With 3 years left for Obama, what's next for the American Right?

I'm not American but I'm curious to know all those who are socially conservative and those calling themselves Republicans or support Ron Paul style economics now that Obama has 3 years left of his Presidency what you intend to do moving forward.

I will use the word conservative to bucket all Obama political opponents together as some on the right do not use the label Republican (I don't ask Ron Paul supporters who stayed home during the 2012 election this question. Only those who wanted to remove Obama by any means including voting for Mitt Romeny).

What is your plans moving forward with Obama having 3 years left?

Do you:

1. Find a way to remove him from Office before January 20th 2017.

2. Wait out the clock for the next election and hope your preferred candidate/candidates win.

3. Accept that the United States has changed and adjust your policies accordingly or become cynical and never vote again.

Obviously you will do everything you can to prevent Obama's policies from being implemented. That's not even a question. But what then? If it's 3, then I'm guessing that you either learned from mistakes made or you accept that the economy and culture will NEVER be what it used to be. With 2 you can talk about the 2016 election. With 1 I can only ask HOW and for what?

 

If the right really wanted to make progress, they would stop fussing about gay marriage, support pot legalization/decriminalization, and find a way to balance the budget.

 

With 3 years left for Obama, what's next for the American Right?

Therapy?

Drugs?

Acting like responsible adults for a change?

 

They will stick with number 1.

 

Their in denial. That won't work.

Their against legalization of any drugs. Not an option.

If they had only been adults from the start, that strategy might have worked. Sorry, not a possibility.

 

You left out retain the House and win the Senate and then pass legislation and dare Obama to veto it without offering alternatives or being willing to compromise and negotiate.

Depends on the policy, if he came out with a policy that would help get the economy going like cutting corporate tax rates and easy regulations they'd be glad to work with him. The truth is it is Obama who will do everything he can to get Republican policies implemented while doing nothing himself.

Sounding like Carter and his simlar ideas which almost brought the economy down until Reagan stepped up and said we are better than that and the American people can and will bring the economy back if government just gets out of the way. He was right.

I think you on the left had better be thinking about how YOU will retain the Senate with this failed economy and failed Obamacare and how you will win the WH if you nominate a failed SecState whose attempt to put in place a health care plan also fell on it's face.

 

yeah, but the far right exists on these issues alone.

 

maybe loss after loss will change a few minds. who knows...

 

A lot of the hysteria on the Right will tamp down if the next President (Dem or Repub...even if it's Hillary)....is white.

 

Basically wait until the next election.

In a world of finite resources, libertarian economics will eventually not work. Carter almost brought down the econmy you say? If I recall correctly, I heard many say that if Obama wins a second term then it's all over for the economy.

I couldn't care less for the political fortunes of American politicians Democrat or Republican as I'm not American. Besides, I'm no fan of Obama as I don't believe he is a true progressive for countless reasons.

 

Carter, who I voted against, has turned out to have been a very good president.

Reagan, who I voted for, left us with a host of problems, many of which we are still paying for. Most notably a mountain of unnecessary debt, and the blueprint that every Republcian politician has followed ever since; borrow and spend.

Ronald Reagan's tax cuts did not jump start the economy. In 1984, unemployment was higher than it was in 1980.

The economy began to rise in 1985, after the Saudis stopped limiting production to keep oil prices up.

Reagan's tax cuts did throw the American economic machine into reverse, and reverse the fifty year old trend in which middle class earnings and assets grew as a percentage of GDP.

Reagan threw that in reverse. Thirty years later, income inequality is a real issue in the industrialized economy with the most of it, and the least social mobility.

 

That is true.

You will not hear of the tea party again after January 2017, and probably even before.

Rabid tea partiers on this forum will deny ever having been tea partiers.

Just as rabid Bush dead enders deny that they ever voted for Bush.

There's a lot of that.

 

I pity an individual who possesses a thinking process so shallow as to resort to belief that the problem with Obama is skin color.

Just shameful troglodyte grunting, basically.

 

To give you just a whiff of how extreme believing that Carter was a 'good' POTUS is, I give you the top TEN LIST of WORST PRESIDENTS EVER, as polled.

And - because you're a liberal, who will literally contort your body to fit in any crevasse to avoid exposure to the truth, I'll give you this:



There's far more where THAT came from.

