Maybe it's because the Democrats listened to reason.

Rather ambiguous Shock Trooper.

"A skilled politician would be able to make a deal as Ronald Reagan repeatedly did while president.
Reagan faced a Democratic House and a slimmer margin of control in the Senate and was able to get Democratic votes to pass his legislative agenda. "

Help?

Still ambiguous.
I guess you mean to say that Reagan was the voice of reason that Democrats listened too and Obama can't find something reasonable to put forth.

No, I'm saying that the Democrats of that time could actually listen to reason and were capable of compromise. The Republicans are incapable of listening to Obama because they are unreasonably stubborn with their viewpoints. Not even the best politician in the world could convince a Republican senate if they were a Democrat.

If Obama tried to get a resolution out honoring apple pie, the Republicans would be against it. There's nothing he can say that they will accept. Democrats weren't that way with Reagan.

@ SergeantCitrus and dD_ShockTrooper

It was also a different world in the 1980's. The stakes are a lot higher now than they were in 1984.

@ Tettleton's Chew

With respect, this thread is a mistake. There are simply too many moderates and liberals on this site. They will gun down this thread and your credibility within 12 hours. You need to pick your fights carefully on a site like this.

That being said, I do agree with some of your criticism of Obama and I will try to back you up if and when possible =)

Barry Goldwater predicted this.

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."


The dominance of the religious right in the Republican party has resulted in the election of a set of Republicans that are not interested in compromise, they are interested in ideological purity above all else. As a result, the President offers to put all methods on the table to resolve our deficit problem, and in return, the Republican leadership insists that he follow their own party line.

That isn't negotiation. And I think Obama should stick to his guns. He's been more than reasonable, but in the face of such uncompromising attitudes, he shouldn't cave.

Obama is an amateur executive Sergeant Citrus and the debt crisis is exposing his enormous political shortcomings.
Reagan was a much more experienced executive and a much more adroit politician.

Tettleton, you're fucking hilarious.

The irony of you idolizing Reagen when he caused an absolutely massive deficit himself, which wasn't fixed until Bill Clinton's presidency is incredibly hilarious.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to make me laugh, or really are that ignorant. I'm going to assume you're trying to make me laugh. It presumes nicer things about you.

omg Sean Hannity plays webdiplomacy?

I don't like much of what Obama has (or hasn't) done, but at least he isn't making things worse, like the guy before. Thats all I'll say on the matter.

Prime interest rate in Jan 1981 19.5%
Prime interest rate in Jan 2009 3.25%

Gunfighter, I'm a dam the torpedoes guy.
The liberals on this site are so easily discredited that it has to be done.

So yeah. You actually played right into my hands, sonny.

If interest rates were roughly six times higher in 1981, that means that Reagan's massive borrowing to pay for his tax cuts and increased spending was FAR more irresponsible, because it would end up costing the taxpayers that much more.

Its good to know you have such a firm grasp on economics.

Keep trying. An analogy about clubbing baby seals would be appropriate at this point.

Jack Klein, here are the facts about the annual Federal Deficit as a percentage of GDP that you are obviously oblivious of.

1981 -2.5%
1982 -3.9%

2009 -10.0%
2010 -8.8%

Obama's first two annual deficits were 2-3 times larger than the deficits that Reagan ran.

"The liberals on this site are so easily discredited that it has to be done."

First sign of a dogmatized, zombified, unintelligent drone's drone...

Generalizing or demonizing the other party and point of view...

DamN (you forgot that extra "n" there...though if you are what your sentence indicated, and you actually DAM the torpedoes, as in sealing them up and just letting them explod and creating a mess, that'd make far more sense for you) the torpedoes all you want...

This isn't Obama's fault any more or less than this is Congresses' fault, and as of 2010 and pre-2008, Congress's failures are due jsut as much to the Boys in Red as the Boys in Blue.

So Jack, please tell me you have some facts that keep you looking like an utter fool kid.

Obama's annual deficits dwarf those of Reagan.

Sorry the facts destroy your fantasies.

