Friday, February 06, 2009

Happy BIrthday Gipper!

Today is the birthday of a remarkable human being. Here's some words of wisdom from President Reagan that you will never hear come out of the mouth of the neo marxist Barry Obama.

19 Comments:

Anonymous Gegotici said...

Yes, here's to the man who once said, "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles," and "All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk," and "We are trying to get unemployment to go up, and I think we're going to succeed."

When asked by a reporter in 1966 what kind of governor he would be, the former B-movie actor replied: "I don't know. I've never played a governor".

My personal favorite was when he famously said, "I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency - even if I'm in a Cabinet meeting."

Happy birthday to the most successful empty suit this country has ever had!

12:35 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Gegotici "Happy birthday to the most successful empty suit this country has ever had!"

No, that honor is reserved for Barack Hussein Obama. The same Barack Hussein Obama that is deceiving the American people by trying to say that if his special favors pay back bill doesn't get passed,the economy will fail. This is the same Barry Obama that said he saw dead soldiers on Memorial day sitting in the audience. This is the same Millhouse Obama that said he visted 57 states. This is the same Barack Obama that think Afghans speak Arabic. This is the same Cocaine Hussein that said that his father liberated the jews when it really was the Russians. Did I live anything out Gegotici?

5:41 PM  
Anonymous Gegotici said...

"Cocaine Hussein?"

The Ditto-Heads are showing stroke-like symptoms, and the administration isn't even 30 days old! You're foaming at the mouth!!!

Obama Derangement Disorder.

You, Tyrone, are most definitely ODD.

Just imagine how you'd feel if your candidate actually received more votes and STILL lost!

I think you'd keel over right on the spot!

6:29 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Gegotici ""Cocaine Hussein?"The Ditto-Heads are showing stroke-like symptoms, and the administration isn't even 30 days old! You're foaming at the mouth!!!

When you assume something Gegotici without asking, you leave yourself vulnerable for attack and humilation like I'm about to do, The reference I made "Cocaine Hussein" came from a friend in South Carolina. Sorry no "Limbuagh" was involved. Matter of fact, Limbaugh never made such a reference,opps!!!:-0 I guess you owe "Dittoheads" an apology there Gegotici.





Geogotici "The Ditto-Heads are showing stroke-like symptoms, and the administration isn't even 30 days old! You're foaming at the mouth!!!

You want to talk about stroke like symptoms and foaming at the mouth Gegotici? Have you heard of the mental disease among liberals called SPODS? SPODS is short for "

Sarah Palin Obsession Disorder Syndrome".

She was called a hell of a lot worse then what I called Obama. With liberals, they showed symptoms like intensive swearing at the mere mention of her name and vulgar behavior period. I wonder why that was. With Bush gone. I guess the Bush Derangement Syndrome virus had to transform into something else.

6:56 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Gegotici "You, Tyrone, are most definitely ODD.Just imagine how you'd feel if your candidate actually received more votes and STILL lost!"

I've been called worse things then "ODD". lol So that's actually tame in comparison . You said imagine how I would feel if my candidate received more votes and still lost. If my candidate was running for President and he lost in the electoral college count yet received more in the popular vote, it wouldn't bother me. I would know that elections are won in the electoral college not the popular vote.

7:54 PM  
Anonymous Gegotici said...

>>"When you assume something Gegotici without asking, you leave yourself vulnerable for attack and humilation like I'm about to do ..."

Humiliate me? Good one! I'd feel humiliated if my spelling, grammar, and syntax resembled yours.

You don't get it, CB. I could give a rat's ass about who actually made up the insult. But you ARE a Ditto-Head, and you guys really DO need to get a grip right now. 99 percent of Rush's callers have that angry, raised-voiced, about-to-jump-off-a-ledge thing going on right now, and you need to cool it, if not for your own health, then for the sanity of your fellow Americans.

>>>"With liberals, they showed symptoms like intensive swearing at the mere mention of her name and vulgar behavior period."

Most people, CB, really HATED Palin.

Most people didn't really HATE Obama. He won.

The McCain camp wanted to stir things up by inserting her into the race, and they accomplished their goal. Many people did not identify with her and were rubbed the wrong way by her attack-dog style. And many people listened to her speak and didn't think she was sophisticated enough for high national office. Many people were embarrassed at the prospect of her meeting with international leaders. Many people liked McCain but voted against the ticket because of her.

I mean, I'll take your word for it: If people at Dem rallies were cursing her name or chanting, it was a sign of the heated times. Was anyone cursing Obama's name at GOP rallies and chanting his names with expletives? Was anyone yelling, "Kill him?" Did Obama need an unprecedented amount of security because of all the threats to his life? Refresh my memory, please.

But Democrats really don't think about her anymore. They've written her off. They consider her a footnote. They really don't believe she'll go far into the 2012 primaries. They kinda just want her to go back to Alaska and stay there.

YOU'RE the one who is thinking about her all the time.

>>>"If my candidate was running for President and he lost in the electoral college count yet received more in the popular vote, it wouldn't bother me."

