Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I don't think the numbers alone can prove either was better or worse, there are too many factors, and too much potential for statistical manipulation. I think Reagan was worse because he started a lot of the deregulation of financial markets and industry that I believe was a large factor in the economic crash we are going through now. There may have been some short term benefits from these policies, but they were disastrous in the long term. Reagan was also terrible on foreign policy, he was worse than most U.S. presidents, but since Obama and the others are also abhorrent on this front cannot really argue this alone makes Reagan worse. For me perhaps the biggest black mark against Reagan was his huge responsibility in escalating the War on Drugs one of the worst policies in U.S. history. However, I mean none of this as a defense of Obama. It has been a long time since there has been a president worthy of a wholehearted defense imo.

1) Numbers don't lie. There is no manipulating unemployment, take home pay, etc. Minorities (and others) are doing far worse under Obama than they were previously. Why the lower and middle classes continue to support him is beyond me.

2) The $hitstorm of 2008 happened because the federal government forced banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford houses. We call this social justice. Reagan had nothing to do with that and there's no evidence or proof you could link Reagan with the 2008 recession.

3) Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot or losing a US life but he was terrible on foreign policy? Pretty bold statement.

4) War on Drugs failed, but it was an honest attempt at fixing a big problem in the 80's with the cocaine boom.
 

ShawneeIrish

Well-known member
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
137
1) Numbers don't lie. There is no manipulating unemployment, take home pay, etc. Minorities (and others) are doing far worse under Obama than they were previously. Why the lower and middle classes continue to support him is beyond me.

2) The $hitstorm of 2008 happened because the federal government forced banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford houses. We call this social justice. Reagan had nothing to do with that and there's no evidence or proof you could link Reagan with the 2008 recession.

3) Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot or losing a US life but he was terrible on foreign policy? Pretty bold statement.

4) War on Drugs failed, but it was an honest attempt at fixing a big problem in the 80's with the cocaine boom.

I think the economic numbers are certainly subject to a lot of manipulation. For example, high employment does not mean a healthy economy if people are working crap jobs. Again I don't support Obama either and do not defend what he is doing economically.

Reagan did not win the Cold War. USSR collapsed because of internal corruption, the war in Afghanistan, arms race spending, and Gorbachev initiating perestroika and glasnost thinking this would save the USSR but not realizing that it would make their house of cards collapse.

Even more inaccurate is to say Reagan never fired a shot in the Cold War. I think the residents of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, and elsewhere would disagree.

Finally, I would not describe the War on Drugs as an honest effort. Especially when there was cocaine smuggled by the government into Mena Air Force base in exchange for the Contras fighting the Sandinistas. However, I'm glad that even though we both come from different perspectives we can agree that the War on Drugs has been a failure.

Im sure we could go on talking about this forever without agreeing, but I do appreciate the civil discourse and honest discussion.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
3) Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot or losing a US life but he was terrible on foreign policy? Pretty bold statement.

Follow this conservative logic:

a) Communism is a system that cannot work.
b) Reagan is a great man for defeating the USSR.

Doesn't this contradict itself? He was President while an unsustainable system imploded. He doesn't deserve the most credit, and certainly less than Kennedy.

4) War on Drugs failed, but it was an honest attempt at fixing a big problem in the 80's with the cocaine boom.

No, it wasn't.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
The article I posted earlier was centered on economics, comparing the Reagan and Obama years and the effects on all of us, especially minorities. Not sure how or why we shifted to foreign policy.

As for the Cold War, Kennedy deserves credit but Carter was a disaster and Reagan is exactly what the country needed at the time. It was a decades long arms race, and the Russians knew they couldn't match up with us. Were they collapsing from within? Yes. But make no mistake the boost in defense spending and boosting our military played a significant part, and in that sense the Reagan admin can take credit.

"We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities." Gorbachev, October 1986

Back to my original point, minorities are worse off under Obama than they were 4-5 years ago.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
The article I posted earlier was centered on economics, comparing the Reagan and Obama years and the effects on all of us, especially minorities. Not sure how or why we shifted to foreign policy.

As for the Cold War, Kennedy deserves credit but Carter was a disaster and Reagan is exactly what the country needed at the time. It was a decades long arms race, and the Russians knew they couldn't match up with us. Were they collapsing from within? Yes. But make no mistake the boost in defense spending and boosting our military played a significant part, and in that sense the Reagan admin can take credit.

"We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities." Gorbachev, October 1986

Back to my original point, minorities are worse off under Obama than they were 4-5 years ago.

So it sounds like Reagan deserves very little credit, according to everything you just said.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
You might have missed this line from above:

Were they collapsing from within? Yes. But make no mistake the boost in defense spending and boosting our military played a significant part, and in that sense the Reagan admin can take credit.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
If Obama wants to help minorities remove minimum wage law and end affirmative action. Easy. Done. Progress.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
You might have missed this line from above:

Were they collapsing from within? Yes. But make no mistake the boost in defense spending and boosting our military played a significant part, and in that sense the Reagan admin can take credit.

