The Gipper keeps on winning

I realize that FDR had good intentions and operated under extreme circumstances, but, as they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I believe in freedom in all aspects, economic, social, whatever. I believe in very limited taxes because the more freedom a person has over his own finances, the more personal choices he or she may make. In fact, I think an income tax is wrong on some levels because it forces people to reveal information about themselves they may otherwise want to keep private. I think a national sales tax would be more appropriate - tax people for what they consume rather than what they make (exceptions could be made for food and utilities to make it more "progressive"). Anyway, that would be an ideal situation for me which we will never see, but New Deal taxes further moved the United States in a negative direction, in my humble opinion, which is why I find FDR's presidency distasteful. You may say that is a Republican mindset, but I have plenty to criticize G.W. Bush for too that others may say is the perspective of a Democrat.

I was a little young to understand Reagan's policies at the time, but I do like the fact that he was driven to cut down the size of the government and encourage supply side economic theory, because I find it more free and thus appealing. I liked some, though not all, of the things Bill Clinton said and did, and don't generally care about his personal morals - or lack thereof. Considering the principles I listed as being the two most important, I kind of assume there must be something inherently wrong with politicians to begin with, considering they desire to legislate how others should behave.

>You may say that is a Republican mindset, but I have plenty to criticize G.W. Bush for too that others may say is the perspective of a Democrat.

I like what you say here. It IS possible to have more than one thought in your head at the same time. Too much black-and-white thinking (no reference to skin colour).

I notice however that your mindset is still very different from mine, just an observation, no argument.

On a side note: How is it possible to compare the presidency of the old ones like Cht.. sorry … George Washington and 20th century presidents?

Bill Clinton FTW. Anyone who can run a nation while getting hummers from an intern gets my vote.

Shrinking government responsibility and reducing taxes is classic conservative Republican planks. This includes the deregulation that was responsible for the Great Recession. While I like many aspects of libertarianism, much of it comes across as irresponsible.

The biggest problem with libertarianism can be summed up with this Bill Hicks quote:

It's all about money, not freedom, ya’ll, okay? Nothing to do with fuckin’ freedom. If you think you’re free, try going somewhere without fucking money, okay? Okay.

Click to expand...

Übereil

Should we perhaps call Reagan "The Big Gipper"?

pibbur who actually won't because he is left-of-even-the-democrats leftie

@ Ubereil - sure! It's: I want to keep every last penny of my money for myself. I have genuine problems understanding why anybody who isn't well off would consider themselves a libertarian. Must be an "American thing"….

@ pibbur - if you mean Democrats with capital "D" than it's not all that difficult :lol:

zahratustra said:

...
@ pibbur - if you mean Democrats with capital "D" than it's not all that difficult :lol:

Click to expand...

For quite a number of americans, I believe Democrats with capital "D" is more than enough lefty. In our enlightened part of the world, not so.

red pibbur

"Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." - Chris Rock.

Agreeing with only one party makes no sense at all, regardless of what country you're in or what political party is in question.

zahratustra said:

@ Ubereil - sure! It's: I want to keep every last penny of my money for myself. I have genuine problems understanding why anybody who isn't well off would consider themselves a libertarian. Must be an "American thing"….

Click to expand...

I've another quote for that:

John Steinbeck said:

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Click to expand...

Übereil

You repeat that quote as if it's a bad thing. Seems like a rather self-sufficient and proud position to me. No need for nanny states, no blaming others for your own failures, no expectation of handouts (although you'll note there's no prohibition of charity mentioned anywhere so put all the "heartless" nonsense back in the sack), self-expectations of success, never losing sight of the promise of opportunity.

I believe it's got more to do with distrust of the state. If you think the problem is that the establishment uses the state to opress you, you think anarchy is the way to liberation for the masses. If you think the state is what's standing between the establishment and the masses then socialism/communism is seen as the way to liberate the masses.

I also believe the American belief that you're able to and supposed to make it on your own is often delusional and even more often only gets in the way of getting even further by cooperating with others.

I believe your view has it's merits. But it goes too far and therefore misses the mark.

Übereil

rossrjensen said:

Probably an unpopular opinion, but FDR was the worst president if you ask me. Just because he was elected to four terms doesn't automatically make him the best.

Click to expand...

This opinion is no less valid than those who are already outraged that Reagan was voted best president from some survey that really holds no important validity.

I don't necessarily think Reagan is the best president EVAR, but as far as recent Republicans, probably. The trouble is, most people are very black and white about what makes a President great or terrible. The reality is even the perceived best ones ccertainly will have made bad decisions as well. That would include Messiah Obama. ZOMG!!1! The Heresy!

Bush Sr. was a better president than Reagan. And vastly beyond his inept son.

BillSeurer said:

Bush Sr. was a better president than Reagan. And vastly beyond his inept son.

