Palin to resign

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL....that sad part is Reagan had a worse budget deficit spending problems than Obama but you seem to see his spending as an asset yet when Obama does it it's going to be the end of us all. Maybe, just maybe "Obama's policies [take] a while but [they'll turn] the economy around and [lead] to good economic times?"

Even worse, Obama gets flack for talking to the Russians in implementing a "do as I do" policy and supporting a democratically elected president who was ousted by a military coup d'etat (I really can't remember the last time a military coup was a good thing) but Reagan with his Iran Contra Affair made America feel good again.

Weak, very weak!

That Coup was ousting a president that was breaking the election rules/laws and the supreme court and their congress had him removed. He was trying to become a dictator.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I was out in your neck of the woods yesterday visiting a company in Clifton Forge. Very long but relaxing ride on 64 coming home.

Oh yeah? What company out there? I work at W&L... maybe five minutes from the interstate.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL....that sad part is Reagan had a worse budget deficit spending problems than Obama but you seem to see his spending as an asset yet when Obama does it it's going to be the end of us all. Maybe, just maybe "Obama's policies [take] a while but [they'll turn] the economy around and [lead] to good economic times?"

Even worse, Obama gets flack for talking to the Russians in implementing a "do as I do" policy and supporting a democratically elected president who was ousted by a military coup d'etat (I really can't remember the last time a military coup was a good thing) but Reagan with his Iran Contra Affair made America feel good again.

Weak, very weak!

What's weak my friend, is your analysis here. Reagan cut taxes and allowed the free market to work, Obama is increasing taxes and increasing gov't control/intervention in the economy. This economic strategy does not improve an economy. Instead of spending $ 4 per week on the Mega Millions lottery, I'll spend $ 400 per week and maybe, just maybe, I'll win.

Here's some facts about the economy under Reagan:
-During the Reagan presidency, an average of 1.7 million jobs
per year were created, as opposed to only 1.2 million jobs per
year from 1990-95 (Cato Institute Analysis No.261; Economic
Report of the President, 1996)
-When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%. When he
left office the unemployment rate was 5.5% (Cato Institute
Analysis No.261; Economic Report of the President, 1996)
-Charitable contributions increased 57% during the 80s, from $65
billion in 1980 to $100 million in 1989 (American Enterprise,
Sept-Oct ’91)
-The rate of U.S. manufacturing productivity tripled during the
1980s (U.S. Commerce Department)
-The Stock Market rose from 777 to 3,000 points during Reagan’s
presidency, even after the crash of 1987. (Almanac of U.S.
History)
-The national deficit was approx. 2.6% of the U.S. GNP when
Reagan entered office, and only 2.8% of the GNP when he left
(Congressional Budget Office) All while bankrupting and bringing down the Soviet Union.
-Middle class families earning between $20,000-$50,000/year had
a 28% growth in net worth during Reagan’s time in office
(National Review, April 18, 1994)
-Inflation went down during Reagan’s time in office. In 1980 the
CPI (Consumer Price Index) was 13.5, and in 1984 it dropped to
4.3, and eventually to 4.1 by 1988. (Economic Report of the
President, January, 1993)
-In 1981, the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, the top 5% of
wage earners paid 35% of federal income taxes, while the bottom
50% paid 8%. By 1988, the end of Reagan’s presidency, the top
5% paid 46% of the federal taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 6%
(Joint Economic Committee, 1990) A rising tide lifts all boats.

-20 million new jobs were created during the Reagan presidency
(U.S. Statistical Abstract)
Of these 20 million new jobs:
-The average hourly wage was $10/hr.
-46.1% were over $28,048/yr, and another 46.2% were from
$7,012-$28,048/yr, while only 6% were under $7,012/yr.

-During the Carter administration (1977-80), of the new jobs
created, 41,77% were under $7,012, 68.2% were in the $7,012-
$28,048/yr bracket, and 9.9% of the pre-existing jobs in the
$28,048 and up bracket were actually lost (Joint Economic
Committee, based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor)

I never said Iran/Contra made people fell better, but getting the hostages home was the right thing to do. According to the special prosecutor, Reagan was found not involved in any wrong-doing.
-Lawrence Welsh, special prosecutor of the Iran-Contra scandal,
concluded that Ronald Reagan was not responsible for any
deflection of funds to the Contras or otherwise (D’Souza,
Ronald Reagan…p. 204)

The Russians don't keep their word and only negotiate what's in their best interest, not ours. Putin is an old Cold warrior. They won't reduce their nuclear arsenal and we'll never be able to verify it anyway. Also, as firstdown mentioned, Zelaya was trying to seize more power in violation of the Honduran constitution, courts and congress. The coup was approved by the other branches of the Honduran gov't.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Oh yeah? What company out there? I work at W&L... maybe five minutes from the interstate.

