Obama: The next Jimmy Carter

"and liberal whites desperately wanted to see a black president, so they can alleviate their racial guilt"

Stripes are shown, metalhead. Everything you say after that is tainted. And your arguments are so laughably out of Limbaugh's drug-addled bag of liberal counters that it's like you just walked out of a Republican debate prep class.

Meanwhile, in the REAL WORLD.....

ps No, I can't imagine Reagan acting this way either, with common sense, and humility. Reagan was an epic disaster, from which the nation still has not recovered. Carter was a far, far better president, and better man. Two hundred years from now, if the world has matured any, he will be seen as ahead of his time. If it hasn't matured, no one will be around to write that analysis.

Your delusion is hilarious. No serious historian or political scientist, even liberals, admit that Reagan was a far superior president than Carter. Reagan revived our economy and weakened the Soviet Union and restored confidence in the greatness of our country. In sharp contrast, Carter was a weak man, who watched helplessly as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Iran took Americans as hostages.

The $500k limit is for the top 5 executives at the firms....that's it.

And the $500k cap is limited to salary, not restricted stock, and is place until taxpayer money has been repaid (rightfully so). Hopefully this better aligns the interests of employees with shareholders.

Did we ask for Rush Limbaugh to come on here?

Reagan benefitted from a simple solution, lowering interest rates. The short-term economy did well. What he did to the economy by embracing the Chicago boys can't be underestimated, and is the root of what is happening today. Anti-regulation, pro-corporate wealth, with virtually no compassionate underpinnings to any of his "philosophies," Reagan will be remembered by historians down the road as the ass he was. By the way metalhead (appropriate name that) many economists, historians and political scientists already conclude that Reagan was a disaster. Liberals DESPISE Reagan, he's the devil, your comment is absurd. Carter may have been ineffectual, Reagan was proactively destructive. The only thing Reagan accomplished was encouraging the notion that people only have to look out for Number One, if someone isn't making it, it's clearly their own damn fault.

The USSR was so awful? The Stans are an explosion just waiting to happen, and the Ukraine might follow right behind. Don't even get me started on Iran.

if you dont support President Obama then you are an anti-American terrorist.

wow...15 days in office..the hate has started..

The economic problem that Reagan inherited resulted from a combination of multiple factors: Lyndon Johnson's wasteful government programs and vietnam, that led to inflation, OPEC oil shock, extremely high taxes that punished wealth (top marginal rate in 1981 was 70%) and government regulations that prevented the private sector from taking off. Thanks to Reagan's tax cuts and deregulations, along with Volcker raising rates to kill inflation, the American economy took off in 1983, and the boom more or less lasted until last year.

This whole subprime mortgage crisis has nothing to do with Reagan. Giving out mortgages to unqualified people began during the Clinton administration, because he wanted to boost minority homeownership. It was all political; it had nothing to do with sound economic policy. The GOP and Bush actually wanted to impose some regulations on fannie and freddie, but democrats like Dodd and Frank, resisted it and said that there is no subprime mortgage crisis.

Regarding historians, look at any ranking of U.S. presidents. Not a single on ranks Carter or even Clinton ahead of Reagan. Sean Wilentz, a liberal historian at Princeton, who said Bush might be the worst president in history, recently wrote a book called the "Age of Reagan." He basically argues that Reagan was a transformative president and that liberals should appreciate him more. You may disagree with Reagan's policies, but he's still one of the most beloved presidents. After all, he did win 49 states in 1984.

But I realize that this board is full of liberals who think government and high taxes are the answer to everything and that Bush is the most evil man in human history.

girlygirl77, very funny, but Rush seems to show up here, there, everywhere. I feel a Dr. Seuss book coming on.

Julia, the hate began long before the election results came in. Many would love to see him fail.

julia:

seriously. these republicans are just delusional. bush gets us into the worst economic crisis since the depression and it already obama's fault? will this cap on executive pay hurt the ny real estate market? yes. i think obama has bigger things to worry about than the direction of the new york real estate market.

as for reagan: he supported the apartheid government in south africa. he refused to discuss the aids crisis until the last year of his presidency and he refused to fund prevention programs. he exemplified the most extreme fiscal irresponsibility with his outrageous spending and ridiculous tax policies. he put allen greenspan, the worst chairman in the history of the fed, into office.

carter had his problems, but he deserves enormous credit for getting the country out of the economic doldrums of the mid-70s (thanks to those other great republican presidents nixon and ford for that) primarily with his appointment of paul volker to head the federal reserve.

"Reagan revived our economy and weakened the Soviet Union and restored confidence in the greatness of our country. In sharp contrast, Carter was a weak man, who watched helplessly as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Iran took Americans as hostages."

