Chris Matthews: Obama Deserves Credit For “This Amazing Economy”

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

Every single "Conservative" runs as a Republican.

Every Republican says he believes in "Conservative" principles.

"Conservatives" donate millions of dollars to the Republican party.

"Conservative's" almost always vote Republican.

Not true to the whole mess above. You really don't know any true conservatives then. I am sorry that your generalizations are shown to be wrong. but maybe you had better learn what a conservative is before making them.

That may not be possible, OW.

When given a list of government issues and told to declare what the liberal/progressive solution would be, most conservatives can accurately state the liberal position on any given issue, and why they take that position.

When the same is done to liberals - very few can accurately state what the true conservative position is on any given issue. Of those who can state what the conservative POV is, very few of these know why conservatives hold their position.

Liberals used to be known for knowing all sides to the issue, then being able to back their POV with a decent amount of reason. Today's liberal, in most cases, not only does not know what the opposing perspectives are, they willfully forgo investigating it - most I meet aren't even interested in anything other than repeating their own talking points.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Interesting points Ted.

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Do not conflate being conservative with being "Republican".

Every single "Conservative" runs as a Republican.

Every Republican says he believes in "Conservative" principles.

"Conservatives" donate millions of dollars to the Republican party.

"Conservative's" almost always vote Republican.

Pardon me if I conflate./

Quote:

You may conflate as you wish, but it is ignorance to how the Republican party operates and the meaningful options open to conservatives for representation in this government. As OW said above - you don't appear to have a clue as to what a conservative really is, nor what they really think. If I must infer from your past posting, I must further say I see little evidence of a true desire on your part to investigate this for yourself. Most of your political posts have been rather routine Huffington Post talking points.

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

Where do you get that figure from? If the conservative movement is so large why is it so impotent.

Once a political class is established' date=' it is easy to format party rules as to lock out the majority opinion. I need only to point to the past Republican convention's electoral vote rules shift, the party's effort to keep the conservative and libertarian wings subservient to the Rockefeller elites. Here in Texas, conservative delegates rule the party ONLY at the local/municipal levels. At the state level, though, conservatives get in ONLY if they will remain subservient to the party elite. At the national level - forget it.

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

Problem is that Rand Paul will eventually do something that even "conservatives" don't like, much like his father.

Haven't really paid much attention to Ted Cruz to comment.

Actually, Rand is much more pragmatic than his idealistic father. Ron Paul is more libertarian than he is conservative. Rand Paul is would much more likely lead conservatives out to form a true conservative political party than simply bolt to the Libertarian party.

Haven't paid attention to Ted Cruz? With him being so vilified in the media over the last couple of months?

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Commentators, Laz? Show me one media commentator who is truly conservative, that hasn't been vilified and pronounced as not being part of the professional media.

How about Rush, Hannity, Prager, Hewiit, Savage et al? Talk radio is dominated by conservatives. George Will? Krauthammer?

Most liberals cannot truthfully articulate Rush's position on any given issue. Take for instance, the spending of $40 Billion/month. Rush is on record decrying deficit spending since the bush presidency. I mean the George H. W. Bush presidency, when he broke his "no new taxes" pledge. When faced with the choice between reducing the government's size and budget, Bush '41 opted to increase our taxes, government's size AND budget. Rush rightfully spoke outrage against this trifecta.

Conservatives know this. Liberals, however, do not. They will not look this up for themselves; they'd rather stay in their nice, warm cocoons and hear what anybody but Rush says about Rush.

Hannity - news analyst for FOX...errr, I mean FAUX News. No need to proceed any farther, even though he also has been outspoken about deficit spending, no matter which party holds the White House.

Prager, Hewitt? Their contributions are mainly on the blogger's world.

Savage? You have never listened to Savage, have you? Likewise, Mike Levin. Both of these two gentlemen have written best selling books which discuss the issue from long before Obama took office.

I might suggest to you to read "Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism" and "Race and Economics", both by Walter E. Williams. He writes with much insight and common sense, and he has a solid grasp of the issues. This gentleman also hosts the Rush Limbaugh Show at times when Rush is away. Thomas Sowell is another good conservative commentator I read when he posts.

Then you mentioned George Will and Charles Krauthammer...both of these men are not considered to be bona fide conservative by conservatives. George is the token "opposing view" against the Left for the NYT, and more often than not fails to articulate the conservative position when he has the opening to - he is much more establishment than conservative, like Kathleen Parker. Charles is part of the Republican establishment - conservative only when he needs to be.

Yes - conservative opinion does dominate talk radio. Conservative talk radio is successful, because people listen to it and buy the products in the advertisement slots. Observers note: talk radio would NOT be so successful IF conservatives held less than a majority view within the population at large.

There are reasons why liberal talk radio has failed everywhere it is tried - outside the televised networks (where people can already hear the liberal POV), there is not enough people in the population at large who agree with the liberal POV to make liberal talk radio run.