TransCore, the contractor that handles the EZ Pass system for VDOT.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

What's weak my friend, is your analysis here. Reagan cut taxes and allowed the free market to work, Obama is increasing taxes and increasing gov't control/intervention in the economy. This economic strategy does not improve an economy. Instead of spending $ 4 per week on the Mega Millions lottery, I'll spend $ 400 per week and maybe, just maybe, I'll win.

You're back to ideology and we done beat that horse to death. One would hope you realize however that you're evaluating Reagan not at a specific time frame (i.e. 1981) but for the entire duration of his presidency (see usage of 80s in your numbers) and that you would offer the same courtesy to this new administration. It is not gentlemanly to label him a failure this early.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's some facts about the economy under Reagan:
-During the Reagan presidency, an average of 1.7 million jobs
per year were created, as opposed to only 1.2 million jobs per
year from 1990-95 (Cato Institute Analysis No.261; Economic
Report of the President, 1996)

It would be interesting to compare job creation over the entire period of Clinton's presidency to that of Reagan.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-When Reagan took office the unemployment rate was 7.6%. When he
left office the unemployment rate was 5.5% (Cato Institute
Analysis No.261; Economic Report of the President, 1996)
-Charitable contributions increased 57% during the 80s, from $65
billion in 1980 to $100 million in 1989 (American Enterprise,
Sept-Oct ’91)

This information means nothing in the absence to relative comparison (say, charitable giving increase during Carter and Clinton years). Charitable giving for 2008 is estimated to be ~300 billion. How did we perform during the Clinton years?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-The rate of U.S. manufacturing productivity tripled during the
1980s (U.S. Commerce Department)
-The Stock Market rose from 777 to 3,000 points during Reagan’s
presidency, even after the crash of 1987. (Almanac of U.S.
History)

Where are you getting your info from? Can you qualify what you're referencing? Are you talking about the DJI or are you just cutting and pasting info from the inter-web? Assuming you're talking about the DJI, when Reagan came in it was sitting at 867.15 and when he left it was 1,936.34. Contrast this with 3,254.03 when Clinton came in and 11,489.36 when he left (353% increase for Billyboy vs 223% for RR).

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-The national deficit was approx. 2.6% of the U.S. GNP when
Reagan entered office, and only 2.8% of the GNP when he left
(Congressional Budget Office) All while bankrupting and bringing down the Soviet Union.
-Middle class families earning between $20,000-$50,000/year had
a 28% growth in net worth during Reagan’s time in office
(National Review, April 18, 1994)
-Inflation went down during Reagan’s time in office. In 1980 the
CPI (Consumer Price Index) was 13.5, and in 1984 it dropped to
4.3, and eventually to 4.1 by 1988. (Economic Report of the
President, January, 1993)
-In 1981, the beginning of Reagan’s presidency, the top 5% of
wage earners paid 35% of federal income taxes, while the bottom
50% paid 8%. By 1988, the end of Reagan’s presidency, the top
5% paid 46% of the federal taxes, while the bottom 50% paid 6%
(Joint Economic Committee, 1990) A rising tide lifts all boats.

It would be nice to see comparison to the Clinton years. All this tells me is what happened during his presidency not why his presidency is remarkable.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

-20 million new jobs were created during the Reagan presidency
(U.S. Statistical Abstract)
Of these 20 million new jobs:
-The average hourly wage was $10/hr.
-46.1% were over $28,048/yr, and another 46.2% were from
$7,012-$28,048/yr, while only 6% were under $7,012/yr.

-During the Carter administration (1977-80), of the new jobs
created, 41,77% were under $7,012, 68.2% were in the $7,012-
$28,048/yr bracket, and 9.9% of the pre-existing jobs in the
$28,048 and up bracket were actually lost (Joint Economic
Committee, based on data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor)

See if you can spot what's wrong with the above (there is more than one doggy thing in there).

