What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

MinnFan said:
You have to keep spending from increasing at a greater rate then GDP growth. This was happening at the end of Reagan's term. It would have been great if Reagan could have cut spending more, but with a Dem congress it had to be tough to do.

I'm sure we all have our own definitions of fiscal conservatism so we are unlikely to completely agree. To me it boils down to putting forth policies that create the most freedom for individuals.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a spin on the Reagan years. Talking about Reagan cutting spending more, except for the Dems? Certainly the Dems didn't want to cut spending, but in the end, despite the rhetoric, neither did Reagan. I'm not sure how you figure those $200-300 billion deficits during a number of his years only match the growth in GDP. Reagan talked a good budget hawk game, but the results were starkly different. Reagan and Tip O'Neill in many ways get the blame for really kicking off large federal deficits.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

MinnFan said:
Feeling a bit elitist today, aren't we??
Click to expand...

Same as yesterday, and tomorrow, and...

Never trust anyone who thinks they're better than you because of any combination of age, weight, race, religion, education, or economic position.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Red Cloud said:
Same as yesterday, and tomorrow, and...

Never trust anyone who thinks they're better than you because of any combination of age, weight, race, religion, education, or economic position.
Click to expand...

How about sports team affiliation? :D
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
A couple replied on this. Both Reagan and Bush were both aggressively interventionist in their policies. Sometimes they needed to use troops...Grenada, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan...sometimes not...Iran-Iraq war, Nicaragua.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between the two: whereas Bush deployed the military in two costly wars, Reagan kept that sort of thing to a minimum. Grenada and Lebanon were nothing compared to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of cost - both financial and human. For the most part, Reagan's brand of intervention was behind the scenes - arm various groups and let them do the fighting, rather than getting dragged into the conflicts directly. This sort of thing was common in the Cold War as the US and USSR continually played various countries against each other to advance their interests rather than risking WW III with a direct confrontation with each other.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Red Cloud said:
\

Never trust anyone who thinks they're better than you because of any combination of age, weight, race, religion, education, or economic position.
Click to expand...

So basically you're giving yourself cover for being a loser. Got it. :p :D
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Red Cloud said:
Same as yesterday, and tomorrow, and...

Never trust anyone who thinks they're better than you because of any combination of age, weight, race, religion, education, or economic position.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to just use one then?
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
There's a difference between the two: whereas Bush deployed the military in two costly wars, Reagan kept that sort of thing to a minimum. Grenada and Lebanon were nothing compared to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of cost - both financial and human. For the most part, Reagan's brand of intervention was behind the scenes - arm various groups and let them do the fighting, rather than getting dragged into the conflicts directly. This sort of thing was common in the Cold War as the US and USSR continually played various countries against each other to advance their interests rather than risking WW III with a direct confrontation with each other.
Click to expand...

The goals, the tools to address those goals, the saber rattling and the focus on military was the same...the only difference is that Bush got caught out.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
First things first, what exactly do you mean by deficit?
Click to expand...

This is a funny game the average knuckledragger plays. They give Bush II credit for the surplus he inherited during the 1st year of his Presidency even though that was based on Clinton's budget, then the pawn off the trillion dollar deficit on Obama in his first year even though that was based on Bush's budget (specifically the bank bailout which cost 700Bn and was passed at the very end of Bush's term). A neat trick if you get away with it, as it makes Bush's deficits look about 1.5T better than they should.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
The goals, the tools to address those goals, the saber rattling and the focus on military was the same...the only difference is that Bush got caught out.
Click to expand...
The irony is Reagan, despite his silly rhetoric, had some sincere negotiations with the Soviets, not because he or they were sincere, but because there was a balance of power -- he had no choice. Dubya showed what an unchallenged power without a moral compass has done throughout history: Ultima Ratio Regum. He had choices, but the ethical bankruptcy of Neoconservatism led to disaster.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
This is a funny game the average knuckledragger plays. They give Bush II credit for the surplus he inherited during the 1st year of his Presidency even though that was based on Clinton's budget, then the pawn off the trillion dollar deficit on Obama in his first year even though that was based on Bush's budget (specifically the bank bailout which cost 700Bn and was passed at the very end of Bush's term). A neat trick if you get away with it, as it makes Bush's deficits look about 1.5T better than they should.
Click to expand...
So Obama should be able to pass it on in 2013, just like Bush did:D
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Kepler said:
The irony is Reagan, despite his silly rhetoric, had some sincere negotiations with the Soviets, not because he or they were sincere, but because there was a balance of power -- he had no choice. Dubya showed what an unchallenged power without a moral compass has done throughout history: Ultima Ratio Regum. He had choices, but the ethical bankruptcy of Neoconservatism led to disaster.
Click to expand...

Or he just wanted to get back at Saddam for trying to kill daddy. There's been worse reasons to go to war I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top