Really? Because in other posts you keep babbling about how 47 percent of Americans voted against Obama. You write this as if this should matter, as if it helps counterbalance the Electoral College landslide in November.

If a conservative had won the popular vote but lost the election, you wouldn't be ranting on your little blog about how the election proved that most Americans don't agree with the liberal?? Really?? You're a liar.

9:49 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Gegotici "You don't get it, CB. I could give a rat's ass about who actually made up the insult. But you ARE a Ditto-Head, and you guys really DO need to get a grip right now. 99 percent of Rush's callers have that angry, raised-voiced, about-to-jump-off-a-ledge thing going on right now, and you need to cool it, if not for your own health, then for the sanity of your fellow Americans."


So I guess according to your version of "logic", every conservative must be a "ditto head". Let me simplify it for you the best I can Gegotici, they're are conservatives that have the same mindset as Rush Limbaugh, but they don't like him. I listen to Limbaugh, but my two favorites are Mark Levin and Michael Savage. So one again like I said " Assume long and assume wrong". Obama is the second coming of Carter realized, paleo's really have nothing to be upset over. Obama is going to get his pork bill passed which will lead to a weaker dollar increased inflation and sky high commodity prices. Personally its all fun and games waiting for it to blow up in his face, just like it did for Carter.Obama drones are the one ticked off that Limbaugh said he wants his socialist policies to fail. You want to talk about anger, look in the mirror Gegotici lol Obama did say he won and he's the president. So as the president, he shouldn't try to blame the previous administration when it becomes obvious the pure fool realizes he's in trouble.


Gegotici "Most people, CB, really HATED Palin.Most people didn't really HATE Obama. He won."

Please give your definition of "most people HATED Palin". Only the mentally disturbed Obama heroine addicts hated Palin. Core Obama supporters are extremists in their mentality towards supporting Obama. Palin is seen as a threat and only a fool would expect them to admit it. Let me break out some statistics to prove a very simple point Geogotici.

65,182,692 voted for Obama, and 57,212,032 voted for McCain.

That translates to 54 to 48%%, which is 6% That is a difference of 7,970,660 votes. Obama won with a difference that is less then the population of New York City.I will go even further.

299,398,484 is the total population
225,746,457 total population over 18 years
122,394,724 total number of voters
54% of population voted.

That means that over 103 million adults or 46 percent of the adult population didn't vote. If Palin was so bad and Obama was so great, why didn't these people vote? Once again, Assume long and assume wrong. As I said before, who are these people that hate Palin? If what you said is true, Obama's win shouldn't have been just a mid SINGLE digit wing.

Gegotici "But Democrats really don't think about her anymore. They've written her off. They consider her a footnote. They really don't believe she'll go far into the 2012 primaries. They kinda just want her to go back to Alaska and stay there."

You really need to re establish connection with the Obama collective there Gegotici. When Palin launched SarahPAC last week, Democrats were foaming at the mouth of it. Look at the news articles, they are still talking about her. McCain was the one running for President,and he's basically ignored yet he is still a U.S Senator. So once again, you giving out false information.

Gegotici "YOU'RE the one who is thinking about her all the time."

If you frequented this blog, you would have known that my number one candidate to run is Governor Bobby Jindal. The only reasons I bring up Palin is because I like to set the record straight when false information and rumors are presented. I can't be talking about Palin most of the time, because most of my time I'm too busy goofing on the mutt in the White House.
The reverse attack strategy only works if you know how to use it :-0

Gegotici "The McCain camp wanted to stir things up by inserting her into the race, and they accomplished their goal."


I believe there is a book that says the same thing about how see turned the politic establishment upside down. Personally I was glad McCain picked her. I get tired of slick well rehearsed lying lawyer politicians.


Gegotici" Many people did not identify with her and were rubbed the wrong way by her attack-dog style."

Yeah sure, and Obama never attacked McCain and Bush right? ;-) Also, Democrats in congress never attacked Bush and Cheney right? The only people that the attacks didn't connect with were Obama drones and the media that shielded little barry boy. Everything Palin said about Obama was true. The truth hurts I guess. What makes Obama special from attacks? Nothing. All I hear from the Obama cultists since Obama was sworn in is to "give him a chance". Like I said in my video, they reap what they sow.

Gegotici "And many people listened to her speak and didn't think she was sophisticated enough for high national office."

Informed voters vote for candidates based on where they stand on the issues.I scratch my head trying to find anything "sophisticated" Obama said during the campaign and to this day. How sophisticated is it to say "HOPE, CHANGE AND CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"?
I don't need an ivy league elitist arrogant snob to talk down to me, Obama can do that to other people and do it with a smile.

Gegotici" Many people were embarrassed at the prospect of her meeting with international leaders. Many people liked McCain but voted against the ticket because of her."

