Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• stlouiedipalma

  Con_Alma;1045002 wrote:Ronald Reagan was and is revered because of his leadership ability not because of his conservative nature. Many conservatives are very active in the moderate actions of the Republican Party. Finally requesting a candidates that adheres to true conservative principles is what they should be doing...seeking someone that represents their conservative views.
  
  The same can be said for the true liberals of the Democratic Party. I would expect no difference from them. It seems, however that the majority of voters are neither. That doesn't mean those that have certain core convictions should seek out the positioning of a candidate that represents their views.

  
  
  Then why do all of the Republican nominees speak of being a "Reagan Conservative" all the time? They love to throw his name around (like Oats does the liberal marxist stuff), but, in my opinion, he simply wouldn't be able to cut it in today's Republican Party. In fact, he would probably be vilified for once being a member of the Democratic Party. Today's Republican Party is full of candidates who want to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;1045017 wrote:Then why do all of the Republican nominees speak of being a "Reagan Conservative" all the time? They love to throw his name around (like Oats does the liberal marxist stuff), but, in my opinion, he simply wouldn't be able to cut it in today's Republican Party. In fact, he would probably be vilified for once being a member of the Democratic Party. Today's Republican Party is full of candidates who want to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

  All of them do? Maybe those that do are indeed a "Reagan Conservatives". IN addition, it's awisething todo seeinghowhispopulwarity was large and associatingwith him in any capacity might draw a moderate on to that candidates potential side during a primary.
  
  I throw his name around when it comes to his leadership style and accomplishments. I can't speak for others.
  
  
  Today's Republican Party isn't necessarily seeking to appeal to the lowest common denomonator as much as place people in position that are true conservatives as opposed to more like a Reagan conservative.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1044944 wrote:Incorrect. Romney in no way, shape or form would have FORCED through obamacare when 80% of THE PEOPLE were against it. obamacare ONLY occurred because of the radical liberal policy agenda of the radical liberal triumvirate: obama/pelosi/reid, and their astounding power grab against the will of the people.
  
  obama has not only governed as the most liberal president in history --- whether it be by doubling the size of the federal government from where it was just 10 years ago; or by appointing radical marxists to a multitude of cabinet office positions, or by his leftist activism and tactics.
  
  But of course, he can't help it -- he is a radical liberal, and he surely can't change his stripes now.

  The most liberal president in history eh?
  
  Perhaps you will enjoy this: "Record Decline in the Number of Government Jobs under Obama" (Never mind of course that we should NOT be putting more people on the unemployment dole when there is slack private sector demand)
  
  This line might catch your eye: "[LEFT]government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."[/LEFT]
  
  [url]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/
  
  
  
  [/URL]
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1044944 wrote:Incorrect. Romney in no way, shape or form would have FORCED through obamacare when 80% of THE PEOPLE were against it. obamacare ONLY occurred because of the radical liberal policy agenda of the radical liberal triumvirate: obama/pelosi/reid, and their astounding power grab against the will of the people.
  
  obama has not only governed as the most liberal president in history --- whether it be by doubling the size of the federal government from where it was just 10 years ago; or by appointing radical marxists to a multitude of cabinet office positions, or by his leftist activism and tactics.
  
  But of course, he can't help it -- he is a radical liberal, and he surely can't change his stripes now.

  And yes, both Romney and McCain would have supported essentially the same package as Obamacare. Romney said as much in his book that it was a model for the U.S. as a whole before it became the elephant in the room. And we can also be sure that all of the Republicans who didn't support it when Obama passed it...or at the very least the lapdog Republicans such as yourself would be lauding it for the very reasons Republicans used to support it.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1045057 wrote:The most liberal president in history eh?
  
  Perhaps you will enjoy this: "Record Decline in the Number of Government Jobs under Obama" (Never mind of course that we should NOT be putting more people on the unemployment dole when there is slack private sector demand)
  
  This line might catch your eye: "[LEFT]government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."[/LEFT]
  
  
  http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/
  
  
  

  The size of government shouldn't be determined by the number of people employed but rather the money spent and the intrusion in peoples lives.
  
  It's great that less people are employed by the government. Keep it going, every year, until we can barely get by with the government staff that exists.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1045066 wrote:And yes, both Romney and McCain would have supported essentially the same package as Obamacare. Romney said as much in his book that it was a model for the U.S. as a whole before it became the elephant in the room. And we can also be sure that all of the Republicans who didn't support it when Obama passed it...or at the very least the lapdog Republicans such as yourself would be lauding it for the very reasons Republicans used to support it.