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I never said Iran/Contra made people fell better, but getting the hostages home was the right thing to do. According to the special prosecutor, Reagan was found not involved in any wrong-doing.
-Lawrence Welsh, special prosecutor of the Iran-Contra scandal,
concluded that Ronald Reagan was not responsible for any
deflection of funds to the Contras or otherwise (D’Souza,
Ronald Reagan…p. 204)

You don't have to say that, you implied that the means are inconsequential so long as they're home. He might have been absolved of any wrong doing but that doesn't mean shady shit didn't go down. I understand though, he had to do what he had to do the first time around and the second time around. It's kinda sad though you don't give him any flack for signing the Algiers Accords and "capitulating" and "weakening the U.S."

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The Russians don't keep their word and only negotiate what's in their best interest, not ours. Putin is an old Cold warrior. They won't reduce their nuclear arsenal and we'll never be able to verify it anyway. Also, as firstdown mentioned, Zelaya was trying to seize more power in violation of the Honduran constitution, courts and congress. The coup was approved by the other branches of the Honduran gov't.

Your boy RR helped create Osama Bin Laden but I don't see you mention this information anywhere when you blame Clinton. You're still on that cold war shit, people done moved on brother. That war has been won long ago and you don't need to be spending 50% of your budget on your military (see F-22 Wasteful). I'm no Zelaya fan but the entire world can't be wrong. You'll note that he wasn't impeached but removed based on a secret order from their Supreme Court. There's also the assumption that he is more corrupt than their other elect officials including their supreme court justices.


My father always told me to be honest in my workmanship because not doing so tends yields doggy results.


p.s. When you want to battle for real next time bring out the big guns.

[12thMan]

I just love how every international and domestic crisis is a reflection of President Obama's perceived strength or weakness and requires immediate U.S. intervention. Take for instance the North Korean vessel recently suspected of carrying small arms and other illicit weapons. That same ship, Kang Nam, has now returned to North Korea without docking or unloading it's materials in a foreign port. Yet that developement has flown under the radar and those same critics, who blasted the president for not being "tougher", are nowhere to be heard from now that it appears that the U.N. Resolution had more bite than some had originally thought.

My point is this, if we're going to critique the president or Sarah Palin for that matter, afterall this is a Palin to resign thread, let's be fair and balanced, as one of my favorite networks likes to say. Where the president is wrong, he should be held accountable and taken to task. And where he's shown sound judgement early on, there's no crime in acknowledging that.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're back to ideology and we done beat that horse to death. One would hope you realize however that you're evaluating Reagan not at a specific time frame (i.e. 1981) but for the entire duration of his presidency (see usage of 80s in your numbers) and that you would offer the same courtesy to this new administration. It is not gentlemanly to label him a failure this early.

You are absolutely correct about labeling the Obama Admin. We will not know if it's a success or failure until it's complete and we have a chance to review. However, the policies he's currently pursuing have historically been negative on an economy. I don't have time right now to post multiple links supporting this.

It would be interesting to compare job creation over the entire period of Clinton's presidency to that of Reagan.

This isn't a Reagan vs. Clinton issue. You were challenging Reagan's deficit spending and essentially his economic policies. IMO it isn't a point for debate that Reagan's policies resulted in helping the economy along to a great period of prosperity after the failed Carter Admin.

It's kinda sad though you don't give him any flack for signing the Algiers Accords and "capitulating" and "weakening the U.S."

Reagan had a great deal of time to evaluate and put his stamp on this agreement??? His inauguration was on Jan. 20, 1981. This agreement was primarily brokered by Warren Christopher, Deputy Sec of State under Carter.

Your boy RR helped create Osama Bin Laden but I don't see you mention this information anywhere when you blame Clinton.

funding Bin Laden and other rebel groups fighting the Soviets was part of the strategy that defeated the Soviet Union. (My enemy's enemy is my friend). Once any of these groups turned to terrorism against the U.S. they become our enemy and must be eliminated, Clinton didn't do that.

You're still on that cold war shit, people done moved on brother.

Putin hasn't.

That war has been won long ago and you don't need to be spending 50% of your budget on your military (see F-22 Wasteful).

I've worked in DoD contracting for several years and agree our defense budget can be reduced. However, slashing advanced weapons systems development is a mistake, it is our technology that make us the strongest military the world has ever seen and I go to sleep at night with no fear from invasion or attack by a foreign nation because we have by far the biggest stick.

YouTube - Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men

1:14 - 1:25 LOL

I'm no Zelaya fan but the entire world can't be wrong.

The OAS can be, it's currently a puppet organization controlled by Hugo Chavez.

My father always told me to be honest in my workmanship because not doing so tends yields doggy results.