Where is the proof of that Gegotici? How would Palin be meeting with international leaders in the role of Vice President Gegotici? Please bring me up to speed on that. How many international leaders did Cheney meet with in his 8 years as VP? Let's play devil's advocate for a second. If what you said is correct, then that would mean that Obama would lost right? So if Palin doesn't get the nomination in 2012, that means Obama will lose right? ;-) Time to get back to reality. McCain would have lost much worse without Palin. Palin was drawing crowds five times bigger the McCain was drawing, and they were energized. There are over 40 different Draft Palin and Pro Palin sites on the internet. They have already started their grass roots support for her, I very much doubt that the 58 million that voted for her through McCain won't support her in the Republican Primaries. As I see it from a factual standpoint, if Jindal doesnt' run, Palin will get the nomination if she runs.

Gegotici "I mean, I'll take your word for it: If people at Dem rallies were cursing her name or chanting, it was a sign of the heated times."

Why the heated times in the first place Gegotici? I thought liberals were all about "compassion" and "tolerance" and "understanding"? I guess it's hard to carry on an act or an illusion when people get emotional right?

Gegotici"Was anyone cursing Obama's name at GOP rallies and chanting his names with expletives? Was anyone yelling, "Kill him?" Did Obama need an unprecedented amount of security because of all the threats to his life? Refresh my memory, please."

If there were any, we don't support them. On the other hand, liberals openly trashed Palin and her family. They took pride in doing so. Then again, it was to be expected for them to live up to thier M.O.

Gegotici " But Democrats really don't think about her anymore. They've written her off. They consider her a footnote. They really don't believe she'll go far into the 2012 primaries. They kinda just want her to go back to Alaska and stay there."

Say one thing and do another. It has been three months since the election. Barack the magic wonder mutt is president and Democrats still are talking about Palin. For a person that is "written off" why are liberals still mentioning her name off of their lips?They talk about her and mention nothing about McCain, and he was the one actually running for President. Something isn't right with this scenario.

Gegotici "Really? Because in other posts you keep babbling about how 47 percent of Americans voted against Obama. You write this as if this should matter, as if it helps counterbalance the Electoral College landslide in November."

I was simply making a point that most of America isn't in love with Barack Obama, only the core that voted for him. The independents that voted for him are issue voters and expect the economy to be fixed by him.That's all I said.

Gegotici"If a conservative had won the popular vote but lost the election, you wouldn't be ranting on your little blog about how the election proved that most Americans don't agree with the liberal?? Really?? You're a liar."

My little blog? Oh how cute. If it's so little, why spend the time posting on my "little blog"? I'm just curious. Did I strike a nerve? I think I did. Do you need a hug to reassure you that Obama is as great as advertised Gegotici? The point that you once again couldn't seem to grasp was that Obama didn't win in a landslide among voters. He did win in a landslide in the electoral college vote. A lot of conservatives didn't vote because of McCain which allowed red states to go for Obama. I won't happen the second time around under Jimmy Carter v2,0 economy. History will repeat itself. Now are you up to speed now Gegotici? I hope my little blog was of some assistance to you :-)

2:08 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

Results are ALL that matter. Reagan inherited the REAL "Worst American Economy Since the Great Depression; double digit inflation and unemployment rates, suffocating interest rates (0ver 20% on car notes, etc.) and mortgage rates well over 10%...the HIGHEST Misery Index post-WW-II (21.9) and a burgeoning homeless problem brought on PRIMARILY by the massive and ill-conceived deinstitutionalization, began on a small scale in the 1950s, and exploded in the 1970s.

Reagan's Supply Side policies lowered the Misery Index every year he was in office until it reached SINGLE DIGITS by 1986, where it stayed throughout the remainder of his tenure.

Unlike FDR who's policies wrongly got credit for "ending the Great Depression" - it was WW II that ended the Great Depression, Reagan's policies actually delivered America FROM the "economic malaise" that the implosion of American Keynesianism delivered in the late 1970s.

Tyrone is right to laud Reagan, just as surely as those who claim to revile him do so out of economic ignorance.

1:16 PM  
Anonymous Gegotici said...

>>>”So I guess according to your version of "logic", every conservative must be a ‘ditto head.’”

Rush Limbaugh is the de facto chairman of the RNC. Michael Steele seems like a good man, but he will be drowned out by the shrill, paranoid, anti-intellectual, war-mongering mouthpieces on the radio.

I also find it amusing that you constantly shift your allegiances whenever I pin you to some ridiculous figure on the extreme right. It’s a constant tactic of yours. In fact, you never even endorsed a candidate for president, just so you could conveniently cut bait when the time came!

The day Bobby Jindal gets caught tapping his shoe in a Minneapolis airport men’s room stall, you’re going to write that you never really liked him anyway. This is what you do.

Meanwhile, EVERYONE who voted for Obama are left-wing extremists, heroin addicts, and mental patients who cheered when Sarah Palin’s church was set on fire, right?

Assume long and assume wrong.

>>>“So as the president, [Obama] shouldn't try to blame the previous administration when it becomes obvious the pure fool realizes he's in trouble.”

Why not? It worked so well for the Bushies. Eight years later they were STILL blaming Clinton for everything, and with a straight face.

