(06-14-2011 04:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Carter offered one good policy suggestion and it died as fast as he made it. Freeze the importation of oil at current levels and either replace it with domestic production or new technology.

Funny thing about Carter/Reagan race. Reagan barely got over 50% but won 44 states. John Anderson who was a moderate Republican running as an independent helped prevent the election from being close. Reagan would have probably taken a vote percentage closer to what Obama got (just shy of 53% instead of barely over 50%) but still would have won easily in the Electoral College.

Using a person's self-identification of party:
Democrats 22% voted Ford in 76 and 26% Reagan in 80.
Carter went from 77% of Democrats to 66%
Republicans actually supported Reagan less than they did Ford going from 90% in 76 to 84% in 1980 and Carter gained 2 points among Republicans from 76 to 80.
So-called independents voted for Reagan at the same pace as they did Ford 54%.

Carter lost too many Democrats to Anderson (and a decent number to Reagan) and lost more than a quarter of independents to Anderson.

That's funny, because my father was a union member Democrat that voted for Reagan. Moderate Repulican means Liberal on some issues like McCain, Snow, Romney, Bush and Brown. They are cartainly not conservatives.

Rubio will be the VP nominee. That will secure FL for them and should gain a decent amount of hispanic support. Maybe that will be the kick start to get hispanics voting for the party that actually stands for their values. (painting with a wide brush here)

(06-14-2011 05:23 PM)CajunT Wrote:  That's funny, because my father was a union member Democrat that voted for Reagan. Moderate Repulican means Liberal on some issues like McCain, Snow, Romney, Bush and Brown. They are cartainly not conservatives.

Reagan wouldn't stand a chance of being nominated by the GOP today. While today's GOP likes to play the 1960's recording of his opposition to Medicare, when the program was on the verge of collapse he worked diligently to save it in the current single payer any provider format we know. His reform took it from the brink of collapse to shored up for 30 years. It took the wildly uncontrolled rate of medical inflation to get it back in trouble.

Reagan faced with economic downturn pushed for and passed a stimulus package opposed by many in the GOP. Their opposition was based on his using a fuel tax increase to pay for the program.

Really the only foundational point of the Reagan era I'd back off of would be the run up in defense spending. In the Reagan era global theatre wide war with the Soviets remained a realistic possiblity. But for Gorbachev it might have happened. It isn't unusual in history for a failing empires to use war to rally flagging support at home and attempt to capture resources to shore up the economy. There are claims that that many in Soviet leadership wanted to strike Europe while making a move into the Middle East to capture a large part of the oil market and then try to negotiate a peace that would allow them to keep most or all gains in the Middle East in exchange for giving up East Germany, or just make a run into the Middle East and hope for the best. Gorbachev having met with Reagan several times convinced enough of the leadership that Reagan would escalate to nuclear war before allowing the Soviets to gain territory.

Today we just don't have a similar threat. The biggest possible flashpoint in China-Taiwan and with the way the Hong Kong and Macau regions have faired under Red China, a similar negotiated status for Taiwan remains a possibility but likely decades away.

Reagan's cornerstone tax cut only dropped the top rate to 50% then at the very end went to 38% and a special two year dip to 28% that became a permanent 31% The cool thing about that was during that two year period. There were only two tax brackets. 15% for up to $32,450 and 28% for everything higher. Then it went to 31% for everything over $86,500

At that moment in time we were closer to a flat tax rate than at any time in our modern history. Today you have to get above $69,000 to pay more than 15% and $139,000 to reach 28% Today we have six brackets topping at 35% on whatever you earn past $379,150

If the Reagan tax bracket adopted when he left office were in place today and adjusted for inflation it would be:
Dollars earned between 0 to $53,717 would be taxed at 15% and everything earned after that would be taxed at 28%. That would be a tax increase on people between 0-$17,000 from 10% moving to 15%. A tax increase on people making $53,718 to $69,000 from 15% moving to 28%. People in the 25% bracket now $69,000 to $139,350 would go to 28%. People in the current 28% bracket would stay the same and those making more than $212,300 would get a cut from 33% or 35% depending on their bracket.

I think our lives and the economy would be better off if the government would just stay the heck out of both of them...I'll be voting for whichever candidate most closely believes that....and it won't be barack obama.

(06-14-2011 07:58 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 12:39 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 09:12 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 09:07 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  Shoot.

Anyone is better then what we have now... I will vote for whoever gets the nomination.

That is a dangerous mindset, I understand it, but that's still a dangerous mindset.

Not as dangerous as keeping Obama for 4 more years.

I disagree completely. If all the conservatives that screamed about what a lack of experience and how underqualified President Obama is, turn around and try and elect this walking, talking(gosh darnit)train wreck, reality tv star, who quit her only political office of consequence...that would be the height of hypocrisy.

