Three charts to show your right wing brother in law.

[Hoss]

So, genuinely curious:  do you -- Conan, Gaspar -- think that a Perry presidency is more desirable than another 4 years of Obama?

I think any true card carrying conservative in todays political climate would prefer anybody over Obama.   Therein lies the bulk of the problem. The 'win at all cost' mentality the DC righties currently espouse could wind up driving this national into the abyss.

Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G with Tapatalk

[JeffM]

I don't recall him using Carter for an excuse at every turn.  That's been the Obama M.O. since he took office.  Continued stagnant economy under his failed policies to mitigate it: Blame Bush.  Oil spill in the Gulf: Blame Bush.  Financial crisis in Europe: Blame Bush.  Fails to back up his campaign promises on Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan: Blame Bush.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

Yes, I'm seeing a pattern of typical Conan partisan hackery.... Reagan and Republicans BLAMED four years of Jimmy Carter for everything bad about the country and the world... yet when Barack Obama has to clean up after 8 years of Bush which ended in economic catastrophe, it's an Obama M.O.?  Really?

It's remarkable, because I'd assumed we're close to the same age... but the idea of Reagan NOT blaming Carter?!?   Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah.... really?  really?... and you're talking about the same president who vowed "never to speak ill of a fellow Republican"..... including Richard Nixon, but interestingly enough, NOT Gerald Ford....

Your M.O. from day one has been that Obama is "an empty suit."

Yeah, ask Osama bin Laden who he thinks is "an empty suit."  

BTW, 1987 was about the time I got to work graveyard shifts at Village Inn after the draconian Gramm-Rudman budget cuts eliminated my National Direct Student Loan... so yeah, I think I did my fair share to reduce the federal deficit, thank you very much.... from 1984-1987, the number of homeless doubled--- Reagan quipped that "people who are sleeping on the grates... the homeless... are homeless, you might say... by choice"... while taxes were dropped to 28% for the wealthy... minimum wage was stuck at $3.35... I was willing to vote for Reagan in 1984 because I felt all of us could sacrifice to reduce the federal deficit... but it was those four years of Reagan's second term when I belatedly recognized that it was the supply-side tax cuts of REAGANOMICS, and not social security, that was (and still is) an unsustainable ponzi scheme... go figure.

[we vs us]

I think any true card carrying conservative in todays political climate would prefer anybody over Obama.   Therein lies the bulk of the problem. The 'win at all cost' mentality the DC righties currently espouse could wind up driving this national into the abyss.

Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G with Tapatalk

If we don't re-elect Obama it's obvious now -- especially after the debt ceiling craziness -- that we elect the Tea Party.  It doesn't matter who's actually in the White House from the GOP.  Romney is obviously a weak leader, and all the others are courting the TPers openly.  So no matter what happens in a GOP WH win, we get the Tea Party.  And if the Tea Party gets control of the Executive, we're toast.  It's not hard to see that.  And there have to be plenty of card carrying American conservatives out there who see that as well. 

I'm not arguing for Obama here, just for not the Tea Party.  In a different environment and a different dynamic, I'd be cool with Obama being primaried, devil take the general election.  But not now.  Because we're really to the point that if this bunch of Republicans take over the WH, we might as lock the door and turn out the lights.  It'll be all over.

[nathanm]

You brought something to mind, the Reagan expansion was the longest peacetime expansion the country had seen to that point.  I don't see how you can point to the failures of the Nixon/Ford admins as well as winding down of another MIC "project" yet completely ignore Carter's horrible handling of the economy.  He came close to making Coolidge look like a genius.  

Peacetime? Odd that the military budget increased to wartime levels under Reagan. Military spending increased between 10 and 15 percent each year in Reagan's first term and around 5% each year in his second. Sounds positively Keynesian, actually. It wasn't until the first Bush and Clinton arrived that we stopped beating that dead horse.

By the way, Obama didn't double the deficit, he presided over the doubling of the deficit. The policies and inactions of the Bush Administration led directly to the economic downturn and thus the decreased tax collections that are responsible for the vast majority of the deficit. You could say that Obama's policies are the cause of some of that increase (a third or so, ballpark), yes, but by no means all of it.

[Conan71]

Yes, I'm seeing a pattern of typical Conan partisan hackery.... Reagan and Republicans BLAMED four years of Jimmy Carter for everything bad about the country and the world... yet when Barack Obama has to clean up after 8 years of Bush which ended in economic catastrophe, it's an Obama M.O.?  Really?

It's remarkable, because I'd assumed we're close to the same age... but the idea of Reagan NOT blaming Carter?!?   Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah.... really?  really?... and you're talking about the same president who vowed "never to speak ill of a fellow Republican"..... including Richard Nixon, but interestingly enough, NOT Gerald Ford....

Your M.O. from day one has been that Obama is "an empty suit."

Yeah, ask Osama bin Laden who he thinks is "an empty suit."  