“They did it first!” Why can’t the Dems say that? I mean, that’s how the right-wingnuts defend your belligerence. They claim the Dems were screaming about Bush for 8 years. In actuality, we didn’t start losing our minds until we realized the WMDs were a hoax. That's when the whole Bush-didn't-really-win-the-2000-election thing started to bother us.

>>>> “65,182,692 voted for Obama, and 57,212,032 voted for McCain. That translates to 54 to 48%%, which is 6% That is a difference of 7,970,660 votes. Obama won with a difference that is less then the population of New York City. I will go even further. …”

Pleas, no need to go further, because you’re confusing yourself. A population about the size of New York City? Have you ever been to New York City? There are a LOT of people there. I mean, a LOT. Let me put it to you another way, Obama won by more popular votes than Reagan did over Carter.


>>>“ Only the mentally disturbed Obama heroine addicts hated Palin. Core Obama supporters are extremists in their mentality towards supporting Obama.”

Assume long and assume wrong.

Barack Obama ran for president for two years, did hundreds of interviews, held press conferences and participated in 25 debates. Sarah Palin was a national figure for only nine weeks, held no news conferences, did only two major interviews, one debate, and was largely inaccessible to the national media.

Less than a week before the election, 57 percent of likely voters said Gov. Palin did not have the personal qualities a president should have; and she would have lost by 12 points in a head-to-head VP election vs. Biden. The American public took their measure of Palin and voted THUMBS-DOWN, big-time.

>>>> "When Palin launched SarahPAC last week, Democrats were foaming at the mouth of it. Look at the news articles, they are still talking about her.”

SarahPac was a minor national news item. Didn’t one of your own recent posts mention that SarahPac formed with “little fanfare?” So which is it?

>>>> "The only reasons I bring up Palin is because I like to set the record straight when false information and rumors are presented. I can't be talking about Palin most of the time, because most of my time I'm too busy goofing on the mutt in the White House."

On Jan. 8 you wrote, “I get asked all the time by the Obama drones, why do I like Sarah Palin so much. Over the next few weeks I'm going to go into greater detail the reasons why.”

The truth is, you write about Gov. Mooseburger quite often on this blog. A lot more, than, let’s say, William F. Buckley, the father of the modern American conservative movement and a monumental influence on Ronald Reagan. And you’ve never mentioned Buckley ONCE, even when he passed away a year ago.

>>>> “Everything Palin said about Obama was true.”

LOL. Is that what Rush told you?

>>>> “I don't need an ivy league elitist arrogant snob to talk down to me …”

Don’t look now, CB, but your flavor of the day, Jindal, attended Brown and Oxford.

So which is it? Is President Obama a "mutt" or an Ivy League elitist? Kinda hard to be both, don’t you think?

>>>>“How would Palin be meeting with international leaders in the role of Vice President? Please bring me up to speed on that.”

Please note that you asked this question on the same day that Vice President Biden was in Munich delivering a major foreign policy address to world leaders. Vice Presidents are called upon to meet with heads of state or attend state funerals in other countries, and so on. And that awkward sweaty handshake between Palin and Zardari wasn’t really what the American public had in mind.

>>>>”Why the heated times in the first place? I thought liberals were all about 'compassion' and 'tolerance' and 'understanding?' I guess it's hard to carry on an act or an illusion when people get emotional right?

I commend you for recognizing that the platform of the Democratic Party is based upon tolerance and compassion and understanding. But evidently you think these ideas are "illusions." And Democrats are not allowed to get angry? Only Republicans are? What?!?

>>>> “If there were any [threats and outbursts at rallies], we don't support them. On the other hand, liberals openly trashed Palin and her family.”

First, who is the “We?”

Second, when an ordinary private citizen who supported Obama mouths off, this person has the blanket approval of the Democratic Party? Your logic is insane.

Third, yes there were incidents at Republican campaign rallies, and you know it. Fourth, these were happening at Palin events, and she was only too happy whip her following into a hateful froth.

Try to imagine what the GOP/Ditto-Heads’ tone would have been if Barack and Michelle had a pregnant teenage daughter? Would the cackling GOP have been able to contain their innuendos and views about inner-city blacks? What other types of songs, I wonder, would have been burned into that race-baiting CD that Chip Salsa was mailing to everyone?

And why do you refer to President Obama as the "wonder mutt?" Is that anything like “Halfrican American?” It is stunning, that you, Tyrone, of all people, resort to race-baiting.

>>>>“It has been three months since the election. … and Democrats still are talking about Palin. They talk about her and mention nothing about McCain, and he was the one actually running for President. Something isn't right with this scenario.”

I’ve seen and read much more about McCain than Palin since Jan. 20th. Try reading newspapers and magazines, CB, not just the right-wing-nutcase blogs. Honestly, if Palin’s on anyone’s radar screen, it’s because she’s placed herself in front of a camera. She’s the governor of a wilderness state. She cost McCain the election, and now she’s the car wreck we all slow down to look at.

>>>> “I was simply making a point that most of America isn't in love with Barack Obama, only the core that voted for him. The independents that voted for him are issue voters and expect the economy to be fixed by him. That's all I said.

