This is What America Needs Now

[mnosteele52]

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'd love to see another president like Reagan....he was one of the best!

The thing is...things have gotten so twisted up and entrenched in the screwed up corrupt manner that it is now...I really don't think that even Reagan could straighten us up now if he came back to life and we voted him in.

[David]

The Reagan era ..... I wish I had the stomach for a fight on this topic. His gift was in his nickname, "The Great Communicator". Reagan was an actor, trained to deliver lines in earnest. Did that make him a great president. Perhaps America wanted its John Wayne to stroll into town and thwart the bad guys.
We have a media network which promulgates the deification of this man to the legion of conservatives in this nation. Like MLK to blacks, he has become a paradigm to those on the right. My politic and vivid memory hold a far more critical opinion of this man.

I do agree, it is not a president of Reagan's caliber who could help this country. The US needs a Theodore Roosevelt to reclaim our government from the corporations.

[SlyOneDoofy]

The Reagan era ..... I wish I had the stomach for a fight on this topic. His gift was in his nickname, "The Great Communicator". Reagan was an actor, trained to deliver lines in earnest. Did that make him a great president. Perhaps America wanted its John Wayne to stroll into town and thwart the bad guys.
We have a media network which promulgates the deification of this man to the legion of conservatives in this nation. Like MLK to blacks, he has become a paradigm to those on the right. My politic and vivid memory hold a far more critical opinion of this man.

I do agree, it is not a president of Reagan's caliber who could help this country. The US needs a Theodore Roosevelt to reclaim our government from the corporations.

Would Reagan have said no to current corporate influence? That's a question I can't answer.

One I can answer is that Obama can't.

You blame corporations. They play the game. Government makes the rules. Start voting for people of character into positions and maybe there will be change.

Beyond that....there is no cure. You can vote Democrat all day but they will still sit in the bar with Republicans after work and figure out how to screw you.

The change needed in government will only come people figure out that smaller government is better governement. Unfortunately, we have too many people dependent upon the government. This will only get worse. Look at Greece. Big government will kill this country faster than any corporation.

[mnosteele52]

David, as SlyOneDoofy said, it's not the corporations, it's the government that is the problem. Reagan's philosophy on smaller government and the role of the government is spot on. It's not the government's job to rule us, tell us what, where, when and how to do things, it's their job to protect us so that we have the freedom to make our own choices.... the is the whole reason America was founded in the first place. The current administration wants total government dependency and control, we need the exact opposite approach. What I never understand with liberals is that they made their money and defined who they are because of Capitalism but now that they are in the position of power they want to take that same freedom away so that they stay in control. All of these uber rich are donating millions to Obama's campaign.... the 1%, yet Obama says he against the 1% (remember all of his speeches during the Occupy Wall Street movement), by the way.... he is part of the 1%. How people cannot see right through him is beyond me. Since when is it a crime to make money, to be successful? It's very simple to fix the problem with big corporations controlling things..... keep them out of politics, don't allow them to influence our elected officials, but it's not so easy to fix the government since they are in control and take away our civil liberties more and more everyday while masking it as "we are doing this so that life is fair and equal for everyone"... bunch of liberal BS.

[SlyOneDoofy]

David, as SlyOneDoofy said, it's not the corporations, it's the government that is the problem. Reagan's philosophy on smaller government and the role of the government is spot on. It's not the government's job to rule us, tell us what, where, when and how to do things, it's their job to protect us so that we have the freedom to make our own choices.... the is the whole reason America was founded in the first place. The current administration wants total government dependency and control, we need the exact opposite approach. What I never understand with liberals is that they made their money and defined who they are because of Capitalism but now that they are in the position of power they want to take that same freedom away so that they stay in control. All of these uber rich are donating millions to Obama's campaign.... the 1%, yet Obama says he against the 1% (remember all of his speeches during the Occupy Wall Street movement), by the way.... he is part of the 1%. How people cannot see right through him is beyond me. Since when is it a crime to make money, to be successful? It's very simple to fix the problem with big corporations controlling things..... keep them out of politics, don't allow them to influence our elected officials, but it's not so easy to fix the government since they are in control and take away our civil liberties more and more everyday while masking it as "we are doing this so that life is fair and equal for everyone"... bunch of liberal BS.