Do you even hear yourself? You're whining about borrow and spend, and you support Obama IN THE PRESENT doing JUST THAT VERY THING on an UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL!?!?



"most of it we're still paying for"???? WHATEVER Reagan did is DWARFED by what is happening now.

Reagan created an economy which HANDILY generated far more in taxes than the Government required to run itself just TWO YEARS PRIOR to the taxes it generated! All Congress had to do was STOP SPENDING. Reagan wasn't the one who spent all that money; it was CONGRESS which did.

Just for good measure, I'm going to put this chart of US Debt here:

Aw, dat's cute, liberal. Here's the chart of long-term unemployment. Reagan held office from 1981-1989. What comment could you POSSIBLY make about the employment rate of Reagan that could POSSIBLY make you look good, but the 'lying with statistics' that you did?



So, let's just bash the crap you'd LIKE to say to defend your flatulent attempt to bash Reagan's policies. You see that massive peak in unemployment in the early 80's? Reagan had been POTUS one year at that peak. Reagan's policies had only JUST begun to take hold. JUST. And you try to bash Reagan for an unemployment rate that didn't IMMEDIATELY drop. What a crock. This from the guy who has been cradling Obama's codpiece in his teeth for 5 YEARS, blaming any ills on the POTUS before him.

Cognitive Dissonance is a liberal beyotch.

Once again: Reagan was POTUS from 1981-1989. See that MASSIVE DROP in unemployment? If Reagan was what you claim him to be, THAT LINE COULD NOT HAVE DROPPED.

Oil prices dropped after the Oil Glut of the early 1980's, which took place because of a CRAPPY economy - led by the US - in the 1970's.

In the United States, Europe and Japan, oil consumption had fallen 13% from 1979 to 1981, due to "in part, in reaction to the very large increases in oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil exporters," continuing a trend begun during the 1973 price increases.[9]

So these oil prices JUMPED right as Reagan was hitting office, and he had to deal with it. He did. Here's how:

In April 1979, Jimmy Carter signed an executive order which was to remove market controls from petroleum products by October 1981, so that prices would be wholly determined by the free market. Ronald Reagan signed an executive order on January 28, 1981 which enacted this reform immediately,[11] allowing the free market to adjust oil prices in the US.[12] This ended the withdrawal of old oil from the market and artificial scarcity, encouraging increased oil production.[citation needed] The US Oil Windfall profits tax was lowered in August 1981 and removed in 1988, ending disincentives to US oil producers. Additionally, the Alaskan Prudhoe Bay Oil Field entered peak production, supplying the US West Coast with up to 2 million bpd of crude oil.

Unlike anything positive to come from Obama's Administration, Reagan actually got something done, and - about the only thing which Carter did which made sense - immediately signed into law a reform that Carter had NOT enacted, but HAD AT LEAST IMAGINED. Only at the end of his Presidency. Only once the obvious damage of his economic tinkering had become far too apparent.

Why don't you stop fabricating history wherever you think you must to support your pathetic ideology?

"Grew as a percentage of GDP". There you go again. My PENIS grew as a 'percentage of GDP' until we started DEFICIT SPENDING MORE THAN IN THE PAST.

Why don't you try honesty for once? Stop comparing things to "a percentage of GDP"! Liberals dishonestly and deceitfully cite "percentage of GDP" in nearly every stat they attempt. GDP INCLUDES massive deficit spending! Nearly EVERY measurable metric will decline "as a percentage of GDP" if DEFICIT SPENDING increases FASTER than that metric!

In presenting such a dishonest metric, you are literally demanding that people's wages would have INCREASED at a rate faster than our ability to PRINT MONEY - and if people's wages increased that fast, then TAXES would have increased that much, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DEFICIT SPENDING.

No, Congress did. Reagan negotiated with the Dem Congress - a Congress assisted in ideology by "Tax and Spend" Bob DOLE - to "create $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases" to which Reagan agreed. Congress LIED.

All you've identified was the 1980's point in the deficit chart:



See what Democrats did there? That line migrated SOUTH during the ONLY TIMES that Dems had the power to both propose CRAZY SPENDING IN THE HOUSE, and PASS IT IN THE SENATE. The only time that trend REVERSED was during GINGRICH'S time in Congress, when he forced Clinