Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Hey, I was only nineteen at the time and I knew Reagan's economic plan was horseshit. But how does one go all the way back there and knock the Great Communicator off his perch? Does one paint him as malicious? Incompetent? Or simply misled?

In 1980 my mom was a 22yo single parent trying to keep a roof over the heads of herself and my '76 cohort half-sister, the kind of poor person the Reaganites bashed with much malice and ignorant hatred. So the reason my mom's dislike (to put it mildly) of St. Ronnie is pretty clear and justifiable.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Um, I know you have very little faith in other human beings because of the trauma experienced as an adolescent and that if the adolescents who voted for and worked for Obama in 2008 had that same lack of faith, Obama never would have been elected.

Best...

I was won of those young people who worked his ass of for Obama in 2008, only to get stabbed in the back when he showed his Corporate colors.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We-ell, I don't see Obama as either a fiery reformer or a corporate apparatchik. Nor am I particularly unhappy with him. He inherited a godawful mess that didn't just start with Bush II but stems all the way back to Ronald Reagan. A significant part of the country is still trapped in the thrall of Reaganomics and fundamentalism. The more impatient elements of the left are all too eager to give up when they don't immediately get their way in the legislative process.

Our mess started before Reagan. It started with the 1973 oil shock and accelerated with the decline of the Rust Belt through the remainder of the 1970s before Reagan ever took office. Anyone over the age of 40 can probably remember how "Made in Japan" used to bring the same reactions as "Made in China" does today -- disappointment (if not disgust) about cheap businesses sending jobs overseas. This was well before Reagan's presidency.

Don't get me wrong; I think Reaganism accelerated the race to the bottom for middle/working class labor. But I don't think for a second that it *started* only when he took office, and I don't think for a second it wouldn't have still happened (albeit possibly more slowly) had he not been president.

Seriously, so many folks on this board act as though the path to Social Darwinism and the decline of the middle class began on January 20, 1981. It was starting well before then. But that doesn't make for good political sound bites. I say this not in defense of Reagan but simply as what I view as a reality check.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Our mess started before Reagan. It started with the 1973 oil shock and accelerated with the decline of the Rust Belt through the remainder of the 1970s before Reagan ever took office. Anyone over the age of 40 can probably remember how "Made in Japan" used to bring the same reactions as "Made in China" does today -- disappointment (if not disgust) about cheap businesses sending jobs overseas. This was well before Reagan's presidency.

Don't get me wrong; I think Reaganism accelerated the race to the bottom for middle/working class labor. But I don't think for a second that it *started* only when he took office, and I don't think for a second it would have still happened (albeit possibly more slowly) had he not been president.

Seriously, so many folks act like the path to Social Darwinism began on January 20, 1981. It was starting well before then. But that doesn't make for good political sound bites. I say this not in defense of Reagan but simply as what I view as a reality check.

There were "Tax Revolts" during the late 70s and they gave California the tax restrictions (Prop. 13 and the need of a 2/3 majority ro raise taxes) that have caused it's current problems.

it seems that it was also in the late 70s that the selfish attitude that "I don;t have kids so why should I pay taxes for schools" crap started.

Originally Posted by Odin

There were "Tax Revolts" during the late 70s and they gave California the tax restrictions (Prop. 13 and the need of a 2/3 majority ro raise taxes) that have caused it's current problems.

it seems that it was also in the late 70s that the selfish attitude that "I don;t have kids so why should I pay taxes for schools" crap started.

Yep -- I lived in California at the time and remember it well, though I was only 13 when Prop 13 passed. And that was also a time of growing angst about inflation and the first real scare about the export of jobs (mostly Japan in the late 1970s).

But at that time, it wasn't anything much to do with "I don't have kids" -- it was the fact that property taxes were rising by double digits a year for several years. That was a problem and was unsustainable, and did need a solution -- but Prop 13 was like swatting a mosquito with a sledgehammer.

