A nice little comparison of today and back in the 80's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vx8C-seaFQ4

Sam Donaldson: "Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you have blamed the mistakes of the past and you have blamed the Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you?"

Reagan: "Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat"

It would be cool if someone today had the balls to stand up and express it like the Gipper did.

I love it.....lol

RR was certainly not perfect, but he could smash a one-liner and break the tension in the room better than anyone.

I still laugh at the '84 debate with Mondale, when the moderator asked him if he had any concern about the possibility of handling a national crisis (with multiple sleepless nights) considering his old age (he was then 73). Without blinking, he remarked, "Not at all, and I want you to know I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I wil not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." The entire debate hall burst into laughter, including the moderator and Mondale himself.

The one story about the Republican politician visiting a Democrat at his farm, and giving a speech on top of a manure pile was pretty good too. The farmer said, "That's the first time I've ever heard a Republican speak!" And the politician said, "That's the first time I've given a Republican speech from a Democratic platform!"

Great stuff- don't have time to find it on YouTube but I'm sure it's there.

jhay78;839432 wrote:Great stuff- don't have time to find it on YouTube but I'm sure it's there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc

Always loved the Soviet Jokes. Funny stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3z3eSVG7A&feature=related

majorspark;839448 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPu1UIBkBc

Thanks.

Never gets old- I think Mondale temporarily forgot he was at a debate, competing for the chance to become President of the United States.

No one gives a damn what he would do because he wasn't that good of a President anyway

Ty Webb;839480 wrote:No one gives a damn what he would do because he wasn't that good of a President anyway

Better than all the ones we have had since.

jmog;839484 wrote:Better than all the ones we have had since.

Ha ha ha ha you're funny

That would be Bill Clinton

Ty Webb;839480 wrote:No one gives a damn what he would do because he wasn't that good of a President anyway

Reagan held a political ideology I for the most part espoused. Unfortunately he could not govern they way he wished. That is how this country is structured. I wish he would have been a little more rigid and used his veto power.

Obama has a political ideology as well. Far to the left of Reagan. He can't govern as he wishes either. That is why many on the left are pissed at him. They hear his speeches (especially those prior to election) then witness how he governs. This is one of the reasons guys like Perry in Texas as well as other viable candidates for the presidency sometimes struggle to throw their hat in the ring. It may poison their reputation. Our national government is divided and unless you want to use your presidential powers to shut it down if necessary to further your ideology you will come out with the markings of a hypocrite.

I am on the right. If someone like myself were elected to the presidency they would need dictatorial powers to get their agenda pushed through. Most presidents govern to the left or right of center in order to at least further their ideology a little in their direction in the hopes future presidents will be able to push it further.

Ty Webb;839497 wrote:Ha ha ha ha you're funny

That would be Bill Clinton

Clinton got helped by the fact that he was smart enough to completely change course when the country turned on him at his first mid terms and elected a republican house.

Until that point he was nearly as off base as Obama.

Clinton was a good president but not as good as Reagan.

Reagan also raised taxes numerous times in order to make a deal. He also said the debt ceiling was not political and should be a no brainer. All things today's R's seem to forget.

Reagan had his faults, but was still the best President since Ike.

And yes, Clinton benefited from the IT boom and having a lax economic policy.

Of course, if you spend trillions more than you take in, and don't even have a budget, what recourse for some fiscal responsibility is left?

Bill Maher was saying "so and so said you can't link the debt ceiling to the budget". WTF? Of course, this is entirely true when you have no budget. I mean, the whole point of a debt ceiling is to prevent massive deficits and budget overrruns, but I guess when those cease to matter than what is the point of a debt ceiling?

ptown_trojans_1;839688 wrote:Reagan also raised taxes numerous times in order to make a deal. He also said the debt ceiling was not political and should be a no brainer. All things today's R's seem to forget.

Correct, although I'll quibble with your use of the word, "numerous". He and Tip O'Neill crafted some bipartisan tax changes that were designed to meld minimal tax increases with future spending "cuts". Hmmm....where've we heard THAT tune recently? Did spending decrease? Did Tip keep his end of the bargain? Yeah, right.