Again, another “what I REALLY meant …” response from you. Funny how El Rushbo’s zombies also do this whenever the great man steps into a pile of crap.

So let me get this straight: On one hand, you believe the Electoral College did not betray the wishes of the American majority in 2000. Yet somehow, Obama’s electoral landslide victory is not a true indicator of public consensus. Again, I ask, which is it? One or the other.

>>>> “… Why spend the time posting on my ‘little blog?’ I'm just curious. Did I strike a nerve? I think I did.”

Yes, you strike a nerve with your lies and warped logic. And it’s my problem, not yours. I should be ignoring you. But this blog is so poorly written, so poorly thought out, it is just too easy a target for me to pass up. I mean, this thing is like shooting fish in a barrel. Every time I argue, I win, and laugh like crazy when you write, “What I really meant was …”

I’ll admit it. It’s addictive.

<<< “Do you need a hug to reassure you that Obama is as great as advertised?”

No. Don't hug me. Thank you.

5:58 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Gegotici"Rush Limbaugh is the de facto chairman of the RNC. Michael Steele seems like a good man, but he will be drowned out by the shrill, paranoid, anti-intellectual, war-mongering mouthpieces on the radio."


Rush Limbaugh is the "de facto chairman of the RNC"?LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Class is in session. If you ACTUALLY listened to Limbaugh over the past two years, you would have heard his attack the Republican Party for selling out conservatism and moving to the center. If Rush was truly the leader, that would have never have happened. Rush is a conservative before being a republican. Rush does not embrace moderates or liberals regardless if they are Republicans. Notice what I said.Limbaugh can't stand north east Republicans. So if Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the Republican Party, why can't he stand certain members within the party? If Limbaugh actually had power within the Republican Party, why can't he use his "power" to get rid of the liberal and moderate Republicans? Class is dismissed gegotic.

Gegotici "I also find it amusing that you constantly shift your allegiances whenever I pin you to some ridiculous figure on the extreme right. It’s a constant tactic of yours. In fact, you never even endorsed a candidate for president, just so you could conveniently cut bait when the time came!"

So you think you know me? It's easy to predict a person's pattern if that person is in the mainstream version of though. You said it yourself, I'm odd. People that are odd aren't known to conform to mainstream patterns of thought. The bottom line is you think you know me,yet you really don't have a clue. For you to have noticed that I never endorsed anyone for President shows that you did your research. Good for you, I'm somewhat impressed. This is where I start to deduct point however. You failed to realize in your research why I didn't endorse anyone for President. The regulars on my blog know full well. You on the other hand didn't know because you don't understand "my thought patterns". Let me explain. I was never a fan of John McCain. People knew that I voted for him simply because he was the "anyone but Obama" candidate. I endorse people that I like not that I can merely tolerate. I hope I brought you up to speed on that. I have said on multiple occasions that my number one candidate for 2012 is Bobby Jindal, and I haven't changed positions on that. So it looks like you are 0 for 2 your assumptions gegotici.

Gegotici "The day Bobby Jindal gets caught tapping his shoe in a Minneapolis airport men’s room stall, you’re going to write that you never really liked him anyway. This is what you do."

You still don't get it gegotici. You think I'm so fickle that I will only support a candidate until they are a "liability"? It shows once again you really don't know me at all. If I was truly like you say I am, why is it that I've been defending Palin as a Presidential candidate? According to liberals and some on the right, she is as flawed and is a liability as a candidate can get, right? So why haven't I "kicked her to the curb"? Once again you need to do more research on what makes me tick. On this project you flunked gegotici.


Gegotici "
Meanwhile, EVERYONE who voted for Obama are left-wing extremists, heroin addicts, and mental patients who cheered when Sarah Palin’s church was set on fire, right?"

According to liberals, conservatives are nothing more then ab bunch of "bible thumping", "holly rollers", "jesus freaks" evangelical nutjobs. If we were to go with those assumptions as being true, why would a conservative torch a evangelical church? Cue up the jeopardy music and then hit play.

gegotici "
Barack Obama ran for president for two years, did hundreds of interviews, held press conferences and participated in 25 debates. Sarah Palin was a national figure for only nine weeks, held no news conferences, did only two major interviews, one debate, and was largely inaccessible to the national media."

Barack Obama was running for President. Sarah Palin was picked by McCain as his Vice Presidential running mate. Why would a VP candidate have the need to "hold a news conference"? I've never understood the reason why liberals had the need to compare Obama to Palin. I guess that question will never be answered.

gegotici"Why not? It worked so well for the Bushies. Eight years later they were STILL blaming Clinton for everything, and with a straight face."

It's ok if party loyalists or ideologs want to blame other Presidents for whatever reason. The debate process is healthy. Once again you missed my point. I said that "OBAMA" as President shouldn't blame Bush, because his policies aren't working. Bush didn't blame Clinton for the dot com bubble or 911, he just dealt with the hand he was given. Obama is blaming Bush for the reason he has to spend over a trillion dollars in pork. That is the difference.

gegotici "SarahPac was a minor national news item. Didn’t one of your own recent posts mention that SarahPac formed with “little fanfare?” So which is it?

