense to you as I care not to besmirch the messenger, but that definintion is BS.

 

I can go along with coporatist, depending on what you mean by that and whether you're referring to the politicians or their followers.

[Magox]

Totally agree, Nixon had some personality flaws but was a very good president. A question I have about Nixon is could he pass the Republican litmus test today.

Can you please tell me the official "republican litmus test", I keep hearing about this, I would like to know. Thank you.

[Magox]

"I love it when people call the Clinton's "progressives". It may be what they WANTED to be, but it flies in the face how they acted. Especially when one considers their triangulation strategy. Clinton was a far better Republican President, economically, then either of the Bush boys."

 

Clinton was a far better fiscally conservative President. Republicans are only fiscally conservative when Democrats are in power or they don't like where the money is being spent.

Agree, Clinton definitely was no "progressive". I thought he was a good president and fiscally conservative RELATIVE to recent past presidents.

[Magox]

Reagan's economic record was heavily influenced by Jimmy Carter's decision to appoint Paul Volker to the Federal Reserve. Carter paid for that decision at first, because he is a principled person,and Reagan gained all the long term benefits. So goes the world

ok, if it makes you feel better, you keep telling yourself that.

[....lybob]

Can you please tell me the official "republican litmus test", I keep hearing about this, I would like to know. Thank you.

 

Nixon

1. imposed wage and price controls.

 

2. indexed Social Security for inflation

.

3. created Supplemental Security Income.

 

4. created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 

5. created Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

 

6. promoted the Legacy of parks program.

 

7. implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program.

 

8. dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide.

 

9. signed a bill that lowered the maximum U.S. speed limit to 55 miles per hour to conserve gasoline during the 1973 energy crisis.

 

10. established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.

 

11. On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.

 

Nixon is more to the left than Clinton, and maybe Obama.

[IDBillzFan]

ok, if it makes you feel better, you keep telling yourself that.

Liberals have this "inherited" excuse thing down cold. Obama is failing because of the mess he inherited from Bush. Reagan succeeded because of the personnel he inherited from Carter.

 

If only liberals could just inherit their own policies and personnel, the world would be a better place.

[....lybob]

Liberals have this "inherited" excuse thing down cold. Obama is failing because of the mess he inherited from Bush. Reagan succeeded because of the personnel he inherited from Carter.

 

If only liberals could just inherit their own policies and personnel, the world would be a better place.

 

Bullsquat! this part of the thread comes from Rightwing retarded rhetoric that Clinton was only economically successful because of Reagan.

[Rob's House]

Nixon

1. imposed wage and price controls.

 

2. indexed Social Security for inflation

.

3. created Supplemental Security Income.

 

4. created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 

5. created Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

 

6. promoted the Legacy of parks program.

 

7. implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program.

 

8. dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide.

 

9. signed a bill that lowered the maximum U.S. speed limit to 55 miles per hour to conserve gasoline during the 1973 energy crisis.

 

10. established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.

 

11. On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.

 

Nixon is more to the left than Clinton, and maybe Obama.

 

Those are all liberal moves. Nixon was the George Bush (1 and 2) of his time in that he tried to be that middle rail, be everything to everybody, half left, half right, half-ass president.

 

I'm just not sure how that answers the question you appear to be responding to.

[Magox]

Nixon

1. imposed wage and price controls.

 

2. indexed Social Security for inflation

.

3. created Supplemental Security Income.

 

4. created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 

5. created Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

 

6. promoted the Legacy of parks program.

 

7. implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant federal affirmative action program.

 

8. dramatically improved salaries for US federal employees worldwide.

 

9. signed a bill that lowered the maximum U.S. speed limit to 55 miles per hour to conserve gasoline during the 1973 energy crisis.

 

10. established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.

 

11. On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon’s plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan like Medicaid that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.

 

Nixon is more to the left than Clinton, and maybe Obama.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked for the official "republican litmus test", that I always keep hearing about (from MSNBC and other left leaning media sources).

[Alaska Darin]

Agree, Clinton definitely was no "progressive". I thought he was a good president and fiscally conservative RELATIVE to recent past presidents.

