SOTU

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LaSalleAve, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    It's a mistake to take a small majority as a mandate. The GOP did it in 2000 and in 2004 and the Dems did it in 2008. The extreme right and left are shrinking and the parties are just nudging the vast moderate opinion to the left and right. Whichever party wises up, stops kow-towing to its most extreme branch and embraces the center will win.

    I see the Tea Party dragging the republicans right and the progressives dragging the democrats to the middle. Time will tell.
     
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Not nearly "nuff". When Obama took office the economy had already tanked, Dubya's wars were out of control, the banks had been bailed out, and depression was looming.
     
  3. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247

    And Obama made it worse, not better. It's not improving, either.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    You absolutely don't read or watch the news. You just make it up as you go. :dis:
     
  5. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    See post #50.
     
  6. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,926
    Likes Received:
    187
    So you are saying the Democrats are equally as bad as the Republicans..?
     
  7. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    I'm saying the economy has gone downhill since 2007 which is coincidentally when Dems got power.
     
  8. asignupe99

    asignupe99 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    That's innacurate, but I totally understand why you would think that. These programs can be used for all types of things. You can increase investments in infrastructure without increasing the amount you give an agency. Most government agencies are getting far less funding than have gotten in previous years. The difference is, instead of awarding a loan or grant for project X that concentrates on...say a community center, agencies are being instructed to award those dollars to an infrastructure project. You increase the investment by increasing the emphasis. That means some non-essential, albeit worthwhile, project will not get funded because infrastructure is more important now.

    That's one of the many problems with governments. They give enough information to cause controversy, but not enough to make it common sense. It's common sense to me because I work in that area of government, but I can understand how the everyday taxpayer wouldn't know that. It's not common knowledge.
     
  9. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    That just means they won't increase spending. They need to cut spending.
     
  10. luvdimtigers

    luvdimtigers Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,574
    Likes Received:
    308
    When Reagan took office, unemployment was 7.6% and went to 9.8% by that summer and stayed there for 2 years. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator of a recovery.

    And the top tax rate is still 14% lower than what Reagan cut it to.

    and you don't want to even start talking about Reagan and deficits.

    The entire "Reagan revolution" cut unemployment 2.1% from start to finish.

    Do you consider Reagan's presidency a failure?
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page