Mhmmm. You do gloss over the fact that in the last 30 years, the only time we had a balanced budget and were able to pay down any part of our debt was under Bill Clinton. I'm not saying everything Obama has done has been perfect, but the man was handed a shit sandwich. I think he's done fairly well to deal with this crisis. You obviously disagree. But all you have are basically a bunch of insulting words for him, without any actual substance. Its kind of cute, in a 'six year old's argument' kind of way. (I don't like him, because he's bad! )

This doesn't change a goddamn thing about how the President is willing to put all options on the table, and the Republican leadership is demanding that their ideologically pure plan be the only option.

Compromise requires both parties to actually be willing to do so. The President has demonstrated repeatedly that he's willing to do so, and in return, the Republicans have demanded that he effectively take on their party's program.

Our democracy is based on compromise. Unwillingness to compromise is effectively destroying the ability of our Republic to function. You echo this yourself. Which means you're basically only good for me trolling you and making fun of. :)

My point is this: Your idol deliberately ran up deficits. Yet deficits are bad!

I'm making hay out of your inconsistency. Well, that and your obvious ideological axe to grind. You're about as effective as Fox News. The only sad part is, there are so very many fools who don't know how to tell bad propaganda from facts.

Inflation Rates
1981 11.83%
1982 8.39%

2009 0.03%
2010 2.63%

Reagan dealt with runaway inflation and horrendous interest rates compared to what Obama dealt with.

Obama is dealing with a republican congress that refuse to listen to anything other than their conservative ideals. I think that trumps Reagan's problems.

+1 Jack!

Tettleton...

No, Jack's post is so on the nail, I'm just going to qute it in ful, give another +10, and ask you adress the sheer illogic of your position, which he adresses so perfectly...

"My point is this: Your idol deliberately ran up deficits. Yet deficits are bad!

I'm making hay out of your inconsistency. Well, that and your obvious ideological axe to grind. You're about as effective as Fox News. The only sad part is, there are so very many fools who don't know how to tell bad propaganda from facts."

-I'm obiwanobiwan, and I TOTALLY approve of this PERFECTLY-ON-THE-NOSE MESSAGE!

Go Jack! :D

And what is more, Reagan did this ON PURPOSE. I mean, you can't increase expenditures, and decrease tax rates and be shocked that you incur massive debt.

But don't worry, TC. Reality has a well known liberal bias.

All deficits are not the same as well.

Reagan's deficits resulted from tax cuts.
Obama's deficits resulted from increased borrowing and government spending.

Jack, the reality is that Reagan's tax cuts sparked an economic expansion.
The reality is that Obama's stimulus paid for by massive borrowing hasn't sparked an economic expansion.
I'm trying to find the liberal bias in reality you referred to there but it just doesn't exist.

Fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal irresponsibility. You can't slam Obama for it, and handwave away your idol Reagan doing the same.

Well, that's not entirely true. You can. But you look like an idiot.


I personally feel that right now, we have a demand-side problem in this country. We keep trying to give incentives to businesses, cut their taxes. I've spoken to my father, he runs a small business, and as far as he's concerned, demand drives how much he produces and who he employs, because unless somebody has money to spend on his product, he can't justify spending money on more employees if the extra product those employees would make isn't going to sell.

Basically, I think the fact that we've fucked the middle class over in favor of the wealthy in this country is at the root of our problem. I'm not saying we need to return to the 90 percent tax rate on the upper bracket (and we had that shit for YEARS... through some of the best times for economic expansion in this country). But it seems the elder Bush was correct.... supply side economics are voodoo economics.

But I'm sure TC is a true believer. I hope for his sake he's one of the rich that is benefiting from this redistribution of wealth from the middle to the upper class. Otherwise he's just a chump.

He promised to go through the budget line by line and reduce the deficit by whatever percent. Instead he tripled it. You can slam him for that.

I tend to agree with ScubaDan and Jack, TC:

You can't have it both ways.

EITHER you nail Reagan AND Obama for their huge spending...

OR you condone it for Reagan and let it slide.

That one spent for defense and other projects you care for and the other spent for projects you don't care for justifies you maybe not liking Obama and wanting another President and preferring Reagan to Obama...

But it doesn't justify your putting Reagan on a pedestal and Obama in the toilet.

That's a flat-out double-standard.