Your father is a wise man.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I just love how every international and domestic crisis is a reflection of President Obama's perceived strength or weakness and requires immediate U.S. intervention. Take for instance the North Korean vessel recently suspected of carrying small arms and other illicit weapons. That same ship, Kang Nam, has now returned to North Korea without docking or unloading it's materials in a foreign port. Yet that developement has flown under the radar and those same critics, who blasted the president for not being "tougher", are nowhere to be heard from now that it appears that the U.N. Resolution had more bite than some had originally thought.

My point is this, if we're going to critique the president or Sarah Palin for that matter, afterall this is a Palin to resign thread, let's be fair and balanced, as one of my favorite networks likes to say. Where the president is wrong, he should be held accountable and taken to task. And where he's shown sound judgement early on, there's no crime in acknowledging that.

The thread has veered off a bit, sorry about that. But to your point, while I disagree with VP Biden on most things he was correct in his assessment prior to the election that there would be a foreign policy crisis early on that would be a challenge to Obama. The N. Korean situation is most certainly either a test to Obama or a display for potential arms buyers.

I hadn't researched the UN Resolution on N. Korean arms shipments thoroughly. The resolution states that the ship must be docked before it can be boarded and inspected, stopping the ship on the high seas is not in the resolution. So the Obama Admin did the correct thing in shadowing the ship and not stopping the ship while at sea. However, I stand by my position on the missle tests.

Another point I forgot to credit the Obama Admin on was the handling of the Somali pirate situation. Well done.

To be fair and balanced, the Bush Admin got crapped on by N. Korea also. And while N. Korea is near Russia, it's probably not within Palin's foreign policy grasp because it's not right across the Bering Strait and can't be seen from her back porch.

[MTK]

I'll take this a little further off course.

Biden was in my area yesterday speaking. I got caught up in his motorcade taking him back to the airport. I was heading north, they had the entire southbound side of the highway closed off, choppers in the air, cops everywhere, and every overpass closed off. I thought there was some sort of mega accident going on until I saw the motorcade racing down the highway. I waved but I guess he didn't see me.

Pretty cool, not something you see around here every day.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You are absolutely correct about labeling the Obama Admin. We will not know if it's a success or failure until it's complete and we have a chance to review. However, the policies he's currently pursuing have historically been negative on an economy. I don't have time right now to post multiple links supporting this.
This isn't a Reagan vs. Clinton issue. You were challenging Reagan's deficit spending and essentially his economic policies. IMO it isn't a point for debate that Reagan's policies resulted in helping the economy along to a great period of prosperity after the failed Carter Admin.

Reagan had a great deal of time to evaluate and put his stamp on this agreement??? His inauguration was on Jan. 20, 1981. This agreement was primarily brokered by Warren Christopher, Deputy Sec of State under Carter.

funding Bin Laden and other rebel groups fighting the Soviets was part of the strategy that defeated the Soviet Union. (My enemy's enemy is my friend). Once any of these groups turned to terrorism against the U.S. they become our enemy and must be eliminated, Clinton didn't do that.

Putin hasn't.

I've worked in DoD contracting for several years and agree our defense budget can be reduced. However, slashing advanced weapons systems development is a mistake, it is our technology that make us the strongest military the world has ever seen and I go to sleep at night with no fear from invasion or attack by a foreign nation because we have by far the biggest stick.

YouTube - Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men

1:14 - 1:25 LOL

The OAS can be, it's currently a puppet organization controlled by Hugo Chavez.

Your father is a wise man.

1. And you're post made several comparison to other administration and on top of that you knocked Obama's deficit spending in another post. I just want some fair and balance (not the Fox kind of course) .
2. If RR didn't have time to evaluate and put his stamp of approval on Algiers Accords why the hell does he get credit form you for freeing the hostages? Gotchya!!!
3. I see that you don't want to give your boy RR any Osama credit but deep down we all know he done f'ed up too. You can't cover shit with chocolate and call it chocolate fondue.
4. What has Putin done to demonstrate his cold war stripes?
5. Sleep tight my friend...1 trillion dollars in military spending does warm the cockles of a man's heart. I wonder how the Swedes sleep.
6. OAS is the new ACORN? Come on, Chavez might be the most vocal member the right wing knows about but the member with the biggest pull is us. We don't fund it and host host it for altruistic reasons.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The thread has veered off a bit, sorry about that. But to your point, while I disagree with VP Biden on most things he was correct in his assessment prior to the election that there would be a foreign policy crisis early on that would be a challenge to Obama. The N. Korean situation is most certainly either a test to Obama or a display for potential arms buyers.