Click to expand...

Bush Sr. benefitted significantly from the tough work Reagan put in. He was handed a relatively healthy economy, a castrated boogieman with the Soviet Union in its death throes, and (outside of Saddam) a relatively stable global situation. He kept the train rolling and didn't screw it up, but I'm not sure that qualifies for "better president than Reagan".

As for Dubya, even Slick Willie clears that hurdle. If it weren't for his decent handling of 9-11 and its aftermath, he'd be a total, Carter-level, failure. His greatest achievements might actually be keeping us away from "President Gore" and "President Kerry", which, while certainly very good for the country, does not a good president make. Hell, as disastrous as Saint Barack has been for this country, when all is said and done he might eke out a win over Dubya...

Bush Sr. actually had a brain, unlike Reagan's acting job. The Soviet Union collapsed on its own accord. Reagan had nothing to do with it.

dteowner;1061129460… said:

As for Dubya, even Slick Willie clears that hurdle. If it weren't for his decent handling of 9-11 and its aftermath, he'd be a total, Carter-level, failure. His greatest achievements might actually be keeping us away from "President Gore" and "President Kerry", which, while certainly very good for the country, does not a good president make. Hell, as disastrous as Saint Barack has been for this country, when all is said and done he might eke out a win over Dubya…

Click to expand...

You know, if Kerry had won, you could have gotten yet another Nobel Peace Prize president. Not being Bush jr. seems to be enough.

On a side note: I've heard someone say it was easier for a republican president to approach the Soviet Union and China (people's republic), because you couldn't blame them for being communist friendly. AFAIK it was Nixon who first went to China, and the thawing of relations between the USA and USSR gained speed under Reagan (and Gorbatchov).

pibbur who don't know if this makes sense

Historically, it was best for us to deal with the Soviets in particular from a position of strength. It's not strictly a republican thing, although we're generally better at it than the hugs-n-kisses dems--JFK did a fine job back in the day, after all.

Thrasher said:

Shrinking government responsibility and reducing taxes is classic conservative Republican planks. This includes the deregulation that was responsible for the Great Recession. While I like many aspects of libertarianism, much of it comes across as irresponsible.

Click to expand...

Well the second part of your statement is a clearly debatable subject. You say deregulation is responsible for the Great Recession, I say that government interference with the free market is what ultimately led to the Great Recession. Government believed that Americans were entitled to home ownership, passing legislation to make purchasing homes easier (leading to subprime mortgage lending). Everything else that developed stemmed from that - the market adapted by creating new securities, including 'creative' ways to sell mortgages and the development of credit-default swaps. Obviously, there were some ethical boundaries that were over-stepped in the process as well, but that's not a political issue.

As for the first part of your statement, you may say shrinking government is a Republican plank, but I will continue to insist that it can be the plank of many different ideologies, including my own - which are vastly different than traditional Republicanism.

The biggest problem with libertarianism can be summed up with this Bill Hicks quote:

It's all about money, not freedom, ya’ll, okay? Nothing to do with fuckin’ freedom. If you think you’re free, try going somewhere without fucking money, okay? Okay.

Click to expand...

I don't know the context, so I don't really understand what that quote is trying to say. To me money is nothing more than a tool of exchange. People want to make money out to be a bad thing, but it's no better or worse than the person using it…just like any other tool. Yes, I think a person ought to be entitled to his or her money because it is a representation of what a he/she has created - and no person should have a right to your toils. If I were to have created the iPod and distributed it to millions across the world in exchange for a fee, that fee can serve as a representation of my creation. I think money is just as worthy to be cherished by someone as an artist cherishes what he has created. Neither is better or worse than the other in my opinion and both are honorable in their pure state.

I believe it's got more to do with distrust of the state. If you think the problem is that the establishment uses the state to opress you, you think anarchy is the way to liberation for the masses.

Click to expand...

I think you would be absolutely correct in your statement. The United States was founded under this principle. The founding fathers were suspicious of government because they lived under a regime they disliked and wanted to see changed, so obviously that wariness is found in our foundational documents. In fact, I came across some interesting study a while back ago that said the only other country (amongst more developed nations) that disliked their central government more than the United States was New Zealand. I've never been, but I'd love to go!

rossrjensen said:

You say deregulation is responsible for the Great Recession, I say that government interference with the free market is what ultimately led to the Great Recession.

Click to expand...

And I suppose deregulation didn't have anything to do with current crisis either? You guys keep flogging this dead horse despite all the evidence to the contrary. Do you even realize just what you are proposing?
No regulations means no health and safety protection, no environmental protection, no child labor laws, no minimum wage etc, etc, etc. And what makes you think you will be on the winning side in this nightmare? You might end up shoveling asbestos for 3 bucks per hour...