I know you're constantly questioning conservative labels here (including the label "conservative"), but isn't the general accepted definition of fiscal conservatism the attempt to "balance the budget" and reduce debt or slow down the rate of debt increase?
Shouldn't we judge the fiscal conservatism of a president by their ability to meet that standard, as questionable as it is, instead of looking at their methods to accomplish that?
Obviously Reagan was a terrible fiscal conservative by that standard as well.
Certainly not obviously. In fact, I am not sure you can make the case at all. The deficits dropped sharply during his eight years. The question is how much credit he deserves. As a rule, Presidents ride the economy as a passenger. Their input tends to be more a matter of timing than true effect.
Like Obama he started with huge deficits and a serious recession, but with markedly better results. Of course Reagan had a hostile congress while Obama had an unusually friendly one. We saw in the 1990s that opposite parties tended toward fiscal sanity.
J
Comrade! The Central Committee applauds your perspicuity.Leadership is about being able to unify the legislature and the population so there is no significant opposition to your agenda.
I cannot speak for others, but I myself did not use the word conservative ones in MY post. As far as dream vs reality, what isn't true about what I stated in the quote below ignoring the last sentence which is of course subjective as hell.
He's an embarrassment. I used to think he was ok, though I strongly disagree with the ACA as is I did think we needed health care reform. But check this out:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/18...with-zach-galifianakis-president-barack-obama
Meanwhile he's not doing anything to address the crisis in Russia. He's too obsessed with his celebrity status vs being a competent leader. Why is he even on with a B list comedian who isn't even asking real questions? It's a mockery of the office.
Yeah! I hear you! He's, like, a weak leader who's also totally a tyrant. He doesn't know how to lead & is always leading from behind & leading us into disaster. He's an ineffective, mom-jean-wearing weakling who's one Executive Order away from becoming a dictator. He should be strong like Putin. Except when he's trampling all over people's rights, of course.
I can only join hobbs in his incredulity.
Comrade! The Central Committee applauds your perspicuity.
Great Leaders Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kim², and other lesser leaders (who nonetheless manage to unify the legislature so there is no significant opposition to the agenda) would surely honor you. .
I'm sure you don't really mean this, but your definition of leadership leads to this absurdity.
You're kidding right?
You're kidding right????
Are you suggesting that O'Reilly's was the interview with a B list comedian that made a mockery of the office?Whatever, O'Reilly.
For better or worse that is what "leaders" do. They influence those around them into believing their agenda is best. Really charismatic leaders can even get so many people on board with their agenda that any voice of opposition becomes irrelevant. I am not saying this is always a good thing, as that is determined by the agenda of such a leader. I am saying I wish Obama had that kind of leadership ability because I agreed with a lot of his early policies that he eventually had to abandon because he couldn't get Congress to play along.
As I said before, I completely disagree with Reagan's ideas and policies, but I admire the fact that he became so influential that Congress had no choice but to approve his agenda or kiss their political careers goodbye. That is what I was hoping to see from Obama and it just hasn't happened. He played it too nice in his first term, and now he has a Congress that doesn't listen to a word he says and pretty much does whatever the hell they want. Hell, his own party doesn't even listen to him and they support his agenda (mostly).
Although Obama is not a tyrant by any stretch of the word, he comes off as such by saying things like he is going to circumvent Congress. He doesn't have the political momentum or influence to say things like that without the GOP being able to turn that into anti-Obama propaganda and chip away even further at what support he has left.
Yes. I'm kidding. 2nd column is constant $
1981 $79 Billion Deficit $203.08 Billion Deficit
1982 $128 Billion Deficit $309.93 Billion Deficit
1983 $207.8 Billion Deficit $487.79 Billion Deficit
1984 $185.4 Billion Deficit $417.57 Billion Deficit
1985 $212.3 Billion Deficit $461.52 Billion Deficit
1986 $221.2 Billion Deficit $471.64 Billion Deficit
1987 $149.7 Billion Deficit $308.02 Billion Deficit
1988 $155.2 Billion Deficit $306.72 Billion Deficit
There are those that compare 1983 to 1988 and see progress. I am not one of them. The growth in the economy fueled the reduction.
The more difficult issue is how much, if any, credit the RRA gets for the outstanding economy, which rolled for almost 15 years, with only minor bumps.
J
Ahem. I'll direct your attention to who started this thread. FWIW.That would be funny if that's what I said about him. But since I said nothing of the sort, your comments are outrageously stupid and show your lack of reading comprehension.
Hey, I appreciate your insults as a form of debate. That's always fun. But I'm not clear on what you're denying you said. I'm pretty sure you said he's going all dictatorial with everything. You're quite clear on that. I'm just pointing out how some people think he's a dictator tyrant (i.e you) & other people are saying he's a weak iineffective non-leader. It's simply amusing when compared to......so he decided to go all dictatorial with everything. He's trying to compensate for his lack of true leadership ability by circumventing the law and seizing as much power as he can to push through his agenda
For example.He's an abject failure at more or less all things foreign. Hillary did an admirable job in Obama's first term, for the most part, at covering up his obvious suckiassedness at foreign affairs, but she's splitsville now, and probably a good thing... give the country time to forget her role at Benghazi.
He just... sucks.
He rammed through the worst possible health care 'reform' that could be thought up
Which describes Obama ramming through healthcare ... with his feet?He signed it. It happened under his watch. He could have vetoed it. But yeah, actually, great example of his "leadership" indeed. "keeping his hands out of it."
You really wanna talk about this, so why don't you head on over to that debt thread?
While that is not completely inconceivable, it does sound a lot like talk radio. It also sounds like what they said of Bush.He's a DICTATOR TYRANT. He's also WEAK & also SUCKASSEDNESS.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I just find it funny when the criticism can't make up its mind what to criticize.
You really wanna talk about this, so why don't you head on over to that debt thread?
I think the idea that debt is not so bad on par with the idea that Carter was not so bad--an objective rational person cannot hold the position in good faith.
J
If you think it is so easy to objectively prove those people wrong, you have even more reason to visit that thread. I look forward to reading your posts.I think the idea that debt is not so bad on par with the idea that Carter was not so bad--an objective rational person cannot hold the position in good faith.
J
I think the idea that debt is not so bad on par with the idea that Carter was not so bad--an objective rational person cannot hold the position in good faith.
J