I'd rather give President Obama four more years to try and right the ship, than watch this bumbling woman most assuredly make things even worse.

(06-15-2011 12:25 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 07:58 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 12:39 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 09:12 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 09:07 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  Shoot.

Anyone is better then what we have now... I will vote for whoever gets the nomination.

That is a dangerous mindset, I understand it, but that's still a dangerous mindset.

Not as dangerous as keeping Obama for 4 more years.

I disagree completely. If all the conservatives that screamed about what a lack of experience and how underqualified President Obama is, turn around and try and elect this walking, talking(gosh darnit)train wreck, reality tv star, who quit her only political office of consequence...that would be the height of hypocrisy.

I'd rather give President Obama four more years to try and right the ship, than watch this bumbling woman most assuredly make things even worse.

Wow, the double standard is not surprising when it comes to all the Palin haters. I'm sorry, but you have had the postcard for bumbling idiocy writing legislation for four years in the House named Pelosi. She has done more damage to this country then Palin ever could.

Obama never budgeted at the state or federal level, and it shows. Writing classroom theories isn’t applicable to running a state or federal government. Obama's resume wasn’t even close to Palins, which is the rank hypocrisy of the left.

(06-15-2011 12:57 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 12:25 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 07:58 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 12:39 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 09:12 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Anyone is better then what we have now... I will vote for whoever gets the nomination.

That is a dangerous mindset, I understand it, but that's still a dangerous mindset.

Not as dangerous as keeping Obama for 4 more years.

I disagree completely. If all the conservatives that screamed about what a lack of experience and how underqualified President Obama is, turn around and try and elect this walking, talking(gosh darnit)train wreck, reality tv star, who quit her only political office of consequence...that would be the height of hypocrisy.

I'd rather give President Obama four more years to try and right the ship, than watch this bumbling woman most assuredly make things even worse.

Wow, the double standard is not surprising when it comes to all the Palin haters. I'm sorry, but you have had the postcard for bumbling idiocy writing legislation for four years in the House named Pelosi. She has done more damage to this country then Palin ever could.

Obama never budgeted at the state or federal level, and it shows. Writing classroom theories isn’t applicable to running a state or federal government. Obama's resume wasn’t even close to Palins, which is the rank hypocrisy of the left.

I'm not defending the resume or election of President Obama, but how does electing an unqualified candidate to replace an unqualified candidate make any sense whatsoever?

President Obama's qualifications have nothing to do with Palin's and vice versa. If you want Obama out of office, you better hope the Republican's come up with a better candidate than Palin, she's unelectable.

(06-15-2011 01:47 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 12:57 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 12:25 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 07:58 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 12:39 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  That is a dangerous mindset, I understand it, but that's still a dangerous mindset.

Not as dangerous as keeping Obama for 4 more years.

I disagree completely. If all the conservatives that screamed about what a lack of experience and how underqualified President Obama is, turn around and try and elect this walking, talking(gosh darnit)train wreck, reality tv star, who quit her only political office of consequence...that would be the height of hypocrisy.

I'd rather give President Obama four more years to try and right the ship, than watch this bumbling woman most assuredly make things even worse.

Wow, the double standard is not surprising when it comes to all the Palin haters. I'm sorry, but you have had the postcard for bumbling idiocy writing legislation for four years in the House named Pelosi. She has done more damage to this country then Palin ever could.

Obama never budgeted at the state or federal level, and it shows. Writing classroom theories isn’t applicable to running a state or federal government. Obama's resume wasn’t even close to Palins, which is the rank hypocrisy of the left.

I'm not defending the resume or election of President Obama, but how does electing an unqualified candidate to replace an unqualified candidate make any sense whatsoever?

President Obama's qualifications have nothing to do with Palin's and vice versa. If you want Obama out of office, you better hope the Republican's come up with a better candidate than Palin, she's unelectable.

Last I checked she hasn't registered to run, and to be honest, I don't think she will. The point is just about anyone would be better than what we have now.

Of the candidates at the CNN debate, I'd take anyone of them over 4 more years of Obama, and I think most taxpayers feel the same. I'm sure people who don't work, don't own a home, and don't pay taxes, probably feel different.

(06-15-2011 01:47 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 12:57 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 12:25 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 07:58 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 12:39 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  That is a dangerous mindset, I understand it, but that's still a dangerous mindset.

Not as dangerous as keeping Obama for 4 more years.

I disagree completely. If all the conservatives that screamed about what a lack of experience and how underqualified President Obama is, turn around and try and elect this walking, talking(gosh darnit)train wreck, reality tv star, who quit her only political office of consequence...that would be the height of hypocrisy.