No, Reagan drove our national debt to insane levels in his race to ring our planet with weapons of mass destruction. That debt based ideology of national defense is now permanently ingrained, the proliferation of nuclear weapons catalyzed by this, and the world destabilized (and by so many other things - this is Mr. Arms for hostages, support Hussein and bin Laden; these insane policies helped create monsters that came back to bite us and many others). Domestically, the gap between the rich and poor grew alarmingly under Reagan, a culture of top down economics that has been also permanently ingrained in the nation and which has been a big factor in our current crises. His restoration of confidence was by acting the bully - those who needed to shout and flex muscles felt more confident, those that understood how destructive his policies were, felt less. History has proven the later correct.

You suffer from the delusion that strength is only found in offense and violence, and weakness in peace. In fact it is the opposite. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Blessed are the peacemakers. Reagan is accursed. Carter has done so much good for the world, and has a far better chance of being blessed for it.

You're so wrong. I do not wish Obama to fail. He's my commander-in-chief, and I want him to succeed, for the sake of our country. I just STRONGLY disagree with his policies.

Also, the hatred that liberals had towards Bush far surpasses any venom against Obama from my side. Bush derangement syndrome verged on paranoia.

Metalhead, if all the problems stem from Clinton's liberal policies, can you tell me why the loans that are failing were primarily underwritten from 2000 forward? Most of the worst performing loans come from the 2003-2007 period.

To the extent this began during the Clinton regime, look to that rabid supply sider Greenspan, why don't you? History has been slow to rewrite the Reagan "legacy," alzheimers, Nancy's a nice woman and all that, but placed in context, he's going down.

meathead:
reagan won a lot of states ergo he was a great president? let's consider who else won huge landslide victories: warren harding, richard nixon, and ulysses grant won three of the five biggest electoral landslides in the history of the country and are uniformly regarded as three of the five worst presidents (along with george w. bush and james buchanan). winning a lot of votes doesn't make you a great president.

reagan was clearly transformative. mao was pretty damn transformative too. does that mean i should develop a greater appreciation for mao? how about pol pot? how about lenin? stalin? hitler? transformation is not worthy of admiration in and of itself.

thanks, by the way, for the shout out to paul volker. he was put in his position by jimmy carter. reagan replaced him with allen greenspan. enough said.

You're absolutely right that landslides are not an indication of greatness. Both Lyndon Johnson and Nixon won huge victories, and they were both terrible presidents, albeit for different reasons. I only brought up this point because a lot of people in big cities, especially in new york, are secluded from the rest of America and don't really know how people in middle America think or live. They assume that Reagan was bad and can't understand why Americans love him so much, because here in the city, very few people vote republican.

bush derangement syndrome? dude, i was a bush sceptic from the start, but it was his actual performance as president that made me despise him. you are right: hatred of obama is far less than hatred of bush. in fact, obama is wildly popular and bush is wildly reviled. but bush was president for eight years--after abu graihb, guantanamo, rendition, abortion restrictions, harriet meiers, alberto gonzales, enron, valerie plaim wilson, katrina, the invasion of iraq, the botching of afghanistan, the near-collapse of the world financial system, the trashing of gay rights, attacks on workplace safety and workers comp, expanding domestic poverty, etc. etc. etc. i have plenty of reason to consider bush an epic failure. obama has not even been president for three weeks.

Republicans love America more than liberals. You guys threatened to leave the country after Bush won re-election in 2004 while almost no conservatives said the same thing after Obama won. Instead of accepting personal responsibility, liberals always blame the government for all the ills.

i think that he is right Obama will probably be as great of a man as Carter. He will also probably win a Nobel Peace Prize like Carter. Hopefully Obama will bring as much good to the world as Carter has.

And Obama is already getting blamed for not magically "fixing" the shit that eight toxic years of Bush/Cheney/Halliburton left behind.

No Republicans love guns more than liberals. Threatening to leave the country seems quite prescient at the moment, the only problem is that we managed to destroy the whole fucking world's economic order so there's really nowhere to hide.

metalhead, are you insane? republicans love america more than liberals do? that's so 2002. i'm done with this thread that is just completely ridiculous. martin luther king, franklin roosevelt, daniel patrick moynihan, and tip o'neil are not great americans who loved their country? i don't love america because i believe that its greatest achievements are protecting civil liberties, defeating fascism, and expanding rights to women and minorities and--less successfully due to conservative opposition--expanding prosperity in an egalitarian way (all achievements of liberalism)? grow up.

Obama, like any new president, is going through some bad growing pains, that if he really is that smart and shrewd, he'll learn quickly how to promote policies that are more practical and less ideological.

The $500k bonus cap is nothing more than political grandstanding and won't do squat to address the issues. It's only for banks that accept TARP funds, and believe me, they'll figure out other ways to compensate these folks. Which may cause other issues (stock price manipulation - remember the tech bubble?).