Many national news outlets did report on the story. CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS, U.S News and World Reports, Reuters Newswire, The Politico,The Chicago Tribune and The Seattle Times to name a few. So you tell me which one is it gegotici.

gegotici" And why do you refer to President Obama as the "wonder mutt?" Is that anything like “Halfrican American?” It is stunning, that you, Tyrone, of all people, resort to race-baiting."

Do you even know what the definition of "race baiting" is geogotici? Please look it up. I call Obama the "wonder mutt" for a very simple reason. HE REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS A MUTT when he and his daughters went dog shopping. You really don't keep up with current events do you gegotici? Here's the story

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20239003,00.html

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/chewing_over_ob.html

gegotici "In actuality, we didn’t start losing our minds until we realized the WMDs were a hoax. That's when the whole Bush-didn't-really-win-the-2000-election thing started to bother us"

You all were losing your collective minds well before Iraq became an issue gegotic, come up with a better excuse. If Gore would have won his home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have been an issue one way or the other. I still don't understand why the outcome of 2000 was such an issue. They're was no evidence of voter fraud or intimidation.The DNC used Florida as a way to get it's kooks ticked off at Bush. That ship has finally sailed never to return.

gegotici ">>>> “Everything Palin said about Obama was true.”
LOL. Is that what Rush told you?"

What Rush told me? Contrary to popular liberals beliefs, conservatives can think for themselves. I know it's a hard concept for you to grasp. Try to accept it however. If you want to get into a debate about Palin, I'm more then willing.

gegotici "So which is it? Is President Obama a "mutt" or an Ivy League elitist? Kinda hard to be both, don’t you think?

Not really, maybe Obama is a "hybrid".

10:41 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

JMK says;"Reagan inherited the REAL "Worst American Economy Since the Great Depression; double digit inflation and unemployment rates, suffocating interest rates (0ver 20% on car notes, etc.)."

Bull!! 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with 2.2 percent growth. The unemployment rate was over 10%. While it's true inflation rates were dropping, some believe that it was due to a move in late 1979 by the Federal Reserve (under Paul Volcker) tightening the money supply. Subsequently, in November 82', the Fed flooded the market with plenty of cash.

JMK says;"Tyrone is right to laud Reagan, just as surely as those who claim to revile him do so out of economic ignorance."

Puh-leeezzz! Reagan knew nothing about economics, other that what his "rich" Friends told him. Even his own Treasury Secretary, Don Regan was befuddled by Reagan's tactics.

"In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury, I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one"
-Donald Regan, 1988-

4:34 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

P Allen "Puh-leeezzz! Reagan knew nothing about economics, other that what his "rich" Friends told him. Even his own Treasury Secretary, Don Regan was befuddled by Reagan's tactics."

Allen, you need to LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP!!!
You forget that Reagan WAS THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA GENIUS!!!A Governor is an executive that must create BUDGETS and keep track of the state's FINANCES!!How could you forget something so obvious allen about Regan?

1:42 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

P Allen "Subsequently, in November 82', the Fed flooded the market with plenty of cash."

Just a side note to what you said allen. How is Obama going to pay for his $850 billion dollar pork bill? He can't raise taxes, because that will just take more money out of the economy causing it to retract further. If Obama prints new money to pay for his stupidity, will it lea to inflation also?

1:45 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Allen, you need to LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP!!!
You forget that Reagan WAS THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA GENIUS!!!A Governor is an executive that must create BUDGETS and keep track of the state's FINANCES!!How could you forget something so obvious allen about Regan?"


I said Reagan knew nothing about economics... Cutting taxes to help your wealthy friends is not economics. Slashing welfare roles is not economics. When his economic advisers formulated his idea's for his attempt at supply side economic theories, some in his own administration began to use the term "voodoo economics".

Here's a fair and balanced Pro and Con Debate on Reaganomics.

7:14 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

"Bull!! 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with 2.2 percent growth." (PAA)
<
<
As usual, you're wrong.

There are 3 primary economic indicators - the inflation, unemployment and interest rates.

THOSE are tha factors that impact the people directly.

Going by GDP growth alone, Richard M Nixon (another Keynesian) was "the best U.S. President EVER!"

Utter nonsense!

Carter presided over the worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression....by the numbers.

The average annual Misery Index (the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate) under Carter was a whopping 16.9, with the HIGHEST Misery Index since the Great Depression (21).

1980 was the WORST year for the U.S. (economically) since the Great Depression.
<
<
<
<
"Puh-leeezzz! Reagan knew nothing about economics, other that what his "rich" Friends told him. Even his own Treasury Secretary, Don Regan was befuddled by Reagan's tactics." (PAA)
<
<
Reagan wasn't an economist.

Neither is Rahm Emanuel or Barack Obama....NONE of them "knew/know anything about the economy."

The "obama administration's economic policies" will all be fashioned by the likes of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

RESULTS are ALL that matter.

