I'm spouting Fox News talking points, eh? Then what, I imagine, are you spouting? HuffPo talking points? NYT talking points? Your parents' and friends' talking points? I'm sorry, but an argument about how much you hate Ronald Reagan, how he ignored the AIDS "crisis," etc., is a load of crap. You haven't responded to ANY salient critiques of Clinton, Carter, the Democratic House, Democratic ideology and/or policy, etc., that I've raised over the course of the thread. Instead, you've whined and bitched about how evil Republicans are, how much you hate anyone who thinks differently from you -- in the process revealing a startling lack of critical-thinking ability or intellectual rigor on your part.

Quite frankly, this Yale-educated, HBS-attending, Mensa-registered "mook" could run fucking circles around your sorry ass. Don't start what you can't finish, son. I can count on one hand the number of people on Gawker as bright as I am, and you ain't one of them.

Furious George

TheLorax

Mediahohoho

Mediahohoho

Mediahohoho

Furious George

CaptainFantastic

MisterHippity

Heavens no.

Republicans have been bad recently, but Democrats have been bad since the War.

ADismalScience

not_yellow

Frankly, in the past 25 years, Democrats have had a much better track record than Republicans when it comes to balancing the budget.

MisterHippity

[www.zmag.org]
[www.sfgate.com]

If you think Democratic liberalism is socialism, I think you are very confused about the meaning of socialism. Ask anyone who has lived under actual socialism or states with policy heavily influenced by socialist movements and theory (like me). I also disagree with your assertion that socialism doesn't work, but that's a completely separate discussion and has nothing to do with American electoral politics.

not_yellow

1) Incorrect.

2) If, by "lesser" of two evils you mean "more naive," "less in tune with reality," and "idealist in a Socialist fashion," then I agree.

3) How did Reagan "ignore" the AIDS crisis? Citation on this?

3a) I'm really sick of how Democrats always position an anti-welfare stance as being somehow implicitly racist. The fact of the matter is that welfare is a system our country cannot afford, and which has been proven to be counterproductive -- i.e., it does not help "lift up" its recipients, and in fact, encourages laziness and dependency upon the government. It basically pays people not to go out and seek jobs. How is that American? How is that consistent with the ideals of a free-market, capitalistic, democratic society? It's not. Welfare is a failed, Socialist experiment that -- along with Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs -- is bankrupting our country while providing nil benefit to Americans or to America.

Welfare is not a race issue; it's an economics issue. Playing the race card is a deliberately misleading and counterproductive way of distracting people from the real issue -- that welfare doesn't work, never has worked, and causes nigh-irreparable damage to our national economy.

5) (Did you cite a 4? Can't seem to find it; oh well) The "gap between the haves and have-nots" is called capitalism. Welcome to America. Work hard and you'll reap the rewards. Be lazy, bitch about those who have a strong work ethic, and expect handouts from the state, and you'll receive just desserts.

Socialism doesn't work, and Democratic liberalism is little more than Socialism in sheep's clothing.

Furious George

2) never said i was a democrat, but it is the lesser of two evils. i'm actually an independent.

3) reagan ignored the AIDS crisis allowing millions to die. reagan didn't give a shit about minorities or their rights. he was a racist, homophobic asshole whose economic policy turned its back on the people who really need it.

5) my father is an immigrant and remembers VIVIDLY the days of reagan more than i could ever. let's just say that when the man died, not a tear was shed. iran-contra, the growing percentage between the haves and have nots, quadrupuling national debt...

bess marvin, girl detective

You don't seem to be; don't see why I should be.

Did you even bother to read what was posted on the Mitt Romney site? I read the HuffPo; I don't see why you should avoid at all costs reading the facts laid out by the opposing side of your political allegiance.

And quite frankly, I'd trust Mitt Romney over Barack Obama to solve our economic insolvencies ANY day of the week. Founder of Bain Capital vs. Dilettante Jr. Senator from Illinois? Not even a remotely tough choice.

Hope may be audacious, but hope doesn't balance budgets.