I'd rather give President Obama four more years to try and right the ship, than watch this bumbling woman most assuredly make things even worse.

Wow, the double standard is not surprising when it comes to all the Palin haters. I'm sorry, but you have had the postcard for bumbling idiocy writing legislation for four years in the House named Pelosi. She has done more damage to this country then Palin ever could.

Obama never budgeted at the state or federal level, and it shows. Writing classroom theories isn’t applicable to running a state or federal government. Obama's resume wasn’t even close to Palins, which is the rank hypocrisy of the left.

I'm not defending the resume or election of President Obama, but how does electing an unqualified candidate to replace an unqualified candidate make any sense whatsoever?

President Obama's qualifications have nothing to do with Palin's and vice versa. If you want Obama out of office, you better hope the Republican's come up with a better candidate than Palin, she's unelectable.

Well, I'm not a Republican so I don't have to hope they win. All the need to do is take the Senate and hold the House, Obama would not have enough votes to get any legislation through either chamber.

(06-14-2011 10:36 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

Why isn't Ron Paul electable?

(06-15-2011 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 05:23 PM)CajunT Wrote:  That's funny, because my father was a union member Democrat that voted for Reagan. Moderate Repulican means Liberal on some issues like McCain, Snow, Romney, Bush and Brown. They are cartainly not conservatives.

Reagan wouldn't stand a chance of being nominated by the GOP today. While today's GOP likes to play the 1960's recording of his opposition to Medicare, when the program was on the verge of collapse he worked diligently to save it in the current single payer any provider format we know. His reform took it from the brink of collapse to shored up for 30 years. It took the wildly uncontrolled rate of medical inflation to get it back in trouble.

Reagan faced with economic downturn pushed for and passed a stimulus package opposed by many in the GOP. Their opposition was based on his using a fuel tax increase to pay for the program.

Really the only foundational point of the Reagan era I'd back off of would be the run up in defense spending. In the Reagan era global theatre wide war with the Soviets remained a realistic possiblity. But for Gorbachev it might have happened. It isn't unusual in history for a failing empires to use war to rally flagging support at home and attempt to capture resources to shore up the economy. There are claims that that many in Soviet leadership wanted to strike Europe while making a move into the Middle East to capture a large part of the oil market and then try to negotiate a peace that would allow them to keep most or all gains in the Middle East in exchange for giving up East Germany, or just make a run into the Middle East and hope for the best. Gorbachev having met with Reagan several times convinced enough of the leadership that Reagan would escalate to nuclear war before allowing the Soviets to gain territory.

Today we just don't have a similar threat. The biggest possible flashpoint in China-Taiwan and with the way the Hong Kong and Macau regions have faired under Red China, a similar negotiated status for Taiwan remains a possibility but likely decades away.

Reagan's cornerstone tax cut only dropped the top rate to 50% then at the very end went to 38% and a special two year dip to 28% that became a permanent 31% The cool thing about that was during that two year period. There were only two tax brackets. 15% for up to $32,450 and 28% for everything higher. Then it went to 31% for everything over $86,500

At that moment in time we were closer to a flat tax rate than at any time in our modern history. Today you have to get above $69,000 to pay more than 15% and $139,000 to reach 28% Today we have six brackets topping at 35% on whatever you earn past $379,150

If the Reagan tax bracket adopted when he left office were in place today and adjusted for inflation it would be:
Dollars earned between 0 to $53,717 would be taxed at 15% and everything earned after that would be taxed at 28%. That would be a tax increase on people between 0-$17,000 from 10% moving to 15%. A tax increase on people making $53,718 to $69,000 from 15% moving to 28%. People in the 25% bracket now $69,000 to $139,350 would go to 28%. People in the current 28% bracket would stay the same and those making more than $212,300 would get a cut from 33% or 35% depending on their bracket.

I know Reagans record well, he used his veto pen over 75 times against Tip O'Neil and the Democrats. If you compare Reagan to McCain, Bush, Brown, Snow, Romney and other Republicans now serving in Washington today, he would be considered right wing. I know of no principled conservative that would have voted for the Bush Medicare Drug Bill, Cash for Clunkers, the Auto Bailouts, Obama Care or the Stimulus Plan.

There are very few Fiscal Conservatives in Washington today and the Blue Dog Demcrats have gone the way of the Oldsmobile.

The state of Texas has added most of the jobs that have been added in the past few years and Texas is a right to work state. Texas has no state income tax and is very business friendly. That being said, I think Rick Perry will jump into the race and will defeat Mitt Romney because of Romneycare. Then he will have no problem defeating Obama because of unemployment.