"Republicans love America more than liberals."

metalhead, if you had any credibility, it is now certainly gone. As for liberal outrage of recent times, you might ponder this statement from a true American, truer in spirit (and action) than any politician of recent memory:

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Liberals' definition of "egalitarian" is punishing the wealthy and giving out more welfare checks to poor people who don't work. The top 1% of this country pays 40% of all income tax, and yet you guys insist on taking more from them, even though they help create jobs and make investments.

"if he really is that smart and shrewd, he'll learn quickly how to promote policies that are more practical and less ideological"

well said uptowngal. Obama's overly ideological nature is ruining him right now.

metalhead, as a percentage of their income, what do the top 1% pay, compared to the middle and upper middle class? and where are those jobs? they do make investments, MBSs they're called. brilliant.

Read The Working Poor, or Class Matters. Next try The Shock Doctrine. Never mind. Wouldn't matter. But to tell me that as a liberal (whose income is in the top 1%, btw), that I care less about this country than some flag-waving, gun-toting, Memorial Day-parade attending conservative is just gross. I care about America, including the poor, the children, the mothers, the gays, the disabled, and I even care about the rich. Although I'm being tested there.

"The top 1% of this country pays 40% of all income tax"

If it has been wrongly acquired, and taken from others, it's an empty argument. If the wealth of the 1% were distributed to the majority of poor and middle class who work their asses off, the tax revenue would still be there. If you think the poor and middle class (and the middle class is becoming poor) don't work, and work hard, then your faith in America is far less than the average democrats.

uwsmom, I think Obama rather naively felt he could work with the diminished Republicans. It won't work. He needs to quit worrying about the end political fallout of doing unpalatable things. I wouldn't wish his job on my worst enemy right now.

thank you type3. as one of the very lucky americans in the top 1%--almost certainly in the top .1%--i can assure you that i know full well that it is my obligation to contribute more than hard working people who have had less good fortune. metalhead, if you truly cared about the united states, you would be glad to pay the taxes that are required for our society to function and flourish. i have to be honest, i actually love paying taxes. you know why? it reminds me how lucky i am.

meathead is a dumbass. did anyone hear Rudy Guilliani trying to justify the bankers taking the TARP money as bonuses? He said that it was good because because the city would get tax money. How moronic. why not just give ALL the money to the city?

metalhead you done started some shit today.

Progressive taxes are a form of theft by the federal government. I'm glad you enjoy paying taxes. Hopefully, Obama's cabinet appointees can acquire your love as well.

"I wouldn't wish his job on my worst enemy right now." - agreed!
Though I'm torn as to whether or not I believe he is naive. On the one hand, as metalhead correctly stated, he is terribly inexperienced. And, let's face it, his ideology is tripping him up. On the other hand, he seems to be a brilliant politician...Tell 'em what they want to hear. From what I can see, he's all about favorability ratings. Let's see what he can get done (and GITMO is not considered "done" IMO)!! Currently, he seems to be speaking loudly and carrying no stick. Here's to hoping he can pull a rabbit out of his hat. I'm not hopeful =(.

"Progressive taxes are a form of theft by the federal government. I'm glad you enjoy paying taxes. Hopefully, Obama's cabinet appointees can acquire your love as well."

In today's economy, it takes some hutzpuh to say taxing the rich is theft!

No one "enjoys" paying taxes. And I'm all for them being lower if the government can be made more efficient. But where do you think all that money for defense comes from? Or border patrol? Or the several trillions (yes, trillions in all the programs and loans and promises) that have saved the asses of those producing rich that are still rewarding themselves for driving the US into the ditch? Taxes, bud. Weird idea for you: if the country is in need, paying taxes might actually be patriotic.

And as for Obama appointees - I'm glad those were not made staff. They did the right thing. But their tiny monetary transgressions are laughable compared to the magnitude of what has been going on (with people of ALL political slants). At least the guys Obama is putting up have their cards on the table. Thank God the secrecy of the last 8 years is going away.

Reagan & Bush were greatly experienced and look at the legacy they left behind.

hutzpuh LOL.

Hey, guys, chill!

2012 is coming and you can run Sarah and Joe the Plumber and all will be well again.

Isn't 2012 the end of the world?

lmbbao.

"Liberals DESPISE Reagan, he's the devil, your comment is absurd."

They probably despise him because they've become him.

Clinton was more Reagan than Carter... Obama has a whole lot of Reagan in him.
70% top tax rates? We now fight over 15% vs. 20% capital gains taxes. Welfare? We now accept the new model.