Furious George

What you describe sounds really great. It's financially impossible, but that's really beside the point of a campaign promise.

Obama's strength is making people "believe in America." That's great. But some miserable piece of shit is going to have sit down and "pay for America." That miserable, sad man is the President. Does he know how to make that kind of decision? Does he understand the necessity? I think his base is too caught up in the good feelings to ask those important questions.

ADismalScience

Bottom line is, people under 97K now pay a HIGHER percentage of their income for social security than those who earn above 97K. The percentage gradually drops the richer you get. And that just isn't fair.

By the way, that cap is already set to increase to $107K next year.

We need to do something to fund social security, and raising the cap is really the obvious (and fair) way to do it.

All of your other links appear to relat to the AMT, not social secuirty, which is totally different. Obama's (Rangel's) plan for AMT would lower taxes for $100-$200K households far more than the SS cap thing would raise taxes for that same group. So your claim that Obama would make that group pay more taxes is patently FALSE.

Also, www.mittromney.com?? Really? Are we even pretending to be objective here?

MisterHippity

Woof.

Look, there is absolutely nothing "Reaganesque" about the current administration. Paul Volcker jacked up interest rates and forced the country into a recession because he correctly concluded that the liquefication of Americans' balance sheets through saving was a more positive economic force than liquefication by forcing them to spend and devaluing the dollar. Bernanke is actually taking a neo-Keynesian gamble on our economy's function because the Fed has found that it lacks the political power to reduce deficit spending.

This means that the current theory in the process of being debunked is FDR's, not Reagan's.

This country cannot - cannot, cannot, cannot, as opposed to should not or might not - afford its current social welfare committments. We literally do not have the capability as a nation to float the debt it would take to pay off social security, to say nothing of the promised medical plans proposed by the Democrats. Not without the most substantial, economy-collapsing tax increase in our nation's history. America has maxed the credit card, as reflected in the cliff-dive of the dollar.

At this point, what we maxed on is irrelevant. The benefit or detriment of past decisions to Americans is utterly immaterial. We are literally faced with discipline or insolvency as the only available options. This generation, not the next or the one before, is stuck with the bill for decades of theft from the future. The Democrats are promising that they can keep the lie alive - don't believe them. Don't you dare.

ADismalScience

Furious George

Mediahohoho

[www.usatoday.com]

[www.newsbusters.org]

[www.mittromney.com]

[abcnews.go.com]

QUOTE:

"Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax."

Enjoy your trillion-dollar tax hike under President Barack Obama!

Furious George

Mediahohoho

I remember the Reagan era like it was yesterday. I remember government cheese and ketchup is a vegetable. I remember goodbye student aid and pell grants, hello student loans and lifetime of debt (you're welcome, banks) paul volcker and stagflation and october surprise and one of history's greatest monsters giving way to roger & me and stockman and the Laffer curve and trickle down and the largest deficits in world history. I remember an old crank settling scores with FDR and JFK because he never got the A roles, only the Bs, dismantling head start, the EEOC, HUD, because he could, that was the mood, and besides those programs only helped the blacks and the blacks had never, ever been part of his constituency.

I remember the great defense industry contract sell-off, absurd, impractical weapons systems like the B1 bomber, Osprey, Star Wars ™, Chrysler tanks. I remember Jerry Falwell, the moral majority, the motherfucking Meese Commission to study whether pornography was undermining American society while the administration was paying Central American mercenaries to rape and kill American nuns in El Salvador.

I remember 360 dead marines in Lebanon. I remember us cutting and running the next day. I remember the invasion and conquest of Grenada. I asked a Grenadian friend recently what the effect of that adventure had been. She said, "Before we got free health care from the Cubans. Everything. After? We got nothing from nobody." Hey, good one, Ronnie, way to win those hearts and minds.

