That’s how they roll. Gas tax holiday? Drill here, drill now?

“Government standards and unions are doing their magic on the auto industry as we speak.”
ok. If you want a car built by a corrupt government without union labor, I can sell you a few Yugo’s.

“While it is certainly easy to correlate the S&L crisis with Reagan, correlation is not causation.”
Deregulation by Ronnie was not the cause? Wait. I’ll amend that. Deregulation by Ronnie was like giving the keys to a candy store to the fat kids.

Thanks for your response. True, the deficit did grow short term as expected with large tax cuts. However, I was referring to economic growth, not the government budget. There was a reason Reagan won a landslide in 84′ – strong economic recovery. He inherited an economy with an inflation rate of 11.83% and unemployment rate of 7.5% – much worse than right now.

While it is certainly easy to correlate the S&L crisis with Reagan, correlation is not causation. The causes run deep into our history and I won’t get into it here, but you can see it here if you like:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SavingsandLoanCrisis.html

I really have no idea how Carter’s policies on fuel standards helps the economy in short or long term. Government standards and unions are doing their magic on the auto industry as we speak.

If Obama comes out and makes things better, I will stand corrected. I really don’t care whose guy does it; I just want things to get better. Just don’t deny responsibility based on time and say 8 years isn’t enough. There is plenty of time.

When Ronald Reagan took over, he caused the deficit to balloon to record levels. He wasn’t able to get things in check for YEARS after he took over office. It wasn’t fast like you implied.

“I would love for you to enlighten me about the history of Carter and Reagan. Clearly, I read the wrong history books. The point is not that Reagan was perfect or even close to it, but that he promoted economic policies that revived our economy instead of constricting it.”

I would question that latter claim. His policies also helped lead to the S&L scandal of the 1980s, which hurt the economy. Also, by reversing Carter’s policies on fuel standards, he hurt the economy in the long run. Short-term gain for long term pain is not the way to run a government.

What do you mean? Making the deficit balloon to record levels will make things better? Am I misunderstanding you?

“I know Republicans like to deify Reagan, but you really need to read a history book before you make comments like the one above.”

I would love for you to enlighten me about the history of Carter and Reagan. Clearly, I read the wrong history books. The point is not that Reagan was perfect or even close to it, but that he promoted economic policies that revived our economy instead of constricting it.

Your efforts are valiant on foreign policy Bruce, but Carter’s disasters that I referred to were economic. Sorry for being vague. As far as “trickle-down” economics, I am sure you have some insightful empirical evidence to prove your theories of economic injustices and class separation. Perhaps some astonishing and convincing statistics about the success of the Community Reinvestment Act?

And look how well that turned out.

Ok, Jay Tea, enough out of you, you should really get back to your own website, those bogus election fraud charges in the Minnesota senate race aren’t going to make themselves up.. Everybody now, “STOP THE RECOUNT!!”, it’ll be just like 2000, right?

Or are you just going back to the standard republican line of “he just had too much money”? Because I love hearing republicans whine about being outspent for the first time in, oh, about ever.

No, Crusty, I’m not arguing anything. I’m saying that it could be an interesting bit of data to compare the amounts the two campaigns spent on the general election, convert it to a percentage of each candidate, and compare that to a breakdown of the popular and electoral votes.

I suspect that it will show the McCain campaign was more efficient, in the sense that it will have spent less per vote, but it will be closer in the electoral totals — and, in the end, McCain’s was less efficient by the simple fact that he lost. Just a little exercise.

J.

Yeah, it wouldn’t take long for Obama to cause the deficit to balloon to record levels, but we want him to make things better.

I know Republicans like to deify Reagan, but you really need to read a history book before you make comments like the one above.

That would be typical for Republicans of the last two election: the Karl Rove 50% 1 strategy, in which one claims a mandate by eking out a narrow victory in a select group of states, instead of doing one’s best to persuade as many people in as broad a swath of the country as possible.

I love Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy. I was a little irked to see Obama ads running in truly no-hoper states like Texas, but I really, really love that Democrats have gotten out of the mindset that there’s no point in trying to persuade people in Nebraska to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. I love that Obama won the 2nd Congressional District in Nebraska and will get an Electoral College vote from it. This is the renaissance of the party — not the much-touted “netroots” or “progressivism” or whatever, but realizing the relevance of liberal policies to the entire nation, and the rejection by much of the nation of Republican strategies of pandering to terror.

(Scariest discussion I had with a Republican friend this election season: where he equated the “Obama’s presidency will bring about a 2nd Holocaust” mailer from the PA GOP, with Obama’s scaring senior citizens about McCain’s plans for Medicare/ Social Security. Otherwise-intelligent Republicans have gotten to the point where they can’t distinguish between telling Jews that Israel will be a smoking hole in the ground, and telling old people that their benefits will decline. This same friend was contemplating several months ago that he should move to London for safety reasons because Obama’s election might make NYC too much of a target — this being a guy who was on the London Underground on 7/7/05 — but I think I ridiculed him out of that one.)

I don’t expect miracles. It would take more than two terms just to get back to 1999.”

Nice way of denying all responsibility. Didn’t take Reagan that long to undo Carter’s disasters. Surely – Obama can do the same. Time will tell.

Or are you just going back to the standard republican line of “he just had too much money”? Because I love hearing republicans whine about being outspent for the first time in, oh, about ever.

The Obabma campaign was extremely nimble, able to go into states that were deemed vulnerable even up to the last couple weeks. As a contributor I appreciated that conservation of resources for targets of opportunity. A 50 state strategy, McCain couldn’t compete nationwide. He had to abandon down ticket Republicans as a result.

The Obama infomercial. Efficient. 23 million people saw that sucker in one night. Way better than random commercials.

One of the things I REALLY liked was the Obama channel on Dish Network (Channel 73). Again, efficient.

Please don’t complain that Obama had more money. I gave until it hurt. I didn’t do that for Kerry, he didn’t inspire me. The fact that they had the foresight to utilize those resources to do this kind of research says tons. They are ready to represent me and the people who think like me immediately after the election.

Ha ha ha ha ha….

HA HA HA HA HA…..

HA HA HA HA HA HA….

Welcome to the next four years. Today! Jay Tea had no problem with the kind of regulatory changes that Bush made or how Bush went about making them. Now, of course, the entire process is suspect. Jay Tea is a hack.