  I personally wouldn't support either one.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1045057 wrote:The most liberal president in history eh?
  
  Perhaps you will enjoy this: "Record Decline in the Number of Government Jobs under Obama" (Never mind of course that we should NOT be putting more people on the unemployment dole when there is slack private sector demand)
  
  This line might catch your eye: "[LEFT]government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record."[/LEFT]
  
  
  
  [URL]http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/
  
  
  
  [/URL]

  Sorry, Federal government employment is up, as is federal pay, which is way up. The only thing offsetting all that is state and county government (of which is outside of obama's purview) which is down (because by law they must balance their budgets). But then, you knew all that and still tried to run interference for him. Wow.
• QuakerOats

  Con_Alma;1045069 wrote:The size of government shouldn't be determined by the number of people employed but rather the money spent and the intrusion in peoples lives.
  
  It's great that less people are employed by the government. Keep it going, every year, until we can barely get by with the government staff that exists.

  Amen.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1045091 wrote:Sorry, Federal government employment is up, as is federal pay, which is way up. The only thing offsetting all that is state and county government (of which is outside of obama's purview) which is down (because by law they must balance their budgets). But then, you knew all that and still tried to run interference for him. Wow.

  Right and why did the state governments cut their budgets, because of the recession, which is the same reason the Federal Government and Debt are larger today. And of course, had the feds not picked up this tab, as Europe is showing vividly, unemployment overall would be much higher and growth slower. This is classic Oats. Both the decline in government jobs as well as the increase in federal outlays are largely a result of the recession but you choose to blame one on Obama because you don't like him and blame the other on the states combating lossed revenue in the recession.
  
  The point of my post is to show how it is silly to blame the increase in automatic spending that arises in a recession and the concurrent increase in debt on the President just as it is silly to give President Obama credit for the government jobs lost in the recession.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1045076 wrote:I personally wouldn't support either one.

  Maybe but I doubt you'd see every Republican attorney general filing claims in Federal Court claiming it was Unconstitutional.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1045131 wrote:Maybe but I doubt you'd see every Republican attorney general filing claims in Federal Court claiming it was Unconstitutional.

  ...because as you know that's not how politics works. It shouldn't then surprise you when those same AG file such claims with a democratic led legislative act of this nature.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1045127 wrote:Right and why did the state governments cut their budgets, because of the recession, which is the same reason the Federal Government and Debt are larger today. And of course, had the feds not picked up this tab, as Europe is showing vividly, unemployment overall would be much higher and growth slower. This is classic Oats. Both the decline in government jobs as well as the increase in federal outlays are largely a result of the recession but you choose to blame one on Obama because you don't like him and blame the other on the states combating lossed revenue in the recession.
  
  The point of my post is to show how it is silly to blame the increase in automatic spending that arises in a recession and the concurrent increase in debt on the President just as it is silly to give President Obama credit for the government jobs lost in the recession.

  Your post highlighted as a response to Quaker Oats' comment about government size. He didn't blame the President for the increase or give him credit for the number of government employees.
• QuakerOats

  Just because you have a recession does not mean you double the size of the federal government, unless you are this administration which has been quoted as saying "never let a good crisis go to waste". Thus, they have used the recession as an excuse to double spending to support their radical leftist agenda.
  
  There is absolutely ZERO leadership at the top in Washington, if there were you would not have had an increase in federal employment in a recession, let alone signficant pay raises (not to mention 90 rounds of golf and multi-million dollar vacations every 2 months.) The dicatator is clueless.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1044908 wrote:No, the democratic party is much more ideologically diverse than the modern Republican party. You can be an anti-gay marriage democrat, as President Obama is. You can be a pro-life democrat. You can support the death penalty as a democrat. You can believe in free trade as a democrat. You can be an advocate a more interventionist foreign policy as a democrat. The RINO"s acquiesce to hardcore conservatism more so than the Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's of the world commit to more liberal ideas. The entire democratic party almost is surely more conservative than they were prior to Ronald Reagan.
  
  The mainstream GOP is much more rigid these days. If a GOP president were to pass a healthcare plan proposed by Hillary Clinton in the 90's there would be a full on revolt against him/her. Despite their dissatisfaction with Obama, liberals are still with Obama although they may no longer hope for audacity from him.
  