I remember Iran-Contra, the meaning of both halves of that name, and the realization that the GOP had learned the only lesson they could from Watergate, which was, don't lie, just say, "you don't remember." I remember that smirking, smug coward in a soldier's suit Ollie North and that smirking, belligerent liar Elliott Abrams shitting on my country's Constitution and I remember the twinkle in the eye that came with the 260-some "I can't remembers/I don't recall" the old man told the special prosecutor in less than an hour and i remember feeling ashamed for anyone who would lie that easily. Unless of course, it was true that you didn't remember, and then I remember feeling a little alarmed.

I remember the S&L crisis and subsequent bailout and then the FDIC banking crisis and subsequent bailout (you're welcome, banks) and remember that under Reagan's revised tax code Carnival Cruise Lines stopped paying US Federal taxes in 1986 and hasn't paid them since. Remember that every time you see one of their ads and ask yourself if it's fair, considering that you pay your fucking taxes.

I rememver 25% unemployment in Michigan, and it wasn't Carter's policies, it was GM's and Ford's and Chrysler's dumbshittedness (imagine if you will the stupidity of people who continue to market SUVs in a $100/barrel economic climate--that's right: same assholes, same thinking).

Yes, I have fairly vivid memories of the Reagan years. And knowing that we survived this dick is what got me through his successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his successor, that big fat phony Bill Clinton. It is what will see my through what will only be (hopefully, mercifully) one remaining year of the current shithead in chief. They're almost all of them disasters; Republicans are hell on the working man, good for billionaires.

Mediahohoho

[www.bloomberg.com]

[blogs.wsj.com]

[www.washingtontimes.com]

Furious George

The fact that you haven't done so - and just keep ignoring my questions about this - leads me to conclude that you were wrong about that and just won't admit it.

MisterHippity

By all means, keep putting words in my mouth. It's the only strategy you can rely on, given that facts, history, and reason are things you seem unwilling to employ in your various arguments. Whatever misdirections, ad hominem attacks, and misquotations you can muster will put your mind at ease, but they won't win you any arguments.

Facts:

- Reagan was not a god, clearly. He wasn't even our country's best president. But he was up there, and he was a hell of a lot better than Carter, Clinton, Kennedy, or any other Democrats in his immediate historical vicinity.

- GWB is, sadly, a Republican. I jokingly suggested he "doesn't count" earlier on, but clearly he does. He's a black mark on the Republican record, and I've not shied away from criticizing him or his policies. That said, many of his policies run contrary to the conservative principles the Republican party is supposed to uphold. GWB's reckless spending and budgetary disregard are straight out of the liberal playbook. His misguided "economic stimulus" plans are cribbed from Clinton 101. So, though Bush is a Republican in name, he's been a Democrat in practice for many, many years and on many, many counts.

- "Picked a president with a mental disease" in my top 5? Reagan's post-presidential Alzheimer's aside, have you criticized one salient fact of his time in office? Have you dissected a single Reagan policy so far? Again, facts don't seem to concern you too much. Ad-hom character assassination is much more your style. And that's fine for you. But I judge a president based on his track record, not his (perceived) character flaws. The FACT of the matter is that Reagan, addled or otherwise by Alzheimer's, restored the American economy from the depths of Carter's mismanagement. He increased the strength and global reach of America's military. He presided over, and helped usher in, the demise of the Soviet Union. He enacted tax cuts and revolutionary economic policies that, to this day, have stood the test of time. On the balance, was Reagan a "perfect" president? Of course not. But was he one of the best we've had? Absolutely.

I realize you've probably been raised liberal, and to you, that liberalism is as much an indoctrinated, taken-for-granted fact of life as religious faith is to people born Christian. But some of us -- on both sides -- have arrived at our present political viewpoints after careful consideration of all sides and facts, hard-nosed analysis, probing and intellectual consideration of all things, and rational inquiry. I was not born a Republican; I was raised liberal, indoctrinated liberal, and came to realize how foolish my parents and peers had been upon actually applying some critical thought to everything I'd been programmed to believe from Day One.

