PDA

View Full Version : Obama Schooled by Reagan.



Sev
08-21-2011, 08:43 AM
This is pretty good. I got some good laughs out of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBXQhs6kwYc&feature=youtu.be

Soflasnapper
08-21-2011, 02:30 PM
Fundamentally fraudulent, in showing Obama advocating for socialism.

Unintentionally ironic, in that Reagan's final quote is a lift from Gerald Ford, whom he opposed in the primary all the way into the convention as someone who needed to be defeated.

Sev
08-21-2011, 03:25 PM
Well if Obama telling Joe the Plumber that we need to "spread the wealth around", isnt advocating socialism I dont know what is.

LWW
08-22-2011, 01:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fundamentally fraudulent, in showing Obama advocating for socialism.</div></div>

Technically correct as what Obama actually advocates is a fascist economic system ...

LWW
08-22-2011, 02:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unintentionally ironic, in that Reagan's final quote is a lift from Gerald Ford, whom he opposed in the primary all the way into the convention as someone who needed to be defeated. </div></div>

What is truly ironic is that you actually thought you had a serious rebuttal, based on a false "TRUTH" ... Barry Goldwater is the first modern candidate known to have used the statement. But the quote originated with Colonel, and congressman from Tennessee, David Crockett.

Reagan and many others have used the line ... sometimes properly attributed, sometimes not.

All you have demonstrated ... not that anyone had any doubt ... is that you will rush to defend dear leader whenever he is criticized.

The lone exception being the rare instance that he isn't being quite moonbat crazy enough.

eg8r
08-22-2011, 11:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fundamentally fraudulent, in showing Obama advocating for socialism.

</div></div>Fundamentally blinded if you actually think Obama does not advocate socialism. While the phrase "actions speak louder than words" one could conclude I was incorrect but then you would not be looking at the whole picture. All that phrase really tells us is that Obama has no spine to fight for what he said he would do.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-22-2011, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well if Obama telling Joe the Plumber that we need to "spread the wealth around", isnt advocating socialism I dont know what is. </div></div>

Ok, I agree, you have shown you don't know what 'socialism' or 'advocating socialism' is.

Let me ask you what trickle down, or the 'rising tide lifts all boats,' really means.

It means exactly that by improving the income or wealth of the 'producers' (the top income people) their enhanced income or wealth will create a better economic condition for those lower on the income/wealth ladder, BECAUSE that money will move around the economy.

That's the supply-side, conservative view of the best way to enhance economic prosperity. Once the top people get more, it flows through to those lower on the scale, by the purchases of the top people, and the investments they make, which create jobs. This theory would be wholly implausible, except for this exactly same mechanism discussed, that the money does NOT stop forever at the banks of the top earners, but is spread around by their economic reaction to having more wealth or income.

Soflasnapper
08-22-2011, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unintentionally ironic, in that Reagan's final quote is a lift from Gerald Ford, whom he opposed in the primary all the way into the convention as someone who needed to be defeated. </div></div>

What is truly ironic is that you actually thought you had a serious rebuttal, based on a false "TRUTH" ... Barry Goldwater is the first modern candidate known to have used the statement. But the quote originated with Colonel, and congressman from Tennessee, David Crockett.

Reagan and many others have used the line ... sometimes properly attributed, sometimes not.

All you have demonstrated ... not that anyone had any doubt ... is that you will rush to defend dear leader whenever he is criticized.

The lone exception being the rare instance that he isn't being quite moonbat crazy enough. </div></div>

I don't think mentioning an unintentional irony is in any way any kind of serious rebuttal.

Nor is mentioning what I think is ironic (which may or may not be ironic) a defense of Obama, given that it was a jab at Reagan's lifting of the line from his hated opponent, who was thought so insufficiently conservative that Reagan fought him even through past the start of the nomination convention.

It was at that very convention that Ford closed his acceptance speech with this line, IIRC. (Might have been in the debate(s?) with Carter, however, can't be sure.)

In any case, what you mention shows President Ford probably the first president to ever enunciate the views associated with these conservative icons.

Yet, undoubtedly, in your mind he's a statist like all the rest, and in Reagan's mind, he was some kind of closet liberal leftie with far from sufficient conservative ideology.

Soflasnapper
08-22-2011, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unintentionally ironic, in that Reagan's final quote is a lift from Gerald Ford, whom he opposed in the primary all the way into the convention as someone who needed to be defeated. </div></div>

What is truly ironic is that you actually thought you had a serious rebuttal, based on a false "TRUTH" ... Barry Goldwater is the first modern candidate known to have used the statement. But the quote originated with Colonel, and congressman from Tennessee, David Crockett.