He was "no progressive" because he was completely unable to get anything he campaigned on through. BTU tax? Nope. Universal Health Care? Nope. And on and on and on.

 

Mr. Clinton should be remembered as the luckiest President in history. Virtually all of the things that are collapsing now started their shenanigans during that era (that's not to blame the administration, so settle down libs).

[Magox]

He was "no progressive" because he was completely unable to get anything he campaigned on through. BTU tax? Nope. Universal Health Care? Nope. And on and on and on.

True, but he reformed Welfare and signed NAFTA into law, two great pieces of legislation, now tell me, is there any "progressive" that would even consider doing this?

[....lybob]

That doesn't answer my question. I asked for the official "republican litmus test", that I always keep hearing about (from MSNBC and other left leaning media sources).

 

The question is more Bullsquat because you sneakily threw in the word official- You probably know of the Bopp purity test and if you follow politics you know that Republican incumbents like Scozzafava, Specter, Chris, and Bennett are all being challenged from the right on grounds that they are too moderate.

[....lybob]

The problem with this is neither happened in a vacuum, and, Rubinomics simply would not have been possible had Reaganomics not come before it.

 

The simple fact was that most of Reagan's Presidency was spent un-Cartering, and laying the groundwork for un-LBJing, which is to say, un-!@#$ing, this country. When he took over, interest rates were at 20+%, and so was inflation. By the time Bush 1 left office, they were down to their lowest point in the preceding 20 years.

 

You can't hold down long term interest rates....if they are at 20+%. You need to do something else, immediately, to get them down to a manageable level. That opens the door to a lot of other options....and along comes Clinton....

 

Clinton took over at a great time. There was new tech all over ready to launch, and Clinton did the smart thing: got out of the way, cut capital gains taxes, invest in beating structural unemployment with training....ALL supply side policies. Hence the famous Dick Morris "triangulation" political strategy = take Republican ideas, call them yours, and then implement, support, call for legislation on them before they do.

 

I love it when people call the Clinton's "progressives". It may be what they WANTED to be, but it flies in the face how they acted. Especially when one considers their triangulation strategy. Clinton was a far better Republican President, economically, then either of the Bush boys.

 

I call Bullsquat ! show proof that inflation was at 20+%

[Magox]

The question is more Bullsquat because you sneakily threw in the word official- You probably know of the Bopp purity test and if you follow politics you know that Republican incumbents like Scozzafava, Specter, Chris, and Bennett are all being challenged from the right on grounds that they are too moderate.

I call Bullsquat as well . Look what the Left TRIED to do with Blanche Lincoln. If it wasn't for Clinton she would of been toast. And look who's talking, you are the exact same equivalent of the too far right, except you are of the left. There is no difference.

 

You have Progressives that are super to the left, then you have the moderate left, then independent, moderate right, then tea partiers. You guys also have your litmus test, and you damn well know it. So don't give me that right litmus test bull **** until you acknowledge that you have the same as well. For christs sakes, you called Obama a corporatist

[Magox]

I call Bullsquat ! show proof that inflation was at 20+%

What are you arguing here? Are you disputing this?

 

Domestically, Carter had difficulties controlling inflation, which rose in each year of his administration—in part because of oil price increases after the Iranian revolution. The Federal Reserve Board's drastic remedies for curtailing inflation led to interest rates of more than 20% by 1980.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0810628.html

[....lybob]

What are you arguing here? Are you disputing this?

 

 

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0810628.html

 

I said show inflation was 20+%

 

 

The simple fact was that most of Reagan's Presidency was spent un-Cartering, and laying the groundwork for un-LBJing, which is to say, un-!@#$ing, this country. When he took over, interest rates were at 20+%, and so was inflation. By the time Bush 1 left office, they were down to their lowest point in the preceding 20 years.

 

did I ask about interest rates?

[Jim in Anchorage]

I call Bullsquat ! show proof that inflation was at 20+%

I know. I lived though it

Thats the way it was. Admit it or not. Every mail order catalog came with a separate price sheet that was updated weekly.

[Hossage]

I think the opposite of what conner said. That is all.