(06-15-2011 10:02 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  The state of Texas has added most of the jobs that have been added in the past few years and Texas is a right to work state. Texas has no state income tax and is very business friendly. That being said, I think Rick Perry will jump into the race and will defeat Mitt Romney because of Romneycare. Then he will have no problem defeating Obama because of unemployment.

If Perry jumps in, it will be because he has Bilderberg support. Or, support from above Bilderberg. Our 2 presidential candidates are given to us - they are not the result of an organic process.

(06-15-2011 09:20 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  [quote='Burn the Horse' pid='6580088' dateline='1308065798']
does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

THIS!!!

If I could join this party I would.

(06-16-2011 12:51 AM)mts305 Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 09:20 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  [quote='Burn the Horse' pid='6580088' dateline='1308065798']
does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

THIS!!!

(06-16-2011 12:51 AM)mts305 Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 09:20 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  [quote='Burn the Horse' pid='6580088' dateline='1308065798']
does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

THIS!!!

You had me with your opening statement but your finish is paranoid insanity.
Issues like abortion have have been raging for a long time because of two groups with committed, opposite ideals. Their actions that have led to furious political debate and that has led to media coverage.
The media and the Jewish community don't have an in-depth plan to control the country and the world beyond. As a matter of fact, the free media of America has been the most important factor in keeping our leaders as honest as possible for more than two centuries. Over those two-plus centuries there have been plenty of people with agendas but the media as a whole has been invaluable to the American way of life.

(06-16-2011 12:51 AM)mts305 Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 09:20 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  [quote='Burn the Horse' pid='6580088' dateline='1308065798']
does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

THIS!!!

And yet 43% of Americans describe themselves as conservative. I would probably say your demographic would fall into the category inwhich you speak.

(06-16-2011 08:20 AM)CajunT Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:51 AM)mts305 Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 09:20 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  [quote='Burn the Horse' pid='6580088' dateline='1308065798']
does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

THIS!!!

And yet 43% of Americans describe themselves as conservative. I would probably say your demographic would fall into the category inwhich you speak.

I got a little over zealous in agreeing to the post. I was agreeing before I read the entire post. "Zionist controlled media" is taking it a little too far. However, I do think that the Libertarian party fits me best. I do not belong to any party, and "go with my gut" on election day. That being said I almost always vote Republican. This is because I am a young adult with a job that pays very well, and I want to keep it. Republicans support the industry that I work in, and Democrats put moratoriums on it.

Cash for Clunkers was the great "what's the real point" moment.

It was a disguised stimulus for car makers and state tax offices.

If we had a president and Congress that announced we are going to:
1) Provide a farm subsidy type program for domestic oil (ie. guarantee a minimum price because OPEC tends to flood the market making a lot of domestic wells unprofitable any time we act like we are going to adopt an energy policy)
2) Are going to invest in the infrastructure of CNG automobiles and trucks.
3) Are going to invest in the infrastructure of electric vehicles (which make sense in many cities if there is infrastructure).
4) Going to do a TVA style project to get more wind electric production.

Then I could see a cash for clunkers that with the only eligible vehicles being electric, CNG, and 50 mpg+ gas and diesel vehicles.

That would have a point. Reducing US consumption of foreign produced energy and taking dollars out of the hands of people who have a nasty habit of supporting terror and moving those dollars into the hands of Americans or at least car makers from friendly countries.

I don't have a problem with the government assisting major infrastructure changes because we did it with canals, lock & dam systems, railroads, highways, and airports. But doing something without and end goal in view... pointless.

(06-16-2011 07:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:51 AM)mts305 Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 09:20 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  [quote='Burn the Horse' pid='6580088' dateline='1308065798']
does anyone on here consider themselves to be more Libertarian than Republican/Democrat?

I have an unfounded theory that most Americans not on welfare are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarian best fits that - but guess what - the stupid Zionist controlled media splits Americans around stupid unsolvable issues like abortion so that we don't all gang up with common sense and kick all the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Divide and conquer.

THIS!!!

You had me with your opening statement but your finish is paranoid insanity.
Issues like abortion have have been raging for a long time because of two groups with committed, opposite ideals. Their actions that have led to furious political debate and that has led to media coverage.
The media and the Jewish community don't have an in-depth plan to control the country and the world beyond. As a matter of fact, the free media of America has been the most important factor in keeping our leaders as honest as possible for more than two centuries. Over those two-plus centuries there have been plenty of people with agendas but the media as a whole has been invaluable to the American way of life.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me . . .

I shouldn't have used the term Zionist because I am out of my depth and can't prove whether anyone is a Zionist or not - but the mainstream media in America is controlled and it controls the thoughts of Americans.

Freedom Fries? I mean France was right about Iraq and WMD and yet some Americans actually used that phrase Freedom Fries. That is straight up media mind control.

What about this video do you think is incorrect?