Originally Posted by Odin

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Um, I know you have very little faith in other human beings because of the trauma experienced as an adolescent and that if the adolescents who voted for and worked for Obama in 2008 had that same lack of faith, Obama never would have been elected.

Best...

I was won of those young people who worked his ass of for Obama in 2008, only to get stabbed in the back when he showed his Corporate colors.

And I am one of many who is eternally grateful. Because of great kids like you our country will never be the same. And don't let anyone tell you different.

Cheers.

I don't think there's any question that race has a great deal to do with many people's reaction to Barack Obama even though they are Republicans anyway. Tom Coburn's rather amazing remark that I quoted some time back was an excellent example--that Obama liked programs that promoted dependency, because as an African American male he had benefited so much from them. Silly, but true.

That said, Obama is becoming harder and harder to like and believe in every day. If he were Captain Smith on the Titanic he'd be assuring us all that we would safely reach New York only 24 hours late. . .I'm sorry, but I can't help it.

Originally Posted by Odin

I remember reading that Obama was typed as 3w4 by the folks that publish a lot of the popular books on the Eneagram (Riso and Hudson, IIRC).

That just doesn't feel right to me, but I am far from an expert. Some well known 3's are Bill Clinton,Jim Bakker,Larry King,Oprah, and Jane Pauley. The self image of the 3 is "I am successful, charming,poised, well adjusted, admirable." The sin of the 3 is deceit. Their basic fear is failure.

Some well known 8s are FDR, Churchill,MLK, LBJ, Stalin, Dr Laura, Al Capone, Johnny Cochran, Madonna, Donald Trump, and Barbra Streisand. The self image of the 8 is "I can do. I am strong, powerful, assertive, direct, robust, resourceful." The sin of the 8 is lust,vengeance, arrogance,intimidation, intense anger. Their basic fear is weakness, dependence.

The 8s are the ones who truly can change the world. This was the way Obama came across in 2008, but he disappointed by acting like a 9.

The self image of the 9 is: "I am settled, kind, stable, relaxed, peaceful." The sin of the 9 is sloth, indolence, overly patient, procrastinates. The basic fear of the 9 is conflict and separation from others.

3: Achiever, succeeder
8: Asserter, confronter
9: Peacemaker

Just my gut feelings. Obviously I don't know him personally. In case anyone cares, I am a 1.

James50

OK, let's have some fun.;

This is the latest quote from Michele Bachmann:

"“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

In my opinion, this statement should disqualify its author as a candidate for President. The United States cannot remain the United States if Presidents can claim that God favors their particular policies against the other party. In addition, I do not want anyone in the White House who believes that the deity is orchestrating events in the natural world to send us a message.

Does anyone disagree?

Originally Posted by James50

The self image of the 3 is "I am successful, charming,poised, well adjusted, admirable." The sin of the 3 is deceit. Their basic fear is failure.

That sounds like Obama to me.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, let's have some fun.;

This is the latest quote from Michele Bachmann:

"“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

In my opinion, this statement should disqualify its author as a candidate for President. The United States cannot remain the United States if Presidents can claim that God favors their particular policies against the other party. In addition, I do not want anyone in the White House who believes that the deity is orchestrating events in the natural world to send us a message.

Does anyone disagree?

Sadly, there is no ban on the insane running for political office.

Originally Posted by Odin

That sounds like Obama to me.

Very interesting. We really do see the man differently. It was so easy to see Bill Clinton succumb to the temptation of deceit. I just can't see that with Obama. His sin is sloth. Let others do the work. I am going to play golf.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Very interesting. We really do see the man differently. It was so easy to see Bill Clinton succumb to the temptation of deceit. I just can't see that with Obama. His sin is sloth. Let others do the work. I am going to play golf.

James50

Running as Progressive and then governing as a Corporatist seems deceitful to me.

The problem with your list is that there are no Xers on it.