Reagan won. And thats what pisses off liberals so much.

don't say no one enjoys paying taxes. i enjoy paying taxes as i just said. why shouldn't i? those taxes pay to keep me physically secure, to provide me with clean water and cleanish air (should be cleaner), to prosecute crimes committed against me and to incarcerate the offenders, to pave my streets, to run the train i take to work, to take care of me when i'm old, to shelter me if ever become homeless, to ensure that my food, medicine, and other products are safe, to protect my rights to freedom of conscience, to put out forest fires in the national parks i visit, etc. etc. etc. it's the best money i spend all year.

reagan won? a battle isn't a war my friend.

Reagan supported Bin Laden? That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard.

Many political historians and pundits have noted that the Reagan era is over - and yes, Clinton was a part of that, and I think he was well aware of it. happyrenter is absolutely right - the history of this country somewhat unfairly preconditioned us to loathe taxation, but without it we would quickly miss so much of the infrastructure we've come to take for granted. I actually like paying taxes as well, so long as I feel I'm paying a proportionate amount. It's when those who are less fortunate are paying too much and those who are quite well off are using loopholes and lobbying to pay too little that I see fault in the system.

Silly me - I thought this was a real estate site! Oh those poor, poor Republicans - still crying over the election. Get over it!

LICComment - you are a complete moron if you dont know that Reagan armed, trained and equiped the the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan as part of his anti Soviet unon policies. Reagan gave the money, weapons and training directly to them which is how bin laden was trained and armed. it is a fact.

aboutready & uwsmom, agreed. Obama's learning that his approach to reaching across the aisle isn't working. Happy hours & superbowl parties at the White House won't do it. Standing up to the likes of Nancy Pelosi will.

Ah, more idiotic comments from petrfitz. Actually, bin laden didn't have serious involvement fighting with the Muhajadeen. His role was related more toward funding and organization.
So you were against the US support of those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? You were a supporter of the communists and the Soviets? I haven't seen your foolish statements in a while, keep them coming.

According to Nancy Pelosi...

"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs".

Damn, we must have lost like 3 billion American jobs by now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E&eurl

petrfitz is correct regarding readan and afghanistan but that's what was done by republican and democratic presidents...Sadaam,saudia arabia, all of them.

> reagan won? a battle isn't a war my friend.

Yes, he lost many battles and has now won the war. Reaganism is part of even the Democratic party now.

Separately, NY Magazine did a piece on how Obama is now getting to be a lot more like Bush in policy. He's moved to the center on a lot of things.

Reagan lost a ton of battles, and his presence is as big as even.

if you dont count giving him hundreds of milllions of dollars of american tax payer money, giving him state of the art weapons, and military training then you are correct Reagan had nothing to do with creating bin Laden. Oh yeah George HW Bush also wasnt meeting with a bin laden on the morning of Sept 11th either.

If you think Bush governed from the center, then perhaps you have an inner-ear problem affecting your view of what the center of the political spectrum is.

sorry, "as ever"...

Really the only person I've heard say that the Reagan era isn't over is Rush Limbaugh. I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

It will be Obabma's place in history then to be thought of as one of the best presidents for the people ever elected. Although Carter was ridiculed as he left office, look at the way he is admired now.

I supported McCain based on business tax benefits but I am not displeased with Obama thus far. I think that the next four years will be very difficult. Obama stepped in at a precarious time. It is too soon to judge. I am willing to keep an open mind -- and see how things develop.

> Really the only person I've heard say that the Reagan era isn't over is Rush Limbaugh. I think that
> sums it up pretty nicely.

Folks said pretty much the same thing in 2001. The end of greed, the era of community. It was on the cover of oh so many magazines, all the changes that 9/11 would bring. Then we went through the greediest period in our history.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

> Although Carter was ridiculed as he left office, look at the way he is admired now.

Still kinda ridiculed... so not sure what you mean. He got BLASTED on his last book. He gets kudos for his charity work, but nobody takes his policies seriously. He's like the nice old man who mumbles from time to time.

Why do you think they're using "just like carter" as an insult against Obama?

Wait a minute,...you hate Obama because he's capping the astronomical salaries of the failing banks who are begging the government to bail them out? How dare he!

Does he not know the repercussions Manhattan will face due to the 10 CEOs who will earn only $500,000 in salary in 2009? Never mind that they all have net worth's above $50mm, but they are ONLY GOING TO EARN $500,000 in salary in 2009!! Ahhh! We are all screwed! That liberal Obama will freeze their millions in assets and bank accounts too so they can't dip into it to spend. Life is over, Manhattan is ruined!! The United States is done for! Run for the hills!!!

Ugh, I fucking hate Republicans. Go kill yourself.

And, for perspective, I like Obama for the "big picture" reasons, but was scared of his economic policies. Since he got elected, he's definitely made a shift.

He's the guy that WROTE EFCA, and its not mentioned anymore. The things he's called for have not been anti-business.

NYMag actually did a big article on his move to the center, and connecting it to his support base that was OUTSIDE the standard Democratic party stuff, and that he's sort of left the left wing out to dry....