I hadn't researched the UN Resolution on N. Korean arms shipments thoroughly. The resolution states that the ship must be docked before it can be boarded and inspected, stopping the ship on the high seas is not in the resolution. So the Obama Admin did the correct thing in shadowing the ship and not stopping the ship while at sea. However, I stand by my position on the missle tests.

Another point I forgot to credit the Obama Admin on was the handling of the Somali pirate situation. Well done.

To be fair and balanced, the Bush Admin got crapped on by N. Korea also. And while N. Korea is near Russia, it's probably not within Palin's foreign policy grasp because it's not right across the Bering Strait and can't be seen from her back porch.

I can live with that assessment.

As far as the resolution goes, Japan is trying to authorize its coastguard to inspect North Korean ships in line with a UN resolution. Basically, they could inspect ships both on the high seas and in Japanese waters. However, inspectors would first be required to get approval from the captain of any ship targeted and from its country of origin.

As far as the missle launches go, what else can we do. Put Kim Jong in timeout? Unless we actually shoot down one of their missles, which is highly unlikely, I don't see what other viable options are on the table.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

If RR didn't have time to evaluate and put his stamp of approval on Algiers Accords why the hell does he get credit form you for freeing the hostages? Gotchya!!!

Wrong - The Iranians knew Reagan would bring the full military might of the U.S. to bear to secure the release of the hostages, that's why they completed the deal with the Carter Admin.

from wiki: However, special ops personnel involved in the preparations for the second rescue attempt believed that incoming President Ronald Reagan was involved in the planning and timing of the second rescue attempt, and that these intentions were either implied or made known to the de facto Iranian government, leading to the hostages' release just minutes after Reagan's inauguration, and it is widely believed that Reagan capitalized on the "trigger happy" reputation he had been lambasted with during the 1980 campaign and used it to lead the Iranian leadership to believe that if they didn't release the hostages immediately upon his inauguration, Reagan's first act as President would be to bomb Iran's oil facilities, the main source of their nation's revenue, out of existence. [72][73]

- I see that you don't want to give your boy RR any Osama credit but deep down we all know he done f'ed up too.

Wrong again - I did state that Reagan provided funding for Bin Laden and other rebels/terrorist organizations and the reasons for that funding. We just disagree on whether it was a mistake or not.

- What has Putin done to demonstrate his cold war stripes?

You may want to read this, particularly the Presidency - Second Term section. You don't change a leopard's spots.

Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Sleep tight my friend...1 trillion dollars in military spending does warm the cockles of a man's heart. I wonder how the Swedes sleep.

The actual DOD Budget is below: $653B, much of it for paying our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and Operations / Maintenance. I know where you're coming up with the additional 300+B, but securing our nuclear arsenal and providing medical care to our veterans sure isn't on the same lines as "more bombs" and F-22s (which I agree is a waste with the F-35 on the horizon).

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...et/defense.pdf

And I'm sure the Swedes sleeep pretty damn good knowing we are spending $ 653B and will come to save their hind-quarters if the Soviets or some other world power decides to get stupid.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'll take this a little further off course.

Biden was in my area yesterday speaking. I got caught up in his motorcade taking him back to the airport. I was heading north, they had the entire southbound side of the highway closed off, choppers in the air, cops everywhere, and every overpass closed off. I thought there was some sort of mega accident going on until I saw the motorcade racing down the highway. I waved but I guess he didn't see me.

Pretty cool, not something you see around here every day.

I grew up just outside of that area, and Shenandoah High (where Biden spoke) was in the high school athletic conference my high school was in. At least in the 1980's, Shenandoah was the beast of the conference. During my senior year, they beat us 40-0 in football. Of course, we only won 1 single game that year, so the score said as much about us as it did about them.

[saden1]

Damn, I thought I was brutal but Peggy Noonan done murked her.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

I grew up just outside of that area, and Shenandoah High (where Biden spoke) was in the high school athletic conference my high school was in. At least in the 1980's, Shenandoah was the beast of the conference. During my senior year, they beat us 40-0 in football. Of course, we only won 1 single game that year, so the score said as much about us as it did about them.

What HS did you go to?

Shen usually fields very good football teams. Their school history is pretty impressive

288 Wins 71 Losses 4 Ties

24 League Championships

10 Super Bowl Championships

8 Undefeated Seasons

Ranked # 1 in New York State 3 Times

Ranked in the Top Ten of New York State 17 Times