Originally Posted by James50

That just doesn't feel right to me, but I am far from an expert. Some well known 3's are Bill Clinton,Jim Bakker,Larry King,Oprah, and Jane Pauley. The self image of the 3 is "I am successful, charming,poised, well adjusted, admirable." The sin of the 3 is deceit. Their basic fear is failure.

Some well known 8s are FDR, Churchill,MLK, LBJ, Stalin, Dr Laura, Al Capone, Johnny Cochran, Madonna, Donald Trump, and Barbra Streisand. The self image of the 8 is "I can do. I am strong, powerful, assertive, direct, robust, resourceful." The sin of the 8 is lust,vengeance, arrogance,intimidation, intense anger. Their basic fear is weakness, dependence.

The 8s are the ones who truly can change the world. This was the way Obama came across in 2008, but he disappointed by acting like a 9.

The self image of the 9 is: "I am settled, kind, stable, relaxed, peaceful." The sin of the 9 is sloth, indolence, overly patient, procrastinates. The basic fear of the 9 is conflict and separation from others.

3: Achiever, succeeder
8: Asserter, confronter
9: Peacemaker

Just my gut feelings. Obviously I don't know him personally. In case anyone cares, I am a 1.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In my opinion, this statement should disqualify its author as a candidate for President.

Feel free to push for a Constitutional amendment to change the legal qualifications for the office. I think these are really stupid things to say, but stupid isn't a legal bar to holding political office.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, let's have some fun.;

This is the latest quote from Michele Bachmann:

"“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

In my opinion, this statement should disqualify its author as a candidate for President. The United States cannot remain the United States if Presidents can claim that God favors their particular policies against the other party. In addition, I do not want anyone in the White House who believes that the deity is orchestrating events in the natural world to send us a message.

Does anyone disagree?

No question. God is obviously non-partisan. I see no reason to believe that He has much use for madness, superstition, or cruelty.

Earthquakes, brush fires, and severe storms happen.

...I think that we are going to see how effective an administrator President Obama is... and good administrators prepare for predictable calamities. We saw little of the President this weekend; I figure that he was in communication with the Governors of slightly more than a quarter of the States of the Union and with some big-city mayors and other officials. He couldn't take the time even to take credit for the fall of a nasty dictator.

Partisan politics end where the flood begins or the earthquake strikes -- or else.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, let's have some fun.;

This is the latest quote from Michele Bachmann:

"“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

In my opinion, this statement should disqualify its author as a candidate for President. The United States cannot remain the United States if Presidents can claim that God favors their particular policies against the other party. In addition, I do not want anyone in the White House who believes that the deity is orchestrating events in the natural world to send us a message.

Does anyone disagree?

Why should it? Last I knew there was no natural law that states "democracy always makes wise decisions." Really the evidence suggests the opposite is nearly always true. All democracy proposes is this: Someone says something. If enough people agree, they vote to support it/them. Any democracy (and its outcomes) is little more than a reflection on those who participate (vote). Garbage in, garbage out.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

In my opinion, Obama is culturally a white Midwestern Xer, who in young adulthood started getting into the more usual African-American culture because that was, after all, how he was defined in this country; and is making a serious INTJ* type effort to turn the combination into a coherent whole.

* Which if he isn't, he's something very close to that, possibly INTP, but certainly NT of some sort, or I'll eat my Type & Temperament books.

Everything I see pegs Obama as an ENFP or ENFJ.

Originally Posted by Odin

Running as Progressive and then governing as a Corporatist seems deceitful to me.

If you want to know why the progressive agenda always seems to go wrong I would suggest you find out who was funding the Progressive party of the early twentieth century. Follow where clue leads and you will have your answer but I don't think you are going to like it.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We-ell, I don't see Obama as either a fiery reformer or a corporate apparatchik. Nor am I particularly unhappy with him. He inherited a godawful mess that didn't just start with Bush II but stems all the way back to Ronald Reagan. A significant part of the country is still trapped in the thrall of Reaganomics and fundamentalism. The more impatient elements of the left are all too eager to give up when they don't immediately get their way in the legislative process.