If he keeps doing this, good for him.

Carter is only admired by far-left liberals. His equating terrorism to a political movement is despicable.

I'll add my 2 cents simply. Excessive ridiculous home lending did begin during Clinton. However, Bush made it a campaign issue to have every American own their own home. The "ownership society" was one of his basic tenets. Both Dems and Reps have blame for the current situation.

Regarding the salary cap issue, this will simply mean that talented individuals will leave their jobs as heads of big corporations and begin their own. Successful executives and businessmen will receive private money (PE, hedge fund, etc.) to finance their new ventures and will in many ways receive better terms than those firms facing government restrictions. It's already begun in the finance world and will accelerate. The big firms will shrink and new small firms will start up. It will take time, but you will see a more decentralized and less regulated Wall St.

"Folks said pretty much the same thing in 2001. The end of greed, the era of community. It was on the cover of oh so many magazines, all the changes that 9/11 would bring. Then we went through the greediest period in our history.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely."

Frankly, whoever said the Reagan era was over in 2001 was part of a fringe minority and quite wrong. I mean, you have a Bush president just getting in office, not to mention the imminent sending of troops to the Middle East. To view that as breaking away from Reagan? Obama marks a clear shift, not just in terms of policy, but also in terms of voting demographics. Read what Peter Beinart wrote about this: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17762/new_liberal_order.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F12510%2Fpeter_beinart

Carter faced a crisis from a combination of economic problems, failed policies of his predecessors and, finally, an Iranian revolution that cut access to some Middle Eastern oil.

Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms, including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy.

He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or coal.

"Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation," said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and oil. "And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent."

Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter.

He offered incentives for getting oil from shale, creating a boom initially in the Rockies - and a bust when it failed to be cost-effective. He offered deductions for using solar water heaters in homes and commercial buildings.

"People in the upper-income bracket were always looking for tax cuts. They were going to build a house anyhow, so they were saying, 'Well let's look at this solar stuff and see what we can do,' " said Marc Giaccardo, a professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio who at the time was an Albuquerque architect.

Carter even had solar collec tors installed on the White House grounds to heat the executive residence's water.

Then Carter lost re-election to Ronald Reagan in 1980. The so lar panels at the White House eventually came down - and Reagan and his aides gutted the solar research program.

"In June or July of 1981, on the bleakest day of my professional life, they descended on the Solar Energy Research Institute, fired about half of our staff and all of our contractors, including two people who went on to win Nobel prizes in other fields, and reduced our $130 million budget by $100 million," recalls Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day, who had been hired by Carter to spearhead the solar initiative.

Reagan and Congress stopped aggressively pushing new auto efficiency standards, acceding to Detroit's desire to leave them at Carter-era levels. They let the solar tax benefit expire, and the nascent solar industry went belly- up.

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd should be in jail

Carter stood up for energy independence and told the US that we would no longer be beholden to foreign terorist interests for our energy. Reagan stopped the energy indepenedence program and funded bin laden, stoppped detroit from making good cars amoung other disasters.

Anyone who thinks Reagan was good for America or the world is an uniformed partisan moron. aka Republican

Julia what do you think about Phil Gramm? should he be in jail?

Why won't Dodd release the information on the VIP mortgage he received from Countrywide?

Only a total imbecile would keep making foolish statements that Reagan funded bin laden. Why won't you answer the question if you were against supporting those who were fighting the Soviet Union? Were you a supporter of the Soviets?

why wont Bush or Cheney release all those emails? why did Rove use an RNC email address when he worked for America?

Once upon a time, a dangerous radical gained control of the US Republican Party.

Reagan increased the budget for support of the radical Muslim Mujahidin conducting terrorism against the Afghanistan government to half a billion dollars a year.

One fifth of the money, which the CIA mostly turned over to Pakistani military intelligence to distribute, went to Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, a violent extremist who as a youth used to throw acid on the faces of unveiled girls in Afghanistan.

Not content with creating a vast terrorist network to harass the Soviets, Reagan then pressured the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to match US contributions. He had earlier imposed on Fahd to give money to the Contras in Nicaragua, some of which was used to create rightwing death squads. (Reagan liked to sidestep Congress in creating private terrorist organizations for his foreign policy purposes, which he branded "freedom fighters," giving terrorists the idea that it was all right to inflict vast damage on civilians in order to achieve their goals).

Fahd was a timid man and resisted Reagan's instructions briefly, but finally gave in to enormous US pressure.

Fahd not only put Saudi government money into the Afghan Mujahideen networks, which trained them in bomb making and guerrilla tactics, but he also instructed the Minister of Intelligence, Turki al-Faisal, to try to raise money from private sources.