If you truly consider yourself a liberal Democrat, and you've arrived at that position entirely of your own intellectual accord, please answer the following questions:

1) Do you believe that your hard-earned tax dollars should be spent helping the lazy elements of society who are unwilling to help themselves? (i.e., welfare)

2) Do you believe the world is better off with a militarily and economically weaker America?

3) Do you believe that the federal government should regulate as many aspects of your life as possible?

If you can still answer "yes" to all of these questions, congratulations, you're a liberal Democrat. If not, perhaps you should take a more probing look into the bullshit your party stands for, and ask yourself: "Why?"

Furious George

bess marvin, girl detective

berryline

And I needn't -- and haven't -- had to reach back to Carter to find fault with Democratic policies. This Congress has been among the worst in history. Bill Clinton gutted our military, presided over reckless economic policies that resulted in the dotcom bubble and crash, and sold high-tech military secrets to the Chinese government. His presidency enjoys quite a bit of favorable (and largely undeserved) retrospect simply because of its juxtaposition to Bush Jr's presidency. But, in fact, Clinton's presidency was a mixed bag at best, and on the balance, a bad one.

Clinton set our country on its path to domination by China in the second Cold War, and for that reason above all others, history will remember Clinton as the spineless and inept Neville Chamberlain of the modern era.

Furious George

"The Kennedy-Obama connection is central to the campaign's message, which is that the American people have been wandering in the desert for more than a generation, waiting for another leader who could show them how to reach for the stars. But J.F.K.'s grand achievement was the raising of expectations, not the follow-through. His administration was a decidedly mixed bag, during which people spent a great deal of time building nuclear fallout shelters.

[www.nytimes.com]

antisocialite

"A maximum 1.6 million people would receive an increase in taxes, mostly couples making more than $500,000 [who'd pay a 4.6 percent surtax on income]. People making $200,000 to $500,000 would pay a 4 percent surtax, but the majority would end up paying less than under the AMT."

So, unles he's lying, it's mostly people making over a half million who'd see an increase. And the "upper middle class" would get a break.

Hoho, is that what you meant when you said it'd provide tax relief for people making $97K-$200K? You mean ADOPTING Rangel's plan would REDUCE taxes for people in that income range, right?

So Furious George has it totally backwards?

MisterHippity

Mediahohoho

Mediahohoho

So, please provide a link to your proof that Barack Obama is in favor of raising taxes drastically for those who earn more than 90K. Or, alternatively, links that show that Rangel's plan proposes that, and that Obama endorsed that.

Otherwise, admit that you're the one who came to this fight without a knife. Please. Thank you. :-)

MisterHippity

Furious George

You could do with being a bit less combative.

ADismalScience

"A newly resurgent Russia? I suspect you've been hitting up those cabannis vending machines too often, friend."

You might want to try picking up a periodical or two, or perhaps browsing some non-Britney-Spears-related news sites every now and then. Russia is building up militarily and economically (thanks to oil profits), and Putin has revived the USSR in all but name. You know, Vladimir Putin? That wacky Russian guy who was Person of the Year?

I forget; are you the nutjob who claimed Jimmy Carter won the Cold War? Just want to make sure of whom I'm dealing with here.

Furious George

The bottom line is, the storyline being downplayed on the Kennedy endorsement is that Kennedy embodies "old" politics. He's an old=school bare-knuckle favor-currying handshaker. This is in direct contrast to Obama's campaign thesis of a different kind of politics.

What's really also getting me is how quickly Clinton support became "Fox News lies." It's all codified in the language of the anti-George-Bush rhetoric, as if Clinton and the current president are somehow similar. I'll file that away for later when the young Democratic voters set themselves up to be righteously bitchslapped in the general election and everybody's curious about cause.

Aren't you guys in the same party? Sheesh, even the goddamn knuckle-dragging Republicans have 2008 figured out already.

ADismalScience

To return to an earlier question, @marconi: O-Bomb?

Badupbomp

ae38

I guess that means more of the awesomely successful strategies we've pursued under Bush, like privatizing profit while socializing risk; gutting services to the less-fortunate; and crippling goverment regulation. You know, all those things that put us in this enviable position to begin with.