BTW, 1987 was about the time I got to work graveyard shifts at Village Inn after the draconian Gramm-Rudman budget cuts eliminated my National Direct Student Loan... so yeah, I think I did my fair share to reduce the federal deficit, thank you very much.... from 1984-1987, the number of homeless doubled--- Reagan quipped that "people who are sleeping on the grates... the homeless... are homeless, you might say... by choice"... while taxes were dropped to 28% for the wealthy... minimum wage was stuck at $3.35... I was willing to vote for Reagan in 1984 because I felt all of us could sacrifice to reduce the federal deficit... but it was those four years of Reagan's second term when I belatedly recognized that it was the supply-side tax cuts of REAGANOMICS, and not social security, that was (and still is) an unsustainable ponzi scheme... go figure.

You disappoint me.  You left out "chattering class".

[Conan71]

If we don't re-elect Obama it's obvious now -- especially after the debt ceiling craziness -- that we elect the Tea Party.  It doesn't matter who's actually in the White House from the GOP.  Romney is obviously a weak leader, and all the others are courting the TPers openly.  So no matter what happens in a GOP WH win, we get the Tea Party.  And if the Tea Party gets control of the Executive, we're toast.  It's not hard to see that.  And there have to be plenty of card carrying American conservatives out there who see that as well. 

I'm not arguing for Obama here, just for not the Tea Party.  In a different environment and a different dynamic, I'd be cool with Obama being primaried, devil take the general election.  But not now.  Because we're really to the point that if this bunch of Republicans take over the WH, we might as lock the door and turn out the lights.  It'll be all over.

It's no secret I'm a fan of a more moderate approach and to that end, I think Romney could be a good choice.  Problem seems to be the Tea Party is getting most of the media attention and the GOP house organs like Limbaugh and Hannity are all about the Tea Party.  There are some common sense items in the TP approach, particularly spending cuts and better government management, but the tax cuts at all costs mantra is old and tired, IMO.

[heironymouspasparagus]

By the way, Obama didn't double the deficit, he presided over the doubling of the deficit. The policies and inactions of the Bush Administration led directly to the economic downturn and thus the decreased tax collections that are responsible for the vast majority of the deficit. You could say that Obama's policies are the cause of some of that increase (a third or so, ballpark), yes, but by no means all of it.

Not often I disagree this much with you, nathan, but this cannot stand.  Obama did not preside over the doubling of the deficit.  It was already much more than doubled by Bush's last two years in office and his last two budgets.

EVERY one of Obama's deficits has been smaller than the previous and ALL of them have been smaller than Bush's last.

The increases in debt have been going DOWN every year since Obama took office - including projections for 2012 that I have seen.

[Townsend]

the GOP house organs like Limbaugh and Hannity are all about the Tea Party. 

I'm guessing many people claiming they're of the Tea Party are an excellent audience for all sorts of advertisers.  (QVC, Ronco, pharmaceuticals, etc.)

[AquaMan]

You missed the obvious, "extenze".

[Townsend]

You missed the obvious, "extenze".

All encompassing "pharma".  Winky smiley face

[we vs us]

To add to your "reverse class warfare" file folder:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/08/31/dodgy-tax-policies-and-ceo-pay.aspx

In its 18th annual report on CEO compensation, the Institute for Policy Studies zeroed in on Americans' current angst about how our government's going to pay its bills, by exploring the link between CEO pay and corporate taxation.

In Executive Excess 2011: The Massive Rewards for Tax Dodging, IPS points out that 25 of the 100 highest-paid chief executive officers in the U.S. took home more in salary last year than their corporations paid in annual taxes.

The 25 handsomely paid corporate chieftains in question made an average of $16.7 million in 2010. At 13 of those companies, CEO pay increased while either corporate tax bills fell, or refunds increased. Not surprisingly, the companies in question aren't struggling, with average global profits of $1.9 billion.

It's a quick article, but worth it.

[Red Arrow]

To add to your "reverse class warfare" file folder:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/08/31/dodgy-tax-policies-and-ceo-pay.aspx
It's a quick article, but worth it.

Companies are reducing their taxes by paying CEOs big bucks.  When taxes are considered, is it less expensive than paying the tax when they get to the bottom dollar? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Companies are reducing their taxes by paying CEOs big bucks.  When taxes are considered, is it less expensive than paying the tax when they get to the bottom dollar? 

That is exactly the class warfare that is so heinous in this tax structure.  As I have ranted about before, it is you and me that are subsidizing the CEO pay.  For every free dollar they get on their tax-free tens of millions, we have to make up the difference!

Which leads again to the question I have also asked before; how do supposedly rational middle class income people keep on voting for policies that are so horrendously biased and against their best financial interests - i.e. more of the same old tired "Bush tax cuts" approach to government.  It IS class warfare being waged on the bottom 98% of income earners by the top 2%.

[Red Arrow]

That is exactly the class warfare that is so heinous in this tax structure.  As I have ranted about before, it is you and me that are subsidizing the CEO pay.  For every free dollar they get on their tax-free tens of millions, we have to make up the difference!

Which leads again to the question I have also asked before; how do supposedly rational middle class income people keep on voting for policies that are so horrendously biased and against their best financial interests - i.e. more of the same old tired "Bush tax cuts" approach to government.  It IS class warfare being waged on the bottom 98% of income earners by the top 2%.

We need to make it less expensive to pay the tax than to avoid paying the tax.