And if the enemy is making speeches pointing out how obvious the move is, as you have shown, then what is left to praise? Reagan didn't have some ingenious plan, it was obvious by the USSR's own admission.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
And if the enemy is making speeches pointing out how obvious the move is, as you have shown, then what is left to praise? Reagan didn't have some ingenious plan, it was obvious by the USSR's own admission.

The USSR would've crumbled on its own, sure. But I'd argue that Reagan helped to force the result by taking an aggressive stance towards the Soviets in order to expose their weaknesses. Take the "Star Wars" missile defense issue. It was just a cool project name that Reagan threw out there, but it scared the hell out of the Soviets. Our military wasn't anywhere near having that capability, but Reagan was able to use it as leverage against the USSR.
 

Kanye West

Yeezus
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
43
The USSR would've crumbled on its own, sure. But I'd argue that Reagan helped to force the result by taking an aggressive stance towards the Soviets in order to expose their weaknesses. Take the "Star Wars" missile defense issue. It was just a cool project name that Reagan threw out there, but it scared the hell out of the Soviets. Our military wasn't anywhere near having that capability, but Reagan was able to use it as leverage against the USSR.

A question I have is this, did that agressive stance back then hinder our progress now?
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Neither of those two things would help. Both would be net negatives big time.

Doubt it. Minimum wage hurts young people by forcing them to demonstrate skills which they dont have. For the fifty years before minimum wage law black teen unemployment was on par or below white teen. Huge loss of income and productivity, not to mention the side effects of having young males with nothing to do.

AA I know less of but effectively you are trying to artificial advance individuals in the quality of schools that they get into. Problem is, the students havent shown the ability to succeed at these more advance schools (even though they may be better than the norm). At some point 70% of black students enrolled under AA didnt graduate at Cal, they were overmatch and that jeopardized their educational feature.

To put it into context, its like if ND dropped its requirements for football players, but changed nothing about the schooling. There would be many more academic issues. The reason the graduation rate is near perfect is that there are (among other things) high standards that force you to demonstrate the ability to succeed here.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
I am convinced this Administration’s main outlook is "The American public doesn't pay attention anyway…”

Sad thing is, they are correct for the most part.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Doubt it. Minimum wage hurts young people by forcing them to demonstrate skills which they dont have. For the fifty years before minimum wage law black teen unemployment was on par or below white teen. Huge loss of income and productivity, not to mention the side effects of having young males with nothing to do.

AA I know less of but effectively you are trying to artificial advance individuals in the quality of schools that they get into. Problem is, the students havent shown the ability to succeed at these more advance schools (even though they may be better than the norm). At some point 70% of black students enrolled under AA didnt graduate at Cal, they were overmatch and that jeopardized their educational feature.

To put it into context, its like if ND dropped its requirements for football players, but changed nothing about the schooling. There would be many more academic issues. The reason the graduation rate is near perfect is that there are (among other things) high standards that force you to demonstrate the ability to succeed here.

I would be curious to find out where you got that 70% figure. Sounds like you kinda pulled it out of your *** and I have a hard time believing it. One thing I am certain of is that since affirmative action came under attack in the late 70's Latino populations at major universities have dropped significantly.
 
Last edited:

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
I would be curious to find out where you got that 70% figure. Sounds like you kinda pulled it out of your *** and I have a hard time believing it. One thing I am certain of is that since affirmative action came under attack in the late 70's Latino populations at major universities have dropped significantly.

Sorry for the late response, didnt see your post. This is the video I got the fact from

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WBsZk3F8Viw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

At about 5:50

I recommend watching the entire series and Thomas Sowells other videos, good brain food at the very least.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
Thomas Sowell told a story about when he got accepted into Harvard. A teacher of his told him "Don't come back here telling us you couldn't succeed because white folks were mean to you." Sowell's a true inspiration, for someone of any race, in addition to being a helluva smart guy.
 

DSully1995

New member
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
74
Thomas Sowell told a story about when he got accepted into Harvard. A teacher of his told him "Don't come back here telling us you couldn't succeed because white folks were mean to you." Sowell's a true inspiration, for someone of any race, in addition to being a helluva smart guy.

Thats after having to drop out of highschool to take care of his family then he worked full time and took night classes to get his GED.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
Thomas Sowell told a story about when he got accepted into Harvard. A teacher of his told him "Don't come back here telling us you couldn't succeed because white folks were mean to you." Sowell's a true inspiration, for someone of any race, in addition to being a helluva smart guy.

So is that teacher. That's a good kick in the butt quote.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
As big as a cluster**** this "program" has been so far in 2013, I'm amazed this point isn't discussed more: ACA is so wonderful and brings "access" to 30 million people (debatable) but it's not good enough for those in Congress who shoved the law down our throats.

Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

Editorial: Congress gets its Obamacare break
What about everyone else?

August 10, 2013
Chicago Tribune

To the ranks of those who will get a break from the rules of Obamacare you can add ... members of Congress and more than 10,000 of their staffers.

Bowing to complaints from the Capitol Hill crowd, the Obama administration on Wednesday announced that members and staffers will keep the generous subsidies they currently receive through the federal health insurance program. Under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, many of them would have had to pay much more as they shifted to buying insurance through one of the new exchanges being created.

Whew! Catastrophe averted. Congress gets to keep its wonderful health insurance subsidy.

Congress justified its special deal because lawmakers apparently forgot to include a provision that allowed their subsidies to be paid when they and their staffs were shifted into the marketplaces. They needed White House help — and President Barack Obama's personal intervention — to bail themselves out of their own mess. Is there any better example of a sloppily written law?

So the carve-outs are growing.

America's businesses have been excused for one year from the requirement that they provide coverage for employees or pay a fine.

Capitol Hill keeps its subsidies.

Who'll be next to get special treatment? We know who should be: Everyone else. Remember, most Americans are still on the hook to pay a penalty if they don't have insurance coverage next year. That's the Obamacare "individual mandate."

But since companies don't even have to report whether they offer employees insurance or who accepts coverage, the individual mandate can't be fairly enforced.

How about we all agree on a simple principle: As long as employers get a pass from their mandate, all individuals should get a pass from their mandate.

More special pleaders for exceptions and exemptions wait in the wings. Union leaders are howling that Obamacare's so-called "Cadillac tax" will jeopardize their members' lavish health benefits under multi-employer plans. Cities could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes if they can't find a way to cut their pricey plans. The "Cadillac tax" will cost New York City $549 million in 2022, The New York Times reports. So expect entreaties for a break to come from assorted mayors.

Underlying all these little uncertainties is one big uncertainty: Will the vast record-keeping apparatus for Obamacare be ready on time?

The government is far behind schedule in testing security for a computer system that will route tax information and other data between federal agencies and the health care exchanges that are being established in the states. Federal officials won't make the decision on the system's readiness until Sept. 30, one day before the exchanges are supposed to open, according to the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. One day.

The pressure is building on lawmakers and the administration to acknowledge the obvious: This enormous government intrusion into health care is not ready to roll and probably never will be.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
Bowing to complaints from the Capitol Hill crowd, the Obama administration on Wednesday announced that members and staffers will keep the generous subsidies they currently receive through the federal health insurance program. Under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, many of them would have had to pay much more as they shifted to buying insurance through one of the new exchanges being created.

Well, he did say if you like your healthcare you can keep it............
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
Interesting stuff… could make for good dialogue if nothing else… I have been saying for years the incentive among the lower classes is to not work in many cases…

Work or Welfare: What Pays More? - Real Time Economics - WSJ


The authors found that in 11 states, “welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher [in those states]. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer.”
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Neither of those two things would help. Both would be net negatives big time.

How? Specifically to minorities....

Because what you're admitting is that minorites can only get min wage jobs and need special exceptions to get anoything else.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Keep in mind they include 18 year olds in that study....

Take out the 18-22 demo (college kids for the most part) and that would be a study I'd want to see.

it's like the min wage argument..most people making min wage fall in that same demo. Yet we scream for a raise based on the "poor family man"

18 year-olds are adults. Less than half of Americans go to college, and many of those begin working for a living right out of high school. The "mininum wage argument" is that people who work should make a living wage. We're not talking about 14 year-olds who want to make money to hang out at the mall with their friends, we're talking about people who are beginning their working lives. Because someone is a young adult, why should they be excluded from the examination of the entire workforce?
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
If he really wants to help them, end the war on drugs and free up prisions from the dumb crack laws of the 80's.

Yes, becuase releasing a buncha crack heads is going to help minorities....


But I do agree with ending the war on drugs...and do the same with the war on poverty as well. Both are wastes of money. And any wars in the middle east as well.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
18 year-olds are adults. Less than half of Americans go to college, and many of those begin working for a living right out of high school. The "mininum wage argument" is that people who work should make a living wage. We're not talking about 14 year-olds who want to make money to hang out at the mall with their friends, we're talking about people who are beginning their working lives. Because someone is a young adult, why should they be excluded from the examination of the entire workforce?

So you're complaining becuase some 18 year old with no education and likely no skill set isn't getting paid the same as someone who did those things?

LOL. Good one.

Again, ANYONE on this earth can improve their situation. Just gotta work at it. If you have to work for 8 bucks an hour and live on noodles for a few years till that next opportunity, then that's the hand you were dealt and you likely PUT YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION TO BEGIN WITH.


Again, there are winners and losers in life. Even if you raised the min wage to 100 bucks an hour, we'd have this very conversation again becuase people would still bitch
 
Top