  I highly doubt Ron Paul would be very moderate as President. The man would use his veto pen with unbridled fury. The man is a crusader much more so than a politician. He's a perfect example of the ideological rigidity of the modern GOP echo chamber. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative on every domestic policy issue since Barry Goldwater. He is Tea Party patient zero. Yet, because he doesn't desire in his heart to go to war with Iran this one defect in his ideological composition makes him anathema to a large contingent of Conservatives.
  
  And, also, how can you reconcile your claim that Obama became moderate and reasonable as President and the idea that he must be defeated at all costs in order to stop the ruining of America that many of your conservative brethren share? How can he be the worst president since WWII but also be a reasonable moderate...and if he's a reasonable moderate and so is Romney, why expect it to be any different just because he's got an R next to his name?
  
  It's simple. If you're a principled conservative and believe this is the most important election of our time to save America as Michele Bachmann says, you'll vote Ron Paul. If that's all bs and you really just have an irrational hate of Obama and will vote Team Republican no matter what, you'll vote for his white doppleganger Mitt Romney.

  1. You have to remember that you are painting all conservatives to be as far right as Bachmann, that's about as close to realistic as saying all liberals are like Karl Marx.
  2. I will be voting for Ron Paul come primaries.
  3. I did not say that Obama was a reasonable moderate, I said he quickly became SEMI moderate, he is still very liberal. His actions are much more moderate than his talking points both during the campaign and currently. No where did I say he was a REASONABLE moderate. Don't twist my words. I said Clinton became reasonably moderate once he lost the Congress after 2 years to the Rs.
  4. Even Romney, who would be my last choice (after Bachmann) for the current Rs, is slightly more conservative than Obama. So yes, I would, in the general election, vote for Romney over Obama as the lesser of 2 evils. And it would NOT be because he was a white R instead of a black D as you insinuated (nice hint towards racism there, nice).
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1045284 wrote:1. You have to remember that you are painting all conservatives to be as far right as Bachmann, that's about as close to realistic as saying all liberals are like Karl Marx.
  2. I will be voting for Ron Paul come primaries.
  3. I did not say that Obama was a reasonable moderate, I said he quickly became SEMI moderate, he is still very liberal. His actions are much more moderate than his talking points both during the campaign and currently. No where did I say he was a REASONABLE moderate. Don't twist my words. I said Clinton became reasonably moderate once he lost the Congress after 2 years to the Rs.
  4. Even Romney, who would be my last choice (after Bachmann) for the current Rs, is slightly more conservative than Obama. So yes, I would, in the general election, vote for Romney over Obama as the lesser of 2 evils. And it would NOT be because he was a white R instead of a black D as you insinuated (nice hint towards racism there, nice).

  There was no suggestion that any vote for romney over obama would be racially motivated. I was just trying to point out that Obama or Romney seems to me like it's a distinction without much difference
  
  And as for Michelle Bachmann, she is the leader of the tea party caucus. It is fair to say that a lot of conservatives...especially those who call themselves tea partiers are every bit as conservative as she is. How many conservatives on here alone have claimed that it is of the upmost importance that Barack Obama lose the White House? I know of not a single Democratic Congressmen who wants to abolish private property but there are several Republican Congressmen that share Michelle Bachmann's views and evidently a lot of tea partiers.
• tk421

  

  anyone still think we don't have a spending problem? Debt is now 100% GDP. Good job Obama, you were certainly CHANGE from the outrageous spending of your predecessor. :rolleyes:
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-debt-now-equal-economy/story?id=15318989#.Twtt3nqO4hQ
  

  Long-term projections suggest the debt will continue to grow faster than the economy, which would have to expand by at least 6% a year to keep pace.
  
  
  President Obama's 2012 budget shows the debt soaring past $26 trillion a decade from now. Last summer's deficit reduction deal could reduce that to $24 trillion.

  wow, I certainly hope Obama gets re-elected. He's certainly on the right track, that change and all.
• believer

  

  tk421;1045383 wrote:wow, I certainly hope Obama gets re-elected. He's certainly on the right track, that change and all.

  The dark side of me almost (ALMOST) wants Obama to be re-elected so he has 4 more years to put this country so far in the tank that even hard core Keyenianists like Boatshoes will have no choice but to pull their Big Gubmint is Good Gubmint heads out of their asses and see the light.
• majorspark

  

  believer;1045437 wrote:The dark side of me almost (ALMOST) wants Obama to be re-elected so he has 4 more years to put this country so far in the tank that even hard core Keyenianists like Boatshoes will have no choice but to pull their Big Gubmint is Good Gubmint heads out of their asses and see the light.

