Immaculate Narcissism

[Townsend]

. . .or students doing research for school.  The White House website is a rather strong bibliographic reference. 

This is the same path that was taken in other countries after changes in government.  History books were altered to paint the new boss as superior to the old bosses. Vorwärts!

Happens every campaign year for each person running.  People were seriously trying to put a good spin on Santorum and Bachmann.  Please.

[Red Arrow]

Look at the slutty kettle calling the whorish pot black.
"too easy".  Pffft, it was a classic.

I obviously disagree.

[AquaMan]

To take a historical account like an official White House biography and insert yourself, is just a bit much.  I mean really?

Of course I'm fairly convinced you would defend him no matter what.  If he were to replace each of these biographies with a treatise on his own greatness you would simply refer to it as marketing, and praise him for doing so.  The cliff looms and you happily march towards it.

Don't be so doofus. You act like this is your religion. This is politics man. Updating an "official" White House biography with current status is not blasphemy. With your stilted view of the world Jackie Kennedy would never have redecorated the building because it was already Eisenhower official. Cape Canaveral would never have changed to Cape Kennedy. He's not changing the Magna Carta or the Washington Monument.

Sheesh. You guys take this anti-O, anti-D, anti-Lib thing to the extreme.

[nathanm]

Interesting to know that continuing successful programs begun by past Presidents is narcissistic. Seems like it would be precisely the opposite given the word's definition, but I'm no English major.

[Townsend]

I obviously disagree.

You hate sidewalks.  Can't take you seriously anyway.

[Gaspar]

Interesting to know that continuing successful programs begun by past Presidents is narcissistic. Seems like it would be precisely the opposite given the word's definition, but I'm no English major.

But he's being untruthful.  He said this in the Reagan bio:

in a 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Reagan pushed for simplifying the tax code, pushing a "simpler, three-bracket design" and "closing the loopholes,...(to) bring tax rates down for everyone!  Obama misquoted this with an excerpt from his own speech about the Buffet rule on April 11th.

"I'm not the first President to call for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share.  Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept.  He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong.  So this President gave another speech where he said it was "crazy" -- that's a quote -- that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary.  That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

"He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so.  I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we're calling for now:  a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part.  And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule."

Dude is trying to run on Reagan by re-packaging what Reagan stood for.  If President Obama wants to run for a second term, perhaps he should run on Obamanomics instead of Reaganomics?  Reagan's suit simply does not fit!  Never will.

Accurate Reagan Quotes:
"We want to cut taxes, not opportunity. As you can see, the percentage of income tax owed would come down, way down, for those earning less than $15,000, down for earnings between $15,000 and $30,000, down for earnings between $30,000 and $50,000, and down for those earning more than $50,000.... By lowering everyone's tax rates all the way up the income scale, each of us will have a greater incentive to climb higher, to excel, to help America grow."

"It stands to reason that the more complex our tax code is, the more open it is to abuse. So, we're making it simple to make it fair. America's tax plan will do away with special breaks for a few so we can lower the tax rates for all. Our simpler, three-bracket design will assure that no American pays one penny more than his fair share."

"By closing the loopholes, we can bring tax rates down for the vast majority of Americans. Our tax proposal is the opposite of trickle down; it's bubble up.
"Most important of all, America's long suffering families will get dramatic tax relief. The fair share plan gives all of America's families a much-needed break by lowering the tax rates, increasing the standard deduction, making tax deductible IRA's equally available to homemakers, and best of all, nearly doubling the personal exemption so that you can deduct $2,000 for yourself and every one of your dependents."

"And the way I see it, if our current tax structure were a TV show, it would either be 'Foul-ups, Bleeps, and Blunders,' or 'Gimme a Break.' If it were a record album, it would be 'Gimme Shelter.' If it were a movie, it would be 'Revenge of the Nerds' or maybe 'Take the Money and Run.' And if the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, ever wants a theme song, maybe they'll get Sting to do, 'Every breath you take, every move you make, I'll be watching you.'"



Reagan was always good at pointing out the absurdity of the over-engineered. He would have been the last person to embrace the Keynesian or Carterian models for economic recovery.

[nathanm]

But he's being untruthful.  He said this in the Reagan bio:

You could just read Reagan's 1985 state of the union speech and find out for yourself, but that would be harder than making smile up, wouldn't it?

(Protip: Don't use quotes that contradict your thesis)

[Gaspar]

You could just read Reagan's 1985 state of the union speech and find out for yourself, but that would be harder than making smile up, wouldn't it?

(Protip: Don't use quotes that contradict your thesis)

Are you going to tell me what I made up, or just offer that open ended accusation?

Here is his 1985 SOTU.  I still see no mention of a proposal like the Buffett rule, or anything remotely like what "THE ONE" is suggesting he stood for:

http://reagan2020.us/speeches/state_of_the_union_1985.asp

[nathanm]

I still see no mention of a proposal like the Buffett rule, or anything remotely like what "THE ONE" is suggesting he stood for:

Read more carefully, he spoke on the subject of loopholes.

[Gaspar]

Read more carefully, he spoke on the subject of loopholes.

Whoopty-doo. 

That's not what the President is presenting in the Buffet Rule AT ALL (A minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year), or anything remotely close to what Reagan proposed, yet the president is still qualifying Reagan's actions as complementary to his own.  Nor is it even remotely close to what Reagan said in that address.

[nathanm]

Whoopty-doo. 

That's not what the President is presenting in the Buffet Rule AT ALL (A minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year), or anything remotely close to what Reagan proposed, yet the president is still qualifying Reagan's actions as complementary to his own.  Nor is it even remotely close to what Reagan said in that address.

Funny, my transcript must be different than yours. I guess I could go watch it on youtube.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are simply beyond belief. A marketing guy who believes in marketing for anyone but Democrats and black presidents. Strange brew indeed.

It's all about "The Script".

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's just that he seems to continue to take actions that do nothing but invite ridicule.

Why the hell would the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, feel it necessary to be so egocentric?

Why do you keep dredging up the ancient history of the Baby Bush administration???

[heironymouspasparagus]

. . .or students doing research for school.  The White House website is a rather strong bibliographic reference. 

This is the same path that was taken in other countries after changes in government.  History books were altered to paint the new boss as superior to the old bosses. Vorwärts!

You mean the revisionist history that Mitt is advancing today?  Even before the election??

[heironymouspasparagus]

Reagan was always good at pointing out the absurdity of the over-engineered. He would have been the last person to embrace the Keynesian or Carterian models for economic recovery.

And yet,...amazingly enough...that is exactly what he did!  After his oft-touted tax cuts, he presided over the largest tax increases in the history of the world until that time.  Because he UNDERSTOOD.  Something Baby Bush and his clown-posse never did and never will.

He understood that even a modestly growing economy not only could afford the taxes, but MUST have them to function.

Being such a fan of Reagan, how would you feel about going back to exactly the situation when he left office?  Or worse yet, going to the AVERAGE of the tax rate for his administration?