It's Still A Pig

[know1]

I've said this before, but I can make it really simple.

Vote out all incumbents every election. After 2 or 3 cycles of that, Politicians will know their only choice is to run on public service.

[Bonefish]

Truly, the news media has the power to steal elections. That was what happened in 2012. Media bias payed big dividends with their coverage of candidates. When they hide failures, praise accomplishments and discredit the opposition, the media can easily influence an election. They are the BIG BULLIE GIANTS with pulsating arteries running throughout politics.

[DJD]

Truly, the news media has the power to steal elections. That was what happened in 2012. Media bias payed big dividends with their coverage of candidates. When they hide failures, praise accomplishments and discredit the opposition, the media can easily influence an election. They are the BIG BULLIE GIANTS with pulsating arteries running throughout politics.

So true......it's become a joke. We need a third party that actually puts a viable option out there for all liberals, conservatives and independents to choose from. It would help get the attention of the crooks we have now.

[GeoFisher]

I've said this before, but I can make it really simple.

Vote out all incumbents every election. After 2 or 3 cycles of that, Politicians will know their only choice is to run on public service.

I don't like that as a BLANKET idea. Incumbents that do a good job should stay........

The blanket statement vote out incumbents is about as bad as vote straight ticket, if you ask me.

BUT I do believe that we should have term limits.

Simply voting out the incumbents essentially means you switch the party for that seat, unless you also mean vote out the incumbents, but if you like their viewpoints, try really hard to vote in the right person in the primaries, otherwise, you get SOCIALIST ********, much like we have today.

I like the premise though.

Later,

Geo

[Hlleonard]

I don't like that as a BLANKET idea. Incumbents that do a good job should stay........

The blanket statement vote out incumbents is about as bad as vote straight ticket, if you ask me.

BUT I do believe that we should have term limits.

Simply voting out the incumbents essentially means you switch the party for that seat, unless you also mean vote out the incumbents, but if you like their viewpoints, try really hard to vote in the right person in the primaries, otherwise, you get SOCIALIST ********, much like we have today.

I like the premise though.

Later,

Geo

--
Hmmm.. lets see.... vote in the right people

voted in Reagan............. tripled the debt
voted in George bush Jr....doubled the debt

Yeah, we pretty much had that going in the right direction.

[waterdog101]

--
Hmmm.. lets see.... vote in the right people

voted in Reagan............. tripled the debt
voted in George bush Jr....doubled the debt

Yeah, we pretty much had that going in the right direction.

where is the LIKE button ? I remember old TRICKLE down, and Bush junior, who in the USA could ever live long enough to forget him. after junior had his say, there wasn't anything left to Trickle down.


In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

[Hlleonard]

where is the LIKE button ? I remember old TRICKLE down, and Bush junior, who in the USA could ever live long enough to forget him. after junior had his say, there wasn't anything left to Trickle down.


In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

--
I don't understand why the right wing latches onto Ronald Reagan to hold up as their saint... looking at his budgetary legacy you would think they calling themselves conservatives would have the opposite opinion... I suspect beings you didn't post a link so they can call it bogus because of where it came from they will automatically disbelieve it so their opinion of him won't be tainted.

[kygorski]

The question in the supreme court about limitless campaign donations isn't even drawing any media interest. One particular party believes its right to buy the government.

[roadrunner]

where is the LIKE button ? I remember old TRICKLE down, and Bush junior, who in the USA could ever live long enough to forget him. after junior had his say, there wasn't anything left to Trickle down.


In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...conomic-record I remember the Carter years well we were in terrible shape gas lines 18% interest Iran hostage situation. Reagan turned this around in a heart beat and started the longest economic expansion in our history and he built the military back to the levels we needed. I remember everyone was critical of his Russian policy because he would not talk to them until he built up his military and then he could speak from a position of power and he ended the cold war. Greatest president of my life time.

[Hlleonard]

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...conomic-record I remember the Carter years well we were in terrible shape gas lines 18% interest Iran hostage situation. Reagan turned this around in a heart beat and started the longest economic expansion in our history and he built the military back to the levels we needed. I remember everyone was critical of his Russian policy because he would not talk to them until he built up his military and then he could speak from a position of power and he ended the cold war. Greatest president of my life time.

--
And the beginning of the economical disaster we have today.

[GeoFisher]

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...conomic-record I remember the Carter years well we were in terrible shape gas lines 18% interest Iran hostage situation. Reagan turned this around in a heart beat and started the longest economic expansion in our history and he built the military back to the levels we needed. I remember everyone was critical of his Russian policy because he would not talk to them until he built up his military and then he could speak from a position of power and he ended the cold war. Greatest president of my life time.

It is amazing how lefties try to paint a different picture. I also remember the Carter Years. and LONG LINES. I was a kid, but I remember the grumblings of my UAW Union working family, who BTW voted for Reagan overwhelmingly.

Reagan kicked the **** out of the economy, brought jobs back, and put America on solid ground around the world.

Also remember, the peanut farmer practically destroyed America, and Reagan in his first day of office sent a pretty serious message to those sum bitch RADICALS in Iran, didn't he.

I seem to remember both Bush's sending significant messages to those RADICALS.

What kind of message did Clinton and your poster boy Obama send. Lets see........Clinton asked the Ammadinna NUT JOB if Monica could "help him out".

AND Obama sent him a big ole bag of DOPE, and then gave him a pass on building whatever NUKES he wanted.

NO THANKS........I will take the "RIGHT" leaners any day. At least the love America, and her Troops. Can't say the same thing for Obama, Clinton or the worse president in American History.......Carter.

Later,

Geo

[Hlleonard]

All you guys who seem to think adding 8 trillion dollars to the debt since 1980 doesn't make a difference, you need to quit whining about the present administration because if debt don't matter then it don't matter and if it does matter then the right wing owns way too much of it to call themselves conservatives... You started giving up that status when Ronald Reagan was elected.... Now you are just noise and not much more.