I agree 100%.

[David]

Would Reagan have said no to current corporate influence? That's a question I can't answer.

One I can answer is that Obama can't.

You blame corporations. They play the game. Government makes the rules. Start voting for people of character into positions and maybe there will be change.

Beyond that....there is no cure. You can vote Democrat all day but they will still sit in the bar with Republicans after work and figure out how to screw you.

The change needed in government will only come people figure out that smaller government is better governement. Unfortunately, we have too many people dependent upon the government. This will only get worse. Look at Greece. Big government will kill this country faster than any corporation.

You do not have to answer, he did.
I have stated numerous times that the Dems and the GOP are like professional wrestler who collect their monies from the same trough.
You cannot prove that smaller government is better. While you can point to Greece, I can point to Germany.
The problem is not the size, but the corruption/

[David]

Most people who argue for smaller government do so under the thin veil of wanting to pay less in taxes. Is it big government that is driving corporations to find labor overseas? You might argue it so, however could our workforce compete with outsiders toiling for 75 cent per day? Globalization is very much a problem. Ross Perot said it well but in 1992 when he mentioned his concern for human rights in China. Sooner or later we would have to compete with them.

While some scratch their heads over the perceived hypocrisy of liberals, I do so as much with the right. No one has issues with people being successful, as long as it was fair and they do not use their influence to tilt the table in their favor. Point fingers at Soros, and I can do the same with at least a dozen from the right.
As for our civil liberties, um..... W? Patriot Act?

Understand I was in college for the stream of steaming BS that was the Reagan presidency. He spoke well, and bought his presidency with tax breaks. Like Clinton, he had the good fortune to preside over an economic recovery later in his first term and the fall of the USSR (courtesy of Afghanistan).

[SlyOneDoofy]

Most people who argue for smaller government do so under the thin veil of wanting to pay less in taxes. Is it big government that is driving corporations to find labor overseas? You might argue it so, however could our workforce compete with outsiders toiling for 75 cent per day? Globalization is very much a problem. Ross Perot said it well but in 1992 when he mentioned his concern for human rights in China. Sooner or later we would have to compete with them.

While some scratch their heads over the perceived hypocrisy of liberals, I do so as much with the right. No one has issues with people being successful, as long as it was fair and they do not use their influence to tilt the table in their favor. Point fingers at Soros, and I can do the same with at least a dozen from the right.
As for our civil liberties, um..... W? Patriot Act?

Understand I was in college for the stream of steaming BS that was the Reagan presidency. He spoke well, and bought his presidency with tax breaks. Like Clinton, he had the good fortune to preside over an economic recovery later in his first term and the fall of the USSR (courtesy of Afghanistan).

I think you missed my point. You are arguing Left and Right. I'm saying they are the same. They are both corrupt.

BUt, since Obama is in office we should focus on the current administration and what they are doing right? I would hope you would agree unless your time machine works.

I, and a lot of others, have seen how government runs and how inefficient it runs. Try naming one government office that doesn't need slimming back. It would be tough.

Maybe 50% of the nation is tired of paying the other 50% of the nations federal taxes? I dunno but it seems if you a bitching about taxes you should at least have a dog in the game right? It's very easy to vote for higher taxes when you pay nothing. Seems like your world might be better if someone else carries your burden. Probably won't be because government is so damn inefficient.

Quit making this a Right vs. Left problem. IT'S A GOVERNMENT PROBLEM. They love the fact that there is this battle from both sides. It distracts you from the real problem.

[Roody]

I think you missed my point. You are arguing Left and Right. I'm saying they are the same. They are both corrupt.

BUt, since Obama is in office we should focus on the current administration and what they are doing right? I would hope you would agree unless your time machine works.

I, and a lot of others, have seen how government runs and how inefficient it runs. Try naming one government office that doesn't need slimming back. It would be tough.