Turki al-Faisal checked around and discovered that a young member of the fabulously wealthy Bin Laden construction dynasty, Usama, was committed to Islamic causes. Turki thus gave Usama the task of raising money from Gulf millionaires for the Afghan struggle. This whole effort was undertaken, remember, on Reagan Administration instructions.

Bin Laden not only raised millions for the effort, but helped encourage Arab volunteers to go fight for Reagan against the Soviets and the Afghan communists. The Arab volunteers included people like Ayman al-Zawahiri, a young physician who had been jailed for having been involved in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat. Bin Laden kept a database of these volunteers. In Arabic the word for base is al-Qaeda.

petrfitz...i forgot about phil graham, him too.

I agree with gave millions of $ to bad, bad people when we were fighting the cold war and unfortunately we are reaping all that back at us now. I don't know where you got your information but it seems plausible.

so petrfitz is a communist and a supporter of the Soviet Union. No wonder he didn't like Reagan.

I don't see what Phil Gramm has to do with this. As head of the Senate Banking committe, he supported passage of a bill that did away with outmoded banking legislation (something that his predecessor d'Amato left on the back burner because of lobbying from Wall St).

The bill was signed into law by Clinton and actually facilitated parts of the recent resue efforts (i.e. BoA's purchase of Merrill, JPMC's purchase of Bear).

Didn't Phil Gramm do away with regulations for wall street?

"Many Muslims from other countries volunteered to assist various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan, and gained significant experience in guerrilla warfare. Some groups of these veterans have been significant factors in more recent conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[6] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam." -wikipedia

To think that the US funding of terrorists (another man's freedom fighter, even now) with which bin Laden was not intimately connected (look where he ended up relocating), is impressively naive. Add to that our support of Hussein, and you have a real winner of a foreign policy, and that's just TWO countries!. If we don't learn for those mistakes, we'll repeat them. Reagan was an idiot.

And no, Reaganism did not win. Only some aspects of a conservative agenda he rode to power. Perhaps Bush did bring back the "let's make the US the greatest debtor nation on Earth" achievements of Reagan, but I don't think it's very popular.

This is a big ideological divide. Some of us see Reagan as the worst thing that ever happened to the US (before Bush II). Some of us see him as a great president.

I don't go around picking fights about it, but this thread needed a response at the least. Responses have been given. Time to move on.

> Frankly, whoever said the Reagan era was over in 2001 was part of a fringe minority and quite wrong.

They were wrong, absolutely. As for "fringe", I just don't buy it. That was EVERYWHERE.

> I mean, you have a Bush president just getting in office

And remember the complaints that he wasn't an actual conservative? That he was betraying Reagan?
You should get the story straight... folks were ABSOLUTELY saying end of Reagan in the early part of the decade.

Lets also not forget Enron. They said "never again" there too.
That was a load of crap as well.

Point is, we have VERY short memories.

> Obama marks a clear shift, not just in terms of policy, but also in terms of voting demographics.

Voting demographics, absolutely. Policy... well, his CAMPAIGN did. But the actuals have gone for the clear middle. And Reagan moved the middle to where it is now...

we are 16 days removed from the worst presidency since james buchanan and the new president is already being villified. you aren't going to give him more than 16 days before you judge him a failure? this is just insane. bush did for the 21st century republicans what herbert hoover did for the 20th century republicans. in case you don't know, hoover was not good for the republican party.

the conservative movement in this country is completely bankrupt and out of touch. it is an essentially all white party in a country that becomes less white every year. it has less than 30% support from people under 30 years old. it is virulently anti-immigrant at a time when latinos and asians are the fastest growing ethnic groups. it is anti-gay as the country becomes more pro-gay. it wants to turn back the clock on reproductive freedom as the country has moved toward embracing a moderate pro-choice position. it continues to advocate tax cuts for the rich as a panacea for any and all economic woes. what positive agenda do the republicans have? what innovative proposals? what brilliant young leaders? that party is needs a complete overhaul to maintain any relevance.

nyc10022,
if you mean that many of reagan's most detrimental policies are still with us, that is sadly true. but obama is slowly chipping away at them. the era dominated by economic deregulation, racial demagoguery, massive military buildup, culture wars and regressive taxation is clearly being replaced by something new. what that will be remains to be seen. but it is already apparent that it will be quite different.

Gramm, along with others, deregulated swap trading. His banking de-regulations were widely supported by democrats and republicans and actually have been helpful during this financial crisis.

Julia, Phil Gramm did not 'do away' with Wall St. regulations. Nobody did.

What he did had to do with repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, a depression-era law that separated investment banking from commercial banking. What appeared to have made sense in the 1930's didn't work years later. Gramm-Leach-Riley Act also took away some of the beaurocratic hurdles of enforcement to make the mechanics of bank regulation more effective.

