What you did was use an argument that you tried defending when it reflected your darling president in other threads. Double standard much?
Bush Jr. or Sr? Senior actually had a 16% increase, Clinton 12%, and Junior 34%. Even terrible Jr. couldn't hold a candle to Obama
Apples to oranges bro. Was my statement true or not? Did Reagan triple our national debt or not? That's all I was saying. Not sure how that's a double standard.
It is absolutely true... But the rub, and what I call bullshit, is that you used this as some negative remark regarding Reagan. Will you admit Obama fucked up by doubling the GDP debt spending of Reagan then?
mags, you can't counter punch every period in recent history with Obama....after awhile it loses all credibility. He's made blunders as have all presidents but the playing field is not the same as it used to be.
Now we are getting somewhere! An actual liberal that admitted one of their own did a blunder! SUCCESS!
stop calling me names...I'm a taoist agnostic american, my biggest war is with rampant bipartisanship and lack of cooperation between congress and the oval office..when congress...whichever congress is in power does everything it can to ensure policy failures so they have ammo for the next election..it sickens me. I'm not happy with our government and it's a collective disappointment.
Getting somewhere requires solutions or at least some semblance of process instead of whining about problems that just go on like a broken record. All americans are one of my own, why aren't they yours as well?
I'm with you on the lack of cooperation between parties to get things done, but this isn't a one-way street. Obama spent his first two years in office, when his party controlled both houses, telling the Republicans that elections have consequences and kicking them in the balls repeatedly over health care and a myriad of other policy issues. Curiously, when the midterm elections cost him the House, he no longer was a believer in elections having consequences. When the most recent elections cost the Dems the Senate, he became even less a supporter of that concept. I guess it's a matter of which elections.
Very good post. Two term presidents always seem to get burned out in the middle of the second term. I tend to like term limits for govt officials and even Supreme court judges. I kicked around the idea of having a one term limit of 5 years for any president where year 4 and 5 would be a public option..not a guarantee.
IMO, the biggest problem with two-term presidents is the inherent "lame-duck" nature of that second term. What I think would be interesting would be a progressive vote requirement, increasing after every term. After your first term, if you want to win the presidency for a second term, you need 60% of the vote. To stay in for a third term, you need 70%, and so on. In fact, something similar to that could work for all levels of elected office--it would encourage politicians to act in a more broad general interest, allow highly popular/effective officials to remain in office longer, and make it much more difficult for less effective incumbents to retain their positions.
You don't remember when Reagan sold missiles to Iran? You don't remember when Reagan bombed the small country of Grenada? I certainly do...