Trust me on this (you don't even have to look it up, you can take this to the bank)...AFTER Carter ran the U.S. economy into the ground (that 21 MI), under Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index went down every year until it reached single digits in 1986, where it remained through the rest of Reagan's tenure.

Come on PAA! Get with the facts...amd get with me on these issues. I'm on the right side (no pun intended) of every issue.

9:05 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

JMK;"As usual, you're wrong.
There are 3 primary economic indicators - the inflation, unemployment and interest rates."


As usual, a piss poor attempt at "tooting your own horn." The "growth" comment was just that..."GROWTH", the net gain from economic activity. (BTW, that should have read "-2.2" percent growth)

Futhermore, I was responding to YOUR assertion that;

"Reagan inherited the REAL "Worst American Economy Since the Great Depression;"

My point and assertion still stands...BULL!!

Although there were brief periods of stagflation while Cater was in office (due to the energy crisis), Reagan could have not "inherited" a recession that began AFTER he took office!

Reagan did not "inherit" a recession, his policies "caused" the 1982 recession!

Yet, I typically read the opinions and analysis of some of the nations leading economists. New York Times writer David Leonhardt use statistics compiled by Bureau of Labor Statistics economists.

So, that leaves me to form my opinions based on the analysis of the economists at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic or, the chasten censure of a "fireman." Shall I "assume the economy will catch fire"...?

12:51 AM  
Blogger JMK said...

The 3 major economic indicators are inflation, unemployment and interest rates...no one (no reputable economists, so I'm assuming no one else) refutes that.

Under Carter unemployment topped double digits in 1980 and his policies weren't fully reversed for two years (the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives until 1995) as the Tip O'Neill gang fought futilely to continue Carter's policies of reckless domestic social spending as a means of "investing in people," a canard to excuse excessive and wasteful federal spending.

CONGRESS alone controls tax policy, the federal budget, government spending, etc. The Tip O'Neill Congress defied Reagan's demands for deeper spending cuts and actually spent $2 for every $1 of tax cuts.

Despite all that, and partly thanks to a Republican Senate that helped push through much of Reagan's early agenda, the economy (the REAL economy, as measured by the Misery Index) improved EVERY year under Reagan.

Reagan inherited STAGFLATION from an administration that presided over the biggest 4 year Misery Index (16.2) and improved that to 14.6 over his first 4 years and 9.75 over his last 4!

Reagan reversed course on 17 straight years of disastrous Keynesian policies. Keynesian policies ruled the day from LBJ's tenure, through Nixon's and ended with the implosion under Carter.

Reagan’s Supply Side policies changed the entire basis for our economy...for the better. It CAN’T be argued otherwise, as the economy improved every year of Reagan’s first term, reached single digits and stayed there throughout his tenure, once reached. IF “Reagan’s policies had failed” the economy would’ve gotten worse, and ended up worse than the one he inherited, instead he cut the Misery Index by more than half by 1988!

George Bush Sr. strayed away from those policies and became only the second post-WW II American President to preside over an entire tenure of double digit Misery Indexes, although much milder (a 10.2 average annual MI over 4 years) because both his transgressions were somewhat milder AND he benefitted from the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War that Reagan’s foreign policies earned.

Bill Clinton came in as a Supply Sider, pushing for and getting NAFTA passed in January of 1994 with the help of the Democratic majority in Congress.

But it was Newton Gingrich who came in and became the FIRST and ONLY American political leader in over a century to cut the federal budget, along with the Capital Gains tax rates.

It is those federal budget cuts (spending cuts) that were primarily responsible for setting up the environment in which the best economy since the 1950s (when America was the only economy left standing after WW II) including a 6.05 MI in 1998 AND all those budget surpluses!

What Supply Side policies have shown is that income tax and Capital Gains RATE cuts INCREASE those tax revenues.

Capital Gains taxes skyrocketed when the Gingrich Congress cut that rate from 30% to 20%, just as INCOME tax revenues soared in the wake of the G W Bush across-the-board income tax RATE cuts.

There are a few oafish economists who claim that “tax rate cuts COST us tax revenues”, but they base that on the presumption, “IF higher income earners (the top 10% of income earners) took their income upfront, and paid taxes on it at the same level they do when tax rates are lowered.”

That insipid presumption violates “Becker’s Rule”, which simply states, “People respond to incentives.” When income tax RATES are cut, those top 10% of income earners (who pay 71% of the income taxes) take more of their income upfront and pay the taxes on it – INCREASING the size of the revenue pool and thus the tax revenues collected. Likewise, when income tax RATES rise, that gives those top earners (those generally with more disposable income) an incentive to save/DEFER more of their money in various tax-deferred vehicles. This reduces the size of the revenue pool and income tax revenues go down.

Becker’s Rule can NEVER be violated.

The problem with most Liberals is that they’re economically ignorant, so they insist on claiming that “higher tax rates SHOULD increase tax revenues IF only those greedy higher income earners would just do the right thing and not seek to avoid them via tax-deferred, savings vehicles.”