If the liberal POV was the majority opinion in the population at large, liberal talk radio would have no problem maintaining a presence in the radio market. Sheer economics tells us that. That they can only do so through the government funded PBS radio station speaks volumes about how liberals must get their message out - they cannot compete on a level playing field.

That's why the constant Democrat mantra - "we just have to get our message out there" is really a false point: America already knows what the liberal message is. Talk radio shows that more Americans prefer to find out what the conservative position is, as they can't get this from either the televised media networks (save from FOX...err, FAUX News) OR from the Republican party.

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

I really don't think the real challenge is the left. I think its corporatism. Corporations don't care about conservative or liberal. They will give money to any politician, group or organization that will do their bidding. The coup d'etat has already taken place. It was in slow motion but it has already happened. IMHO.

We can finally agree on something!!!!!!

You're right - Big corporations really don't care about political opinion or party - they only want a seat at the table of power.

Follow the money, Laz - ALL of the major corporations AND ultra-wealthy line up behind the party they think will win. You think the Republican party is the party of Big Business and the Rich? Just go and investigate where all the contributions from the banking, technology, and investing sectors went to. Wall Street is SOLIDLY backing the Democrats right now, as they will continue the QE money flow and keep their pockets lined.

Yet, if corporatism is the problem...government takeover of corporations (which is either communism or fascism, depending on the extent) is but a bigger problem.

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

BTW: Somewhere you mentioned Reagan. I can't find what thread you posted comments about him. You know he would be "primaried" if he were running these days, right?

Do you really know anything about Reagan and the Republican party of the 70's and '80's?

Reagan ran against the establishment Gerald Ford...and nearly won. Yet...even with the Republican party brand in '76 was decimated by Watergate, Carter did not have a commanding victory.

Reagan ran again in '80, and had to beat the establishment John Anderson in the primaries. Even with Reagan's solid wins for both the nomination and the Presidency, the establishment Republicans were horrified at the conservatives Reagan brought into the fold. The made certain Reagan's running mate would be from the Rockefeller wing; after Bush '41 became President, the Republican party has made significant changes to their operations to make certain another Reagan ever happens again.

Reagan would not be primaried today if alive and running today. More than likely, he would be buried under an onslaught of media criticism as an "extremist", to which the Republican party establishment would simply not answer to...like they have done to several conservative candidates over the last 16 years.

Blessings,

[lazarus]

No need to resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't respond.

I'm quite clear about what conservatives believe but to attempt to so clearly distance yourselves from the GOP when your destinies are so intertwined is making a distinction that has no real or practical impact. The fortunes of "conservatives" are inextricably ties to the fortunes of the GOP

Perhaps what we are about to see is the birth of a "conservative" party. This parallels what is happening in the UK. The UK conservative party is now losing ground to the UKIP party which is generally more right wing. Perhaps Rand Paul will lead conservative out.

So where did you get that 55% figure from? No evidence supplied. One plausible explanation for the conservative movement's impotence could be that it represents perhaps much less of the population that you think. A gallup poll indicates that 40% describe themselves as conservative. My guess is that these are not all Tea Part conservatives judging some of the recent electoral losses.

Quote:

Haven't paid attention to Ted Cruz? With him being so vilified in the media over the last couple of months?

I simply haven't had the time to sit down and listen to one of his speeches or interviews. I've listened to Rand Paul on a number of occasions. His filibuster was great.

Quote:

Savage? You have never listened to Savage, have you?

Your assumptions and prejudices are tripping you up. I used to listen to Michael savage on a regular basis on the way home from church meetings. He's very entertaining, crazy right winger but entertaining, smart and funny. He certainly has more integrity than Rush or Hannity. I consider them to be both shills for the republican party. I'm into Dennis Prager at the moment because he does not limit himself to political topics and is on at a time when I can catch him. Spoken to him a couple of times.

Will post more later. I have to go out.

[OzarkWoman]

Your assumptions and prejudices are tripping you up.

Yes, YOUR assumptions and prejudices are tripping you up all over the place. You can't and won't admit that you don't know what a true conservative is. I bet that you don't even know what a true liberal is either. It really isn't what you all have turned into. Most of the liberals of today are nothing more than socialists running rel hard toward communism. I was a "liberal" way back when, but a JFK liberal, or Democrat if you wish. The fact that the Democrats of today are more than willing to follow a leader that has been proven to be nothing but a liar and someone who does not have the best interest of the country at heart says more than anything than what can come out of their little pea brains.

[joeb]

Quote:

No need to resort to ad hominem attacks when you can't respond.

Says the man who has posted one logical fallacy after another as if they are legitimate arguments.

I would add Freidrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom to the list of books Ted Oplinger recommended. Hayek does an outstanding job of pointing out the deficiences of the socialistic form of government.