The current subprime mess has mothing to do with this. Anything remotely resembling "de-regulation" was probably the SEC's relaxing of leverage caps for investment banks, and lack of oversight for non-bank mortgage lenders and lending practices.

"if you mean that many of reagan's most detrimental policies are still with us, that is sadly true. but obama is slowly chipping away at them. the era dominated by economic deregulation, racial demagoguery, massive military buildup, culture wars and regressive taxation is clearly being replaced by something new. what that will be remains to be seen. but it is already apparent that it will be quite different."

happyrenter, great great summaries there (including the previous post). Obama clearly campaigned as someone who would sincerely reach across the aisle, so I don't see how it's a surprise that he's somewhat "centrist" on several big issues. But this is about as clean a break from the Reagan ideology as there could have been. I agree that people who thought that era was over in 2001 were wrong (and again, no idea how you could rationally come to that conclusion), but this is most definitely not 2001.

"nyc10022.. if you mean that many of reagan's most detrimental policies are still with us, that is sadly true. but obama is slowly chipping away at them"

So said his campaign... but his actions so far show otherwise...

> the era dominated by economic deregulation

Clinton did more deregulation than Bush did. Glass Stegal, etc.

> regressive taxation

You need to look up what the word means. We have an INCREDIBLE progressive tax system. Sure, you can point to individual taxes and such, but its dishonest if you don't look at it all together. The rich pay the biggest share of income in taxes than anyone. Fisher and numerous economists have done the analysis

That is NOT regressive. Anyone saying otherwise either doesn't understand the word (which is much of America) or is being dishonest or is yelling about something they don't know about. We have PROGRESSIVE taxation in this country.

> is clearly being replaced by something new.

We'll see about that. So far, not a lot of new...

I stand corrected re. Phl Gramm...What we all need to do is start supporting the president who is in office...Obama, Bush (when we could). President Obama has good ideas. Let's give him at least another week (kidding)

the rich pay the biggest share of taxes primarily because they earn the most income. if you look at percentages, the middle and upper middle classes tend to pay a higher overall tax rate than the rich. that's what regressive taxation means. it doesn't mean that someone who earns 80k per year pays more than someone who earns 500k in dollar terms. it means the person earning 80k pays a higher percentage.

but the point is something different. for the past 30 years the tax rate became less and less progressive--even if you disagree that it became regressive you cannot deny the trend away from progressive taxation. that trend is clearly being reversed. it will take some time, but four years from now the tax system will be significantly more progressive. and as someone who will pay significantly more (a single, high-earning person living in new york city) i think it is absolutely appropriate for me to pay more.

"the rich pay the biggest share of taxes primarily because they earn the most income. if you look at percentages, the middle and upper middle classes tend to pay a higher overall tax rate than the rich. that's what regressive taxation means. it doesn't mean that someone who earns 80k per year pays more than someone who earns 500k in dollar terms. it means the person earning 80k pays a higher percentage.'

I know what it means, you just have your facts wrong (and you didn't read my post correctly).

I said it very clearly.. "The rich pay the biggest share of income in taxes than anyone."

I didn't say amount, I said share of income. That is PROGRESSIVE.

You simply have your facts wrong. Your definition might be right, but that just means your data is bad.

The richest americans pay higher total rates than any other americans, and the poor pay the lowest.

If you call that regressive, you are misguided.

I saw a study once... they asked a bunch of Americans if the rich should pay the same % in taxes as the rest of Americans. Most agreed. They also agreed that the rich should pay more taxes.

They didn't get that they were contradicting themselves.

The left has done an EXCELLENT job of making folks think we have a regressive system. They convinced happyrenter of it...

But it is simply not true...

nyc10022, that;s simply not correct. income taxes are only one portion of overall taxation, which is what i referred to. the overall tax rate is what matters. here's why:

1. payroll taxes. for anyone earning over 200k per year they are essentially irrelevant. up to 50k they account for 14% of income.
2. low capital gains taxes. capital gains account for a much higher percentage of income for high earners, and long-term capital gains rates are exceptionally low.
3. deductions.

all studies of overall taxation show that the middle and upper middle class bear the largest burden, and the rich and poor pay around the same. them's the facts.

nyc10022 don't talk about me like i am someone to be convinced 'by the left.' i am part of the left and i am fully capable of doing my own thinking. there is not some 'they' out there convincing me of something. i am a member of the democratic national committee, i'm an FOB (friend of barack), i'm a graduate in math and philosophy of two of the top universities in the world, and i run a hedge fund. i'm not a babe in the wood having the wool pulled over my eyes. i know what the effective tax rates are for the upper middle class, and i know that the burden they shoulder is greater than that of the rich.

> all studies of overall taxation show that the middle and upper middle class bear the largest burden,
> and the rich and poor pay around the same. them's the facts.