Actually he has been largely continuing the policies of his predecessor so you can't even reasonably he is cleaning up the mess that he found. Not to mention that the left seems strangely silent on the wars now that one of their guys is in the White House. Here is the a Libertarian take on the progressive opposition to the only anti-war candidate running for president this year. I guess the wars and the spending required by them really isn't that important.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Feel free to push for a Constitutional amendment to change the legal qualifications for the office. I think these are really stupid things to say, but stupid isn't a legal bar to holding political office.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Why should it? Last I knew there was no natural law that states "democracy always makes wise decisions." Really the evidence suggests the opposite is nearly always true. All democracy proposes is this: Someone says something. If enough people agree, they vote to support it/them. Any democracy (and its outcomes) is little more than a reflection on those who participate (vote). Garbage in, garbage out.

I did not mean to say she should be legally disqualified. What I did mean to say was that a democracy needs a citizenry who would disqualify such a person in order to function. Our Constitution and our democracy are based on rational thought and need rational thought to work.

James, I am appalled by your comment about Obama's vacation. Do you think you could be President? I couldn't. Presidents need vacations. Roosevelt cruised for two weeks in December 1940, came back, and proposed lend-lease. He cruised again the following April. No one every accomplished more than he. Eisenhower and Kennedy were both extremely enthusiastic vacationers as well. I do wish Obama could do more when he was in DC, but I don't begrudge him a week or two on the Vineyard.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I did not mean to say she should be legally disqualified. What I did mean to say was that a democracy needs a citizenry who would disqualify such a person in order to function. Our Constitution and our democracy are based on rational thought and need rational thought to work.

James, I am appalled by your comment about Obama's vacation. Do you think you could be President? I couldn't. Presidents need vacations. Roosevelt cruised for two weeks in December 1940, came back, and proposed lend-lease. He cruised again the following April. No one every accomplished more than he. Eisenhower and Kennedy were both extremely enthusiastic vacationers as well. I do wish Obama could do more when he was in DC, but I don't begrudge him a week or two on the Vineyard.

Note about Presidential vacations. They really aren't 'on vacation' per se. They still get their briefings and make whatever decisions need to be made. It's more less the equivilant of all of us still doing our jobs but in a nice change of scenery. So I think the accusations of a President being on 'vacation' during a crisis is a bit ridiculous sometimes. Admittedly though it is kind of a bad image when a crisis is ongoing and you've been photographed playing golf.

Republicans hold a 10 pt lead among Congressional ballot preferences according to the latest Rasmussen poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot

Originally Posted by Weave

Republicans hold a 10 pt lead among Congressional ballot preferences according to the latest Rasmussen poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot

Well, 9 points, but a bit meaningless 15 months before the next election. It's no surprise the Republicans are more excited about the prospects of 2012 than the Dems though.

But I'm curious how it went from a 2 points GOP lead the week ending 8-7, to a 9 point lead now. Likely the news this month of us possibly entering another recession could have been it.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Note about Presidential vacations. They really aren't 'on vacation' per se. They still get their briefings and make whatever decisions need to be made. It's more less the equivilant of all of us still doing our jobs but in a nice change of scenery. So I think the accusations of a President being on 'vacation' during a crisis is a bit ridiculous sometimes. Admittedly though it is kind of a bad image when a crisis is ongoing and you've been photographed playing golf.

I don't really begrudge him a vacation either. But the handlers have to consider political sensibilities. You don't say try to connect with the pain of the common man and then stop to jet set at the Vineyard, a "poster child" location for the rich and privileged. Similarly you don't say "I have a detailed jobs plan" when the nation is desperate for jobs and then say it will have to wait until September to be released.

These aren't fatal errors, but I do think they are at least minor lapses in judgment with respect to sending the right message to the people.