...a newly resurgent Russia.

A newly resurgent Russia? I suspect you've been hitting up those cabannis vending machines too often, friend.

TheLorax

psst

I base my beliefs on a patriotic duty to this country and a firm belief in American global supremacy. If we are to defeat China in our present Cold War (wake up, because we're in one, and we're losing badly) and outcompete the European Union and a newly resurgent Russia, we need to get a lot tougher. Short term thinking? Hardly. We need to pull this country out of its rut and put it back on a path to longterm empire-building, global dominance, and American hegemony over the unwashed masses.

Furious George

If by "becoming like China" you mean becoming more amoral, pragmatic, aggressive, and insidious in our foreign policy? Absolutely we need to. It's basic Game Theory. You don't win against an underhanded opponent by taking the high ground. We fought dirty in the Cold War, and we need to fight dirty in Cold War II. Democrats have never had the stomach for realpolitik, which is a major reason why we don't need Democrats in office right now.

Furious George

Jimmy Carter caused, and presided over, the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. But yeah, you're totally right!

Furious George

Ummm...perhaps because that's what's called for in Charlie Rangel's tax plan -- a plan that Barack Obama has endorsed? You have read Rangel's plan, have you not? Or are you entering a gun fight with a knife?

Furious George

TheLorax

You expect "green" taxes (by which I suppose you mean carbon taxes) to cripple business? You base that prediction on... what? Oh of course, you must be thinking of those heavily-taxed, weak, struggling (coff coff coff) European economies!

We'll see how your beloved California gets by without its snowpack. You may be able to hide from that disaster with the aid of your parents' wealth; but you might as well admit that you base your political preferences on the shortest-term and narrowest possible self-interest, rather than any concern for the longer-term wellbeing of the larger society.

TheLorax

Your positioning of Obama's Social Security cap proposal as a "massive tax increase" without explaining what you're really talking about is just deceptive and stupid, George. Sorry but you're really pissing me off. This Republican technique of getting what you want by just lying as often and loudly as possible (e.g., to win elections or go to war) is getting old. Most of us are sick of it.

MisterHippity

No democrat has proposed such a thing, nor would they ever act on it.

Try more like over $200K, at least. Probably more like $250K. A small tax increase on people earning more than that figure (hell, more than $1 million, for that matter) would generate an incredible influx of revenue for Uncle Sam, given how many mega-rich people there are in this country (assuming they aren't allowed to hide all their money in tax shelters).

I've never heard a democrat propose that 90K income figure as the lower cutoff for a tax increase; they'd have to be nuts. Where are you getting this shit, George, Fox News?

MisterHippity

Ghostridemywhip

lalalina

Furious George

lalalina

dearest

Midge

larrydarrell

Furious George

Look, your boyfriend Ronald Reagan didn't make the top 5!

What are you gonna do?

lalalina

meerkat

Furious George

bess marvin, girl detective

bess marvin, girl detective

berryline

pixiesticks

Michael Jahn

pixiesticks

Top Five Best Presidents Ever:

1) Abraham Lincoln (Republican)
2) Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)
3) Dwight Eisenhower (Republican)
4) Ronald Reagan (Republican)
5) Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican, defunct)

Top Five Worst Presidents Ever:

1) Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
2) Herbert Hoover (Republican)
3) George W. Bush (Republican)
4) James Buchanan (Democrat)
5) Zachary Taylor (Whig, defunct)

Furious George

berryline

pixiesticks

Furious George

It's ironic that the most overrated president in history, JFK, should follow directly after the most underrated.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Furious George

pixiesticks

mightymouse

berryline

And, as someone who makes over $90,000 a year, I'll take a tax hike over a disastrous and unnecessary war, a huge deficit and the erosion of our Constitutional rights anyday. And twice on Sunday.

pixiesticks

but whatever, there are people on this earth who believe that hte earth is flat and that the Bible is the word from God. i suppose it shouldn't be a shock to me that there are Reagan supporters.

bess marvin, girl detective

lalalina

Anyway, it's not the '60s we want back, it's the vision of the sixties that the sell-out hippies (that's right, Clintons, I'm talking to you) failed to fulfill.