Incorrect. Fisher did an analysis. Numerous economists have done analysis. They all come out the same way, rich folks pay bigger shares.

And this line makes it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about... "the rich and poor pay around the same."

> nyc10022, that;s simply not correct. income taxes are only one portion of overall taxation, which is
> what i referred to. the overall tax rate is what matters.

I didn't say otherwise...

here's why:

"1. payroll taxes. for anyone earning over 200k per year they are essentially irrelevant. up to 50k they account for 14% of income.
2. low capital gains taxes. capital gains account for a much higher percentage of income for high earners, and long-term capital gains rates are exceptionally low.
3. deductions."

You very conveniently leave out all the stuff that disproves your point.

Earned Income Tax credit - PHASED OUT for rich folks
School Loan Deduction - PHASED OUT for rich folks
IRA deduction - PHASED OUT for rich folks
Mortgage deduction - CAPPED
Luxury Tax - PROGRESSIVE
Dividends - DOUBLE TAXED (hitting the rich more).

and those are just the first few that came to mind.

In the end, this has all been added up before... and the rich pay more.

talking about what tax rate applies to each income group implies that you have access to the real income of each group. the very rich have access to tax shelters, trust funds, best accountants and the like. so they might shield a lot of their income getting a much lower effective tax rate. hence, i'm not 100% i buy that it's not a regressive system when the rich cheat.

btw, caroline kennedy didn't want to show her financials ... what's up with that?

"nyc10022 don't talk about me like i am someone to be convinced 'by the left.' i am part of the left and i am fully capable of doing my own thinking."

That just makes it worse then... you are part of the problem.

You and your friends are passing off RAMPANT misinformation.

You should get your facts straight... VERY quickly. Before you give this "information" to someone else.

> i am a member of the democratic national committee

Oh man, now I know why that place is in shambles.

The people coming up with left wing economic policy DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

Nice job!

> i'm a graduate in math and philosophy of two of the top universities in the world

Yale, Economics. The best philosphy program in the world clearly didn't help you with tax information.

> and i run a hedge fund.

And THIS is supposed to convince us of something?

ROTFL.

> i'm not a babe in the wood having the wool pulled over my eyes.

Then I guess you are just the scammer pulling the wool over others eyes.

Your the babe leading the babes in the woods.

> i know what the effective tax rates are for the upper middle class, and i know that the burden they
> shoulder is greater than that of the rich.

Man, if this is what the democratic party "knows", then we are absolutely screwed.

> i buy that it's not a regressive system when the rich cheat.

If you cheat a progressive system, its still a progressive system.

Go after the cheats, absolutely...

"Go after the cheats, absolutely..."

you mean to ask them to pay those taxes back or to nominate them?

mit

LOL.

BTW, happyrenter, make sure you and the rest of the democratic party don't let facts stand in your way!

"a family's tax burden rises most sharply as it moves up from poverty to the middle class; beyond that, the tax burden increases with income at a more modest rate. A family living on $6,000 a year pays roughly 6.4 percent of those resources in federal taxes, and as its income increases to $25,000, the share it pays in taxes nearly triples to 16.8 percent. If the same family increased its income 20-fold more, to reach $500,000, its tax burden would only double to 32.7 percent.

Relative to the current tax system, a pure flat or proportional tax system would leave poor families with 16 percent to 22 percent less to live on than they do today, and the wealthiest 1 percent with 12 percent more. For virtually everyone else, a truly flat system would raise or lower their disposable income by less than 3 percent."
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=125&subsecID=163&contentID=1398

And this comes from PROGRESSIVES....

Short story is, we have a progressive tax system.

Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and/or has an agenda.

> the very rich have access to tax shelters, trust funds, best accountants and the like.

BTW, I have some good accountants (multiple), I have some trust fund action going.... and, I know that folks like to throw this around, but, guess what, there 'aint a whole lot of this.

I've done tax strategy for years with my accountants. I've had business income, self employment income, straight income, investment income, all sorts. I've looked at all the ways to avoid taxes.

And, guess what, there really aren't a lot. The whole "rich person tax shelter" stuff comes more from Mr Howell than it does reality.

The government has closed so many loopholes. They've sued the big acocunting firms for bogus shelters. Trusts help with taxes in delaying them, but you still pay 'em. I've looked for all this stuff, and there isn't a lot.

Ok, there is cheating, sure. That is getting harder from what I hear. The whole foregin debit card thing, government has totally gone after that. Using tax havens, that sort of thing, the legal stuff is gone and we'll probably see those things opened up shortly, with all this hedge fund nonsense.

In short, the folks who talk about all these "tax shelters for the rich" just aren't rich....

(btw, if I'm wrong and someone has some of these legendary tax shelters that don't get major lawsuits, my accountants would love to hear from you)

;-)