November is just around the corner....

[BB27]

I was surfing around the web last night, and came upon this famous qoute from a former president. I think it is the question I will ask myself when I go to the polls this November and cast my vote for one candidate or the other. Can you answer this question? And what is the true answer. Don't blame Bush, the dems had control of the congress 4 years ago, so they are as much to blame for the current problems facing our country.

 

Here's the qoute:

 

"Ask yourself, 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?”

 

Anyone know who said this?

[erynthered]

 

 

Here's the qoute:

 

"Ask yourself, 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?"

 

Anyone know who said this?

 

If you're are serious, I'll answer for you.

 

Ronald Reagan

[jjamie12]

There is very, very, little chance that I will EVER, under any circumstances, vote for any incumbent ever again.

[BB27]

If you're are serious, I'll answer for you.

 

Ronald Reagan

 

I know who said it. What I'm saying, is that its a good sounding board for who to vote for this coming november, even more now. Ironically, Ronald Reagan said that qoute during the presidential debate against Jimmy Carter. It reallly summed up how people were feeling about the economy, and about our country. Kind of like now!

Edited September 23, 2010 by BB27

[KD in CA]

If you're are serious, I'll answer for you.

 

Ronald Reagan

 

 

Yep....and he said it while running against the last tax and spend liberal to occupy the White House to disastrous economic consequences.

[BB27]

There is very, very, little chance that I will EVER, under any circumstances, vote for any incumbent ever again.

 

 

I couldn't agree more. Here in CT, the senate race is between Linda McMahon (rich lady) and Dick Blumenthal (career politician). I'm voting for the rich lady, even though I don't really like her, she is not an incumbent.

[erynthered]

I know who said it. What I'm saying, is that its a good sounding board for who to vote for this coming november, even more now. Ironically, Ronald Reagan said that qoute during the presidential debate against Jimmy Carter. It reallly summed up how people were feeling about the economy, and about our country. Kind of like now!

 

 

AaaaaHA!!

 

Rhetorical question. I gotcha.

[PastaJoe]

I know who said it. What I'm saying, is that its a good sounding board for who to vote for this coming november, even more now. Ironically, Ronald Reagan said that qoute during the presidential debate against Jimmy Carter. It reallly summed up how people were feeling about the economy, and about our country. Kind of like now!

 

You mean the same Ronald Reagan who entered office in 1981 with unemployment at 7.6%, and after two years in office it was up to 9.6%?. And who started 1983 with a 35% job approval ratings? And lost around 25 GOP seats in the House in the mid-term election? He didn't fair too well in his first two years, but I guess that's different.

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

[Magox]

You mean the same Ronald Reagan who entered office in 1981 with unemployment at 7.6%, and after two years in office it was up to 9.6%?. And who started 1983 with a 35% job approval ratings? And lost around 25 GOP seats in the House in the mid-term election? He didn't fair too well in his first two years, but I guess that's different.

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

That is true, however we know how the story ended. 15 million jobs CREATED (not this saved bull ****) in the US, COLD WAR ended on his watch, no asset bubbles were created through his term (unlike Clinton with the DOT COM Bubble and Bush two with the RE bubble), household wealth dramatically increased and the inflationary nightmare was ended during his term.

 

Let's see what happens under BO's term.

[PastaJoe]

That is true, however we know how the story ended. 15 million jobs CREATED (not this saved bull ****) in the US, COLD WAR ended on his watch, no asset bubbles were created through his term (unlike Clinton with the DOT COM Bubble and Bush two with the RE bubble), household wealth dramatically increased and the inflationary nightmare was ended during his term.

 

Let's see what happens under BO's term.

 

However, let's also remember that Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent through the combination of tax cuts and increased spending, which made it necessary for his successors to raise taxes and cut spending to make up the difference. Throw in the misguided intervention in Lebanon that emboldened terrorists to this day through their attack against the U.S. Marines barracks that resulted in a withdrawal of U.S. forces, the wag-the-dog action in Grenada to take Americans minds off of Lebanon, and the illegal Iran-Contra affair.

[Alaska Darin]

However, let's also remember that Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent through the combination of tax cuts and increased spending, which made it necessary for his successors to raise taxes and cut spending to make up the difference.

Good thing Congress has nothing to do with taxes or spending.

[Magox]

However, let's also remember that Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent through the combination of tax cuts and increased spending, which made it necessary for his successors to raise taxes and cut spending to make up the difference. Throw in the misguided intervention in Lebanon that emboldened terrorists to this day through their attack against the U.S. Marines barracks that resulted in a withdrawal of U.S. forces, the wag-the-dog action in Grenada to take Americans minds off of Lebanon, and the illegal Iran-Contra affair.

Considering the end result of the tax cuts helping fuel the economic boom we went through, it was a good trade off. Also, you are conveniently leaving out the Defense budget expenditures of the Cold War. If the Cold War hadn't of ended, then Clinton would of never of been able to reduce Defense spending the way he did. The other stuff you mentioned regarding Lebanon and the Iran-Contra affair is nonsense.... If you want to go there then we can blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when he had the opportunity in 98 and we very well would of never of had 9/11 or the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. So let's not go there.....

[erynthered]

Good thing Congress has nothing to do with taxes or spending.

 

 

Damn. That looked like the typical Pasta Joe Drive by. Good job Joe. Wait, is that a saved good job Joe? !@#$ it!

[Jim in Anchorage]

Considering the end result of the tax cuts helping fuel the economic boom we went through, it was a good trade off. Also, you are conveniently leaving out the Defense budget expenditures of the Cold War. If the Cold War hadn't of ended, then Clinton would of never of been able to reduce Defense spending the way he did. The other stuff you mentioned regarding Lebanon and the Iran-Contra affair is nonsense.... If you want to go there then we can blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when he had the opportunity in 98 and we very well would of never of had 9/11 or the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. So let's not go there.....

dereliction of duty

I would love to have a Clinton apologist explain the contents of this book. But of course the author was only the military officer who carried the nuclear codes and was near Clinton 24/7, so is probably a uninformed source.

[drnykterstein]

I was surfing around the web last night, and came upon this famous qoute from a former president. I think it is the question I will ask myself when I go to the polls this November and cast my vote for one candidate or the other. Can you answer this question? And what is the true answer. Don't blame Bush, the dems had control of the congress 4 years ago, so they are as much to blame for the current problems facing our country.

 

Here's the qoute:

 

"Ask yourself, 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?”

 

Anyone know who said this?

There is a reason that the Republican tactic in congress has been to delay stall or block everything they possible can. (it's so that you could make this post).

 

I do not know the numbers, but there are still a substantial number of Obama staff and judicial nominees that are being held up in congress.

[EC-Bills]

Good thing Congress has nothing to do with taxes or spending.

You beat me to the punch.

[BB27]

There is a reason that the Republican tactic in congress has been to delay stall or block everything they possible can. (it's so that you could make this post).

 

I do not know the numbers, but there are still a substantial number of Obama staff and judicial nominees that are being held up in congress.

 

 

What does this have to do with my original post?

[KD in CA]

You mean the same Ronald Reagan who entered office in 1981 with unemployment at 7.6%, and after two years in office it was up to 9.6%?. And who started 1983 with a 35% job approval ratings? And lost around 25 GOP seats in the House in the mid-term election? He didn't fair too well in his first two years, but I guess that's different.

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

 

 

Of course, Reagan spent the first two years passing legislation actually designed to help get us out of that recesssion rather than trying to vastly increase the welfare state.

[BB27]

There is a reason that the Republican tactic in congress has been to delay stall or block everything they possible can. (it's so that you could make this post).

 

I do not know the numbers, but there are still a substantial number of Obama staff and judicial nominees that are being held up in congress.

 

 

Had to take another shot at your reply.

 

Answer the question! Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago. As much as you hate Bush, 4 years ago the Dems took control of congress, so, the question is entirely valid.

 

ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW, THEN YOU WERE 4 YEARS AGO?

 

Also, what does a substantial number of Obama staff and judicial nominees being held up in Congress have to do with our current situation? Again, 4 years ago the Dems took control of congress, and when Obama got in they were still in control. Sounds like your problem is with Obama, and the dems who failed to get their nominations through. I can think of a few that got through, much to the horror of the citizens of the country (Sect, of Treasury that doesn't pay his taxes to name one).

 

So, I'll ask the question again.

 

ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW, THEN YOU WERE 4 YEARS AGO.

 

If you are, then vote for the establishment, if not, then take a long hard look when you go to the polls in November.

[drnykterstein]

Had to take another shot at your reply.

 

Answer the question! Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago. As much as you hate Bush, 4 years ago the Dems took control of congress, so, the question is entirely valid.

 

ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW, THEN YOU WERE 4 YEARS AGO?

 

Also, what does a substantial number of Obama staff and judicial nominees being held up in Congress have to do with our current situation? Again, 4 years ago the Dems took control of congress, and when Obama got in they were still in control. Sounds like your problem is with Obama, and the dems who failed to get their nominations through. I can think of a few that got through, much to the horror of the citizens of the country (Sect, of Treasury that doesn't pay his taxes to name one).

 

So, I'll ask the question again.

 

ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW, THEN YOU WERE 4 YEARS AGO.

 

If you are, then vote for the establishment, if not, then take a long hard look when you go to the polls in November.

 

Yes, I am better off now than I was four years ago. (except for a bit of balding starting to kick in). I make more money, I get laid more often, and my health is doing just as well. Thanks for asking!

Edited September 24, 2010 by conner