  They will just lament that Obama did not spend near enough to get the country out of the tank. Did't make gubmint big enough and was too Reaganesque.
• I Wear Pants

  tk421;1045383 wrote:anyone still think we don't have a spending problem? Debt is now 100% GDP. Good job Obama, you were certainly CHANGE from the outrageous spending of your predecessor. :rolleyes:
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-debt-now-equal-economy/story?id=15318989#.Twtt3nqO4hQ
  
  
  
  wow, I certainly hope Obama gets re-elected. He's certainly on the right track, that change and all.

  Who the hell has said that we don't have a spending problem? The only debate is where to cut spending.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1045682 wrote:Who the hell has said that we don't have a spending problem?

  Obama's economist, Paul "Keynes-lovin" Krugman wails for more spending every damn time his flea-ridden beard is on the television.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1045769 wrote:Obama's economist, Paul "Keynes-lovin" Krugman wails for more spending every damn time his flea-ridden beard is on the television.

  I thought we were talking about spending on things like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, DOD, etc because that's where the real problem is. The "permanent" expenses.
• BGFalcons82

  

  You asked a question, Pants, and it was answered. Sorry you forgot your qualifiers and constaints to make it look like Barry has no fat to cut. There are many more statists that want to spend more more more. Namely, the Senate leader and the House minority leader. You know their names.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1045908 wrote:You asked a question, Pants, and it was answered. Sorry you forgot your qualifiers and constaints to make it look like Barry has no fat to cut. There are many more statists that want to spend more more more. Namely, the Senate leader and the House minority leader. You know their names.

  No fat to cut? I didn't fucking imply that we needed to keep all the spending I listed. Just that they are the real spending culprits despite the stimulus and such being poorly used/not needed (since it was used poorly).
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1045769 wrote:Obama's economist, Paul "Keynes-lovin" Krugman wails for more spending every damn time his flea-ridden beard is on the television.

  Paul Krugman is not Obama's economist. Obama has not embraced keynesianism but has instead repeated and pursued the same types of contractionary policies that his peers in Europe are pursuing. His pivot towards jobs is a recent development and his proposals were all too small anyways.
  
  Meanwhile Ben Bernanke is not even following his own advice he gave while he was at Princeton. TK421 brings up how the debt is now 100% of GDP and well this is exactly what you should expect to happen when the economy is operating well below it's potential for almost half a decade and growth is paltry and unemployment is disastrously high. I don't suppose TK241 cares how countries in Europe are doing who have taken his advice and yet are doing much worse than we are.
  
  We have our own currency and it is overvalued as is. If we had the type of inflation that Ronald Reagan had for most of his term unemployment would drop in the short term and gdp would rise and our citizens and the government's real debt burdens would drop significantly and then we could get on the track to focusing on medium and long term budget restraint.
• BoatShoes

  believer;1045437 wrote:The dark side of me almost (ALMOST) wants Obama to be re-elected so he has 4 more years to put this country so far in the tank that even hard core Keyenianists like Boatshoes will have no choice but to pull their Big Gubmint is Good Gubmint heads out of their asses and see the light.

  Why would a keynesian repudiate those views when Obama has not been a Keynesian? Every Keynesian worth his salt was crying to high heaven that the Stimulus Bill was going to be too small (and it was). It Worked but it wasn't large enough and thus, just like clockwork, Believer goes on Ohiochatter and says "the anointed one said unemployment wouldn't go above 8%"
  
  And finally, Keynesians don't believe "big gubmint is good gubmint." They simply believe that at the very least, when you can't use conventional monetary policy because interest rates are at the zero lower bound that the government out to borrow at these low rates to finance tax cuts or direct spending in order to prevent mass unemployment and falling GDP.to counter the business cycle. This view has been vindicated over the last several years. Europeans are doing exactly what Republicans would like to do here and their budget deficits are getting worse, their economies are heading toward recession and they have even more people out of work.
  
  It is you and president Obama who need to see the light. When Americans lost multiple trillions in dollars worth of wealth in their homes a paltry $700 billion dollar stilmulus phase in over several years, a third of which is simply to buffer against cuts by state governments is not enough to counter that.