Moimeme

DorothyMantooth

mightymouse

Furious George

Furious George

lalalina

Furious George

Jimmy Carter did the grunt work of winning the Cold War? What sort of hippie weed are you smoking, kiddo? Jimmy Carter decimated our economy, humiliated America's international standing, and basically dicked around until Reagan could step up to the plate and finish what Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon, and other Republicans started -- winning the Cold War.

In all fairness, you want to know who really deserves a lot of share of credit? Harry Truman, a Democrat, mainly for dropping the bomb on Japan. Because he started the arms race with the Soviets at that very moment -- the arms race that would later bankrupt the USSR under Reagan's watch. And don't go crying to me about the collateral losses, which were acceptable, considering the alternative (invading Japan and losing millions of lives in the process).

It's called history, kid. Read some.

Furious George

Having grown up in a family that got by on signifcantly less than that median, and restricted as I am in my social circle to the lower classes, I am inclined to set the bar for "upper class" rather shockingly low.

berryline

and also, i'm going to guess that you voted for GWB back in '00 and '04, so don't go disowning him now because he is going to go down as one of the biggest fuckups of the century.

bess marvin, girl detective

Furious George

Furious George

bess marvin, girl detective

Mediahohoho

Mediahohoho

Furious George

egg cream

berryline

Mediahohoho

Furious George

however, i will like to add that JFK and Jackie had one good looking family.

bess marvin, girl detective

Furious George

berryline

Truculent

Mediahohoho

meerkat

meerkat

@Furious_George: Yes, Bush Jr. counts because he represents everything the GOP has been courting over the last 30 years--own it.

Mediahohoho

Furious George

meerkat

As long as it makes someone's bleeding heart feel good, right? As long as someone's inspired, right?

Democrats are the party of misplaced ideals, good intentions gone horribly wrong, and weakness.

Furious George

Mediahohoho

berryline

Furious George

Mediahohoho

Michael Jahn

Dusty in the Wind

Hard to continue ones accomplishments after your brains are blown out.

Accept, demonstrably, in your case, Furious.

Dusty in the Wind

Dusty in the Wind

Barack Obama is a good guy, and a smart guy, and even an inspirational guy. But he's got no business running this country (nor does any Democrat, pretty much ever).

Furious George

Cheap Shot

berryline

The fading generation of news hacks now populating the airwaves and newsprint bought into this sanitized version of reality, which is why JFK is worshipped like Ghandi to this day. Eisenhower was a hero to the entire world. He won the blinking Second World War and presided over the largest and most prosperous economic expansion in history. You don't see a lot of news people invoking the spirit of Ike these days because, with the exception of Mike Wallace and Andy Rooney, those guys are dead and/or senile. The JFK story is fun and magical and it brings warm memories of those happy, peaceful days gone by which, by the way, never happened.

Truculent

Badupbomp

Michael Jahn

Badupbomp

yourfriendandneighbor

Michael Jahn

Michael Jahn

And because I do remember the Kennedy presidency, I got a nagging question. What the fuck was so great about it beyond the go-to-the-moon thing? He forgot to order air cover for the Bay of Pigs because he was busy getting a hummer in the Oval or something. He gets credit for bringing in Bobby as AG but he didn't really take off until JFK was long dead. And the whole Camelot thing -- total bullshit. Nothing magical happened. Blacks were still being lynched in the South, women were told to stay home and bake cookies as God intended, everyone toed the social line, and pretty much the entire country was damn dull.

Truculent

Linkletter'sDaughter

Linkletter'sDaughter

lalalina

Michael Jahn

AndIAmTellingYou

yourfriendandneighbor

DonPardoCalrissian

Michael Jahn

DonPardoCalrissian

Screen Name

HiredGoons

Michael Jahn