What the Supply Siders (Reagan, Clinton, the Gingrich Congress and even the Keynesian, EXCEPT FOR two tax rates CUTS, G W Bush) have unwittingly done over the past quarter century is to have shown a way to increase government revenues, when they SHOULD HAVE (as ONLY Gingrich sought to do) CUT the federal budget, slashed federal agencies and dramatically reduced federal spending – forcing government to “do more with less.”

They missed that opportunity.

Hopefully, when the current round of Keynesian policies fails, the next group won’t be so reluctant to face those harsh realities.

Of course, it IS possible that the current group (Summers, Geithner et al. are a very sound, market-oriented economics team) will use the current crisis to CUT federal spending, reduce entitlements, etc., although some have argued that IF the economy gets really bad and then comes back even to 1970s levels (near 10% annual unemployment and 8% annual inflation) they may be able to convince some Americans that “an economy with a little more misery, but less income disparity, though less free is more fair.”

The latter would be a losing proposition. Who are you going to market that to? No reasonable American would choose “fairness” OVER “freedom.”

Besides, virtually all the “income disparity” in America is due to relative worth (a surgeon is probably worth 80X what a school teacher or emergency worker is) AND relative costs of living, for instance, in NYC $123,000 = $50,000/year in Houston, $60,000/year in NYC = $26,000/year in Atlanta, so when you look at income disparities across geographic areas like that NYC, San Fran, the areas around D.C. compared to places like Houston, Atlanta, Charleston), the disparities are virtually ALL accounted for with the “relative costs of living” for those areas.

We are fortunate now, because Supply Side policies have given us such a cushion. Prior to Reagan, Americans were used to higher unemployment rates and higher inflation, along with more social spending that may have reduced income disparities a bit and guaranteed a basic living standard for those both unable and unwilling to work...but the costs of such sloth have been assessed as too high to maintain.

What Supply Side policies have done have been to deliver MORE prosperity to MORE people, with only a modest reduction in the standard of living for the dependent poor.

What we have today is nothing compared to recessions of the recent past, during the 1973 – 1975, brought on by the Keynesian policies of LJ and Richard (“We are ALL Keynesians now”) Nixon, the unemployment rate = 9.0, the inflation rate = 12.2, the Misery Index = 19.9, 30 year fixed rate mortgages = 10.0%, industrial production = -13.0, Real GDP = -3.1 – Ouch!

1981 – 1982 recession, brought on by the continuation of those failed Keynesian policies, by Jimmy Carter, and their implosion, the unemployment rate = 10.8, the inflation rate = 14.6, the Misery Index = 22.0, 30 year fixed rate mortgages = 18.5%, industrial production = -9.9, Real GDP = -2.7 – the Carter recession was even deeper than the LBJ/Nixon recession.

That’s why it resulted in the paradigm shift AWAY from failed Keynesian policies and TO the Supply Side policies that delivered 26 years of unprecedented prosperity.

The economy the Obama administration has inherited is nothing compared to those earlier recessions. The current unemployment rate = 7.6, the inflation rate = -0.1, the current Misery Index = 7.5, 30 year fixed rate mortgages = 5.2%, Industrial production = -6.1, Real GDP = -1.1

Reagan turned the economy around in short order...the Misery Index went DOWN from a record post-WW II high of 22 under Carter to 11.8 by 1984. He dropped the MI by 3 points his first year (1981), it dropped by 2 more points in 1982, another 3 points in 1983 and had been slashed by 10 points by the end of his first term in office!

That's progress...that's RESULTS.

Anything less here...Obama's following G W Bush's last 6 Keynesian years with more Keynesian ("more government spending is good") policies...will prove Keynesian policies an abject failure.

1:39 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

TYPO (corrections bolded): "during the 1973 – 1975 recession, brought on by the Keynesian policies of LBJ and Richard (“We are ALL Keynesians now”) Nixon..."

9:02 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

P Allen "I said Reagan knew nothing about economics... Cutting taxes to help your wealthy friends is not economics."

Oh really? The last time I checked allen, poor people don't create jobs. Risk takers known as entrepreneurs do. A person that makes a million dollars a year pays more in taxes then a person making twenty thousand a year. Get off the liberal talking points allen, they don't work in this real word scenario of economics. Money going to the government doesn't create economic growth, it's only when that money is spent in the economy does the economy grows. Actually when taxes are raised on the upper end, they will invest their money elsewhere and cut back on spending. If they spend less, that is less money collected in taxes on the items they buy. It's not hard allen to figure this out.

P Allen "Slashing welfare roles is not economics."

Once again allen, try again. The more people off the welfare roles tanslates into more people on private sector pay roles. The more people on the private sector pay role means more people buying items and services. That means increased economic growth. The more people on the welfare roles means the opposite. Once again allen, stop making this harder then it has to be. As more people are taken off the welfare role and placed on the private sector role, taxes at the local, state and federal level increases due to more consumption of goods and services by more people. When Bush instituted the Bush tax cuts, show me when tax revenues actually decreased when they became law.

When his economic advisers formulated his idea's for his attempt at supply side economic theories, some in his own administration began to use the term "voodoo economics".

12:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home