Here's the ball, Charlie, I PROMISE THIS TIME not to take it away at the end. Reagan admitted after he left office that he didn't think O'Neill would hoodwink him in such a way...tsk tsk tsk.

BGFalcons82;839875 wrote:Correct, although I'll quibble with your use of the word, "numerous". He and Tip O'Neill crafted some bipartisan tax changes that were designed to meld minimal tax increases with future spending "cuts". Hmmm....where've we heard THAT tune recently? Did spending decrease? Did Tip keep his end of the bargain? Yeah, right.

Here's the ball, Charlie, I PROMISE THIS TIME not to take it away at the end. Reagan admitted after he left office that he didn't think O'Neill would hoodwink him in such a way...tsk tsk tsk.

Without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget this will happen again and again.

Con_Alma;839984 wrote:Without a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget this will happen again and again.

And, of course, why do Dems want to raise the debt ceiling enough to ensure it won't happen again until 2013? So they can play the same game to cram down more taxes on the rich.

Besides the fact that I think there is a fairly wide range of taxes that will more or less yield the same revenue (back to the whole % of GDP being consistent despite huge variances in taxes), I find it comical and somewhat offensive that the non-rich of this country are so passionate and divided over how much to tax the rich. How many people out there making 30k, 50k...even 100k... are saying "please tax me more...and please reduce my entitlements". I hear crickets.

I mean, half the people in this country don't pay any f***ing taxes so of course their solution for everything is to raise taxes. Maybe it really is time for a consumption tax (for EVERY ONE on EVERY THING). Then when the govt needs more money, we raise that consumption tax and then we'll see how many people support higher taxes over spending cuts.

gut;839986 wrote:And, of course, why do Dems want to raise the debt ceiling enough to ensure it won't happen again until 2013? ....

...because it might help avoid the issue or at least dampen it during the election period. It's sad.

Ty Webb;839480 wrote:No one gives a damn what he would do because he wasn't that good of a President anyway

Only good enough to take the 5th spot on Mt. Rushmore . . .

Haha

Ty Webb;839480 wrote:No one gives a damn what he would do because he wasn't that good of a President anyway

so mad

fish82;840218 wrote:so mad

Jusr speaking the truth fish...its what I do

fish82;840218 wrote:so mad

Jusr speaking the truth fish...its what I do

fish82;840218 wrote:so mad

Just speaking the truth fish....its what I do

Con_Alma;839987 wrote:...because it might help avoid the issue or at least dampen it during the election period. It's sad.

Based on how many seem convinced it's a taxation rather than mostly a revenue problem, I think it's hopeless. And the reason spending cuts (if we include deductions, etc.) are so painful is people justifiably plan and rely on them. I mean, it would be horrific if we were to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction or take away the advantage of married joint filings. I also think we need to cut SS & Medicare, but that should be shared with a matching increase in FICA (i.e. maybe 15% cut of benefits, and a 15% FICA increase = about 1% for employee and employer) - which will clearly never happen because everyone favors tax increases as long as it's someone else's money

I posted some interesting data in another thread. What stands out is that consumption taxes are far below the great European social experiments (mostly no VAT, but it's more than that) and also the SS % of revenues is lower - our taxes are too low with all the social programs we have now, but the shortcoming is clearly on the consumption tax front and not corporate or personal income tax. I believe VAT is going to be the ultimate solution - 10% will generate maybe upwards of $1trillion in revenue. But no one even talks about this because we know damn well and good that Joe the Plumber will be in an uproar over paying 10% to the gubmit for his new flatscreen. I'm sure par for the course will be to try and put a VAT on big big-ticket items that hits mostly the rich, and will generate a fraction of the revenue as a result.

Yes, I'm convinced the administration wants a longer deal so that it will push the "next debt level debate" past the election. I think it's too late, however. The heightened sense of urgency now realized by the U.S. citizen will make this an election issue no matter the deal that is made.

A value added tax can be part of the solution but I would like to see deductible line items slowly gotten rid of including the mortgage deduction. It should take place any faster than a generation though.