I don't see how any honest person, after reading his book, could argue for big government--the form of government that says government knows best and needs to regulate everything. Which is exactly what the political left in this country is pushing.

[lazarus]

I would add hreidrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom to the list of books Ted Oplinger recommended. Hayek does an outstanding job of pointing out the deficiences of the socialistic form of government.

What's socialism got to do with it? Who is talking about socialism?

Quote:

I don't see how any honest person, after reading his book, could argue for big government--the form of government that says government knows best and needs to regulate everything. Which is exactly what the political left in this country is pushing.

Who is arguing for big government on this thread? Do really think the GOP is going to reduce the size of government? Conservatives never will either. Sorry I'm trying to deal with my conflation problem. LOL. The great icon Reagan increased the size of government! Come on brother. If you keep your eyes on the left right thing you'll miss the real show.

[Guest]

There are those within the GOP that are trying to reduce the size of gov't, but it's an uphill battle. Paul Ryan's plan reduces the size and scope of gov't. But your mainstream, establishment GOP-er cares about nothing more than hanging on to their cushy, lucrative, do nothing job. Just like a democrat.

Except John McCain. I'm not sure what he cares about, but it sure isn't conservatism, or smaller gov't.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I would add hreidrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom to the list of books Ted Oplinger recommended. Hayek does an outstanding job of pointing out the deficiences of the socialistic form of government.

What's socialism got to do with it? Who is talking about socialism?

Quote:

I don't see how any honest person, after reading his book, could argue for big government--the form of government that says government knows best and needs to regulate everything. Which is exactly what the political left in this country is pushing.

Who is arguing for big government on this thread? Do really think the GOP is going to reduce the size of government? Conservatives never will either. Sorry I'm trying to deal with my conflation problem. LOL. The great icon Reagan increased the size of government! Come on brother. If you keep your eyes on the left right thing you'll miss the real show.

Yes, I'd recommend that book as well.

Socialism has everything to do with the political Left, Laz, as well as the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party.

As for Reagan...let's just remember a President is not a dictator. Reagan had to work with Democrat Congress for most of his tenure. Surely you do remember your civics where it is the President who proposes the budget, but it is Congress who spends the money and makes the laws - especially as they attach spending riders and earmarks to essential legislation Reagan had to sign - because no one in the press or Congress wanted Reagan to have the line item veto?

He wasn't perfect, but he's a whole lot better than the mess of self-serving munchkins currently holding all the cards in DC....

Blessings,

[Guest]

He wasn't perfect, but he's a whole lot better than the mess of self-serving munchkins currently holding all the cards in DC....

You ain't NEVER lied!!

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I would add hreidrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom to the list of books Ted Oplinger recommended. Hayek does an outstanding job of pointing out the deficiences of the socialistic form of government.

What's socialism got to do with it? Who is talking about socialism?

Quote:

I don't see how any honest person, after reading his book, could argue for big government--the form of government that says government knows best and needs to regulate everything. Which is exactly what the political left in this country is pushing.

Who is arguing for big government on this thread? Do really think the GOP is going to reduce the size of government? Conservatives never will either. Sorry I'm trying to deal with my conflation problem. LOL. The great icon Reagan increased the size of government! Come on brother. If you keep your eyes on the left right thing you'll miss the real show.

You know, lazarus, you bash conservatives to no end, but don't seem to have even a ghost of an idea as to what you're missing, and what we are opposing.

You're the one constantly bringing Democrat vs Republican into this discussion, and bashing the Republicans, yet you seem to not have a clue as to what the political left in this country stands for, believes in, and is pushing onto this country.

You parrot what the far left says about the founding fathers without fail. Many of your posts are nothing more than rehashes of the stuff posted on sites like Huffington Post, and other sites that are sponsored by George Soros, a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. Yet you cannot see what socialism has to do with any of this. Don't you think it's time you learn?

I'm not trying to insult you, just get through what seems to be a vast amount of ignorance as to the realities of American politics at this time in our history.

If you're open at all to learning read Hayek's book and then look at everything that is being proposed by Obama's administration, and the political left. You'll see the exact parallels. Then we'll talk. If you're not willing to learn anything about what's really going on, well, so long. I'm tired of beating my head against what seems to be a brick wall.

[Guest]

Cut him a little slack, joeb. Try to imagine, and put yourself in his shoes.

[joeb]

Cut him a little slack, joeb. Try to imagine, and put yourself in his shoes.

I did.

[Guest]

I knew you had... :)

[OzarkWoman]

What's socialism got to do with it? Who is talking about socialism?

If we discuss, and that includes you, Obama in any way, then we are discussing socialism. That is what he is all about, though he would be happier with marxism leading into Communism I believe.

[lazarus]

Reagan had to work with Democrat Congress for most of his tenure.