Reagan and many others have used the line ... sometimes properly attributed, sometimes not.</div></div>

Perhaps you've gotten that wrong. At least, here's a source saying Ford said this first:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation)

The following statement, or variations thereof, is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

We have never found such a statement in Jefferson's writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford, who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[1]</div></div>

Link (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation)

WikiQuotes said it is a MISATTRIBUTION to both Reagan and Goldwater, and that the first person to say it was...

Gerald Ford.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Misattributed

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Attributed to Reagan from informal remarks to reporters 10 October 1984,and to students and faculty at St. John's University 28 March 1985.[citation needed] The statement was made a decade earlier by Gerald Ford in an address to a Joint Session of the Congress, 12 August 1974. It is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.

Variant: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.

Similar assertions have often been attributed to Barry Goldwater. Some of the inspiration for such expressions may lie in "The Criminality of the State" by Albert Jay Nock in American Mercury (March 1939) where he stated: "You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you."
</div></div>

Reagan's quotes from Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan)

Gayle in MD
08-22-2011, 01:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unintentionally ironic, in that Reagan's final quote is a lift from Gerald Ford, whom he opposed in the primary all the way into the convention as someone who needed to be defeated. </div></div>

What is truly ironic is that you actually thought you had a serious rebuttal, based on a false "TRUTH" ... Barry Goldwater is the first modern candidate known to have used the statement. But the quote originated with Colonel, and congressman from Tennessee, David Crockett.

Reagan and many others have used the line ... sometimes properly attributed, sometimes not.</div></div>

Perhaps you've gotten that wrong. At least, here's a source saying Ford said this first:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Government big enough to give you everything you want...(Quotation)

The following statement, or variations thereof, is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

We have never found such a statement in Jefferson's writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford, who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[1]</div></div>

Link (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation)

WikiQuotes said it is a MISATTRIBUTION to both Reagan and Goldwater, and that the first person to say it was...

Gerald Ford.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Misattributed

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Attributed to Reagan from informal remarks to reporters 10 October 1984,and to students and faculty at St. John's University 28 March 1985.[citation needed] The statement was made a decade earlier by Gerald Ford in an address to a Joint Session of the Congress, 12 August 1974. It is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.

Variant: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.

Similar assertions have often been attributed to Barry Goldwater. Some of the inspiration for such expressions may lie in "The Criminality of the State" by Albert Jay Nock in American Mercury (March 1939) where he stated: "You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you."
</div></div>

Reagan's quotes from Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) </div></div>


Tap Tap Tap!!!!

Hoisted AGAIN!

You'd think they'd know better than to continue writing their lies on here, proving their ignorance, when you, and Q., are both, obviously, so good at proving them wrong!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Keep up the good work!


Interesting article, by a conservative, who unlike some, admit that his own Party, was the Party which pushed us into this socialistic trend....

This President, is now left with the hard work of finding the right mix, and all with no help or responsibility from the Repiglicans who created all of the disasters which he inherited!

G.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We Are All Socialists Now
Feb 6, 2009 7:00 PM EST

Jon Meacham

In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.




The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.



</div></div>


http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/jon-meacham.html

Soflasnapper
08-22-2011, 04:22 PM
I noticed the attribution is to Ford's address to a joint assembly of Congress, probably right after he acceded to the presidency.

I still think he may have reprised the line in the nomination convention acceptance speech, but of course it wouldn't be attributed as the first time he said it at that time, even if that is so.

LWW
08-23-2011, 03:32 AM
Pay close attention ... D-A-V-Y C-R-O-C-K-E-T-T

LWW
08-23-2011, 03:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well if Obama telling Joe the Plumber that we need to "spread the wealth around", isnt advocating socialism I dont know what is. </div></div>

Ok, I agree, you have shown you don't know what 'socialism' or 'advocating socialism' is.</div></div>

As if you actually knew.

Socialism, communism, and fascism as economic models differ only in the lie they tell to justify their crimes.

Soflasnapper
08-23-2011, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pay close attention ... D-A-V-Y C-R-O-C-K-E-T-T </div></div>

I found some 'attributions' of this to him, I agree, but none that really 'attributed' it to him (as in, what writings or in which speech was this said).

Since it is elsewhere agreed by multiple authorities that it did in fact originate with Ford, and the occasion was cited, it seems rather the case that the Crockett attribution was wrong, just as the attribution to Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, and Goldwater have been made, but falsely.

Or else, WHEN did he allegedly say it, and with what evidence?