Maybe 50% of the nation is tired of paying the other 50% of the nations federal taxes? I dunno but it seems if you a bitching about taxes you should at least have a dog in the game right? It's very easy to vote for higher taxes when you pay nothing. Seems like your world might be better if someone else carries your burden. Probably won't be because government is so damn inefficient.

Quit making this a Right vs. Left problem. IT'S A GOVERNMENT PROBLEM. They love the fact that there is this battle from both sides. It distracts you from the real problem.

In the case of some of those 50% it's not that they are being lazy it's that their income isn't high enough to warrant taxes.

[Roody]

You cannot prove that smaller government is better. While you can point to Greece, I can point to Germany.
The problem is not the size, but the corruption/

Very well said. I couldn't agree more.

[SlyOneDoofy]

Patriot act, Global warming, Education Department (can run just fine at local level), anything to do with interstate commerce (health care act), cow farts.....you name it.

WE SHOULD NOT BE SPENDING MONEY ON IT!!!

Get it?

David. Don't take this personal. I just have the opinion that government doesn't need to wipe my butt.

[SlyOneDoofy]

Very well said. I couldn't agree more.

Seriously?

I can argue....if it wasn't corrupt you wouldn't need other government agencies to police them thus reducing the size of government.

Can you say that government is efficient? Seriously?

Honestly, why do we have congress listening to a baseball player about steriod use? Seriously? WTF?

Is that good use of taxpayer money?

[Roody]

I'd love to see another president like Reagan....he was one of the best!

The thing is...things have gotten so twisted up and entrenched in the screwed up corrupt manner that it is now...I really don't think that even Reagan could straighten us up now if he came back to life and we voted him in.

Reagan was great, but he absolutely would not have been as effective in today's Republican Party. Not with their decisions to avoid raising taxes at all costs. A large majority of Republicans have signed off on not raising taxes under any circumstances. Reagan alone raised taxes I believe it was 11 times during his Presidency. He compromised far more than what today's Republicans have done. The extreme right of the party has taken it over and due to that I seriously doubt Reagan would even have a chance of being nominated within his own party today.

[Roody]

I can argue....if it wasn't corrupt you wouldn't need other government agencies to police them thus reducing the size of government.

You could, but then your idea would make the issue worse. By your own analogy a small government wouldn't have the man power to ensure corruption didn't exist or at the very least be limited.

[SlyOneDoofy]

You could, but then your idea would make the issue worse. By your own analogy a small government wouldn't have the man power to ensure corruption didn't exist or at the very least be limited.

You are assuming government is the right size. On what basic do you make this claim?

I honestly want to know.

My arguement is valid if you vote correctly.

[Roody]

You are assuming government is the right size. On what basic do you make this claim?

I honestly want to know.

That's not what I am saying. You argue for a small government. What David said and I agree with is the size is irrelevant. What is needed is an efficient government that isn't corrupt. If that's a small government that's fine, but ultimately it's about corruption and not the size.

[SlyOneDoofy]

That's not what I am saying. You argue for a small government. What David said and I agree with is the size is irrelevant. What is needed is an efficient government that isn't corrupt. If that's a small government that's fine, but ultimately it's about corruption and not the size.

What I am saying is government is expanding DUE to corruption.

At least we are agreeing on something.

[Roody]

What I am saying is government is expanding DUE to corruption.

At least we are agreeing on something.

I understand your point, but the facts are there is pro's and con's for both a small and large government. Ultimately efficiency needs to be our greatest goal.

[SlyOneDoofy]

I understand your point, but the facts are there is pro's and con's for both a small and large government. Ultimately efficiency needs to be our greatest goal.

I agree. And that's why we need to vote in good people. Ones who can ignore corporate influence.

I disagree with raising taxes. My reasoning...which...if you look at government is valid.....the more you give them.. the more they spend.

The budget they were supposed to have passed is what...almost 3 years over due?

Why the hell would you give them more money?

If they raise taxes they will just change the budget to reflect the gain.