Yep. He wouldn't stand a chance with the Tea Party.

[lazarus]

Then you mentioned George Will and Charles Krauthammer...both of these men are not considered to be bona fide conservative by conservatives.

This view is good news for democrats.

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

ALL of the major corporations AND ultra-wealthy line up behind the party they think will win. You think the Republican party is the party of Big Business and the Rich? Just go and investigate where all the contributions from the banking, technology, and investing sectors went to. Wall Street is SOLIDLY backing the Democrats right now, as they will continue the QE money flow and keep their pockets lined.

Goldman Sachs was solidly behind Romney becasue they knew he would do what they wanted. I'm sure conservatives voted for Romney.

BTW, heard on the radio this week that Ted Cruize's wife is a VP of Goldman Sachs.....LOL.....he looks good and sounds good but watch what he does.

Quote:

Yet, if corporatism is the problem...government takeover of corporations (which is either communism or fascism, depending on the extent) is but a bigger problem.

The problem is the reverse. Corporate take over of government. This has already happened. The coup has already taken place.

Originally Posted By: Lazarus

BTW: Somewhere you mentioned Reagan. I can't find what thread you posted comments about him. You know he would be "primaried" if he were running these days, right?

Quote:

Reagan would not be primaried today if alive and running today.

Lol, Of course he would. That is without doubt.

Do you know what Reagan did on....

Immigration - Amnesty to millions immigrants

Lebanon - hundreds of dead marines and Reagan left.

Raised Taxes

[Guest]

Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.

Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.

I’ve decided to examine Reagan’s Tax Cuts and tax increases in order to set the record straight and end this tomfoolery.

Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what is vital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.

When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically Inflation-adjusted-brackets">across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen. Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.

The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.

Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.

So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.

(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the Capital Gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)

Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent. (Those rates — and brackets — were short lived. By the time Clinton left office, the top marginal rate was back up to 39.6 percent. But you can’t blame Reagan for tax increases that came after his tenure. That’d be like President Obama blaming George W. Bush for tax cuts passed in 2011…)

Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year? I would argue that the two clearly aren’t the same thing — and yet that distinction is seldom made.

So how has this canard advanced to a state where it would demand correction so many years later? Both sides have contributed to advancing this misleading narrative. It’s in nobody’s interest to clarify the distinction — that not all taxes hikes and cuts are equal. Conservatives who oppose all tax hikes (or revenue raisers such as removing deductions) gain little by exposing Reagan’s nuanced approach. Liberals benefit most from the opaqueness — because they can label Reagan a serial tax increaser — while ignoring the broader impact of his work on the federal tax racket.

Facts matter. Reagan’s legacy has been co-opted and mangled by both sides. Yes, he raised taxes. Yes he cut taxes. The real story is how he raised taxes and how he cut them. And the overarching theme is that Reagan dramatically lowered tax rates and broadened the base. He was a reformer willing to make tough decisions. And at the end of the day, his legacy is that of a free market tax cutter. “If you aggregate together all the tax hikes … Reagan was a net tax cutter,” says Americans for Tax Reform’s Ryan Ellis. “I believe that makes him unique in the 20th century Cold War era. (Kennedy’s were passed by Johnson, who later raised taxes to pay for Vietnam).”

Why is it important to set the record straight on this? Because liberals continue to attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting deficit reduction plans along the lines of tit for tat. “We’ll cut spending if you raise taxes.” Looking to history, though, conservatives should be wary of this feint.

Reagan was offered such a deal (a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases) in 1982, and it’s the reason he reluctantly agreed to the largest tax increase of his presidency, the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.“ The Democratic Congress then promptly proceeded to ignore the planned spending cuts. George H.W. Bush encountered the same trick in 1990. It cost him the presidency. The same idea was tossed out last summer — and smartly rejected by the GOP.

President Reagan deserves better than to have his legacy misrepresented. It is healthy for us to properly assess his policies. He came into office amid very difficult times, vowing to restore the American dream. Considering the full body of his work, I’d say that was a mission well accomplished.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/#ixzz2OagjLRV7

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Reagan had to work with Democrat Congress for most of his tenure.

Yep. He wouldn't stand a chance with the Tea Party.

Hate to pop your bubble, but the Tea Party and Reagan would regard each other as a match made in heaven.

Had Reagan enjoyed a House and Senate with Tea Party members, there would have likely been a complete re-vamping of government like has not been seen since the Wilson administration.

Reagan would likely have gotten the military expenditures he wanted, plus a lot of government spending curtailment he wanted but could never hope to have gotten with a Democrat Congress...like welfare reform, consolidation of similar programs, and elimination of several points of waste. Reagan would not be remembered for the deficits the Democrats passed under him, but for surpluses the Tea Party would have forged.

The result would have been the same dissolution of the Soviet Union, but a much more robust economy and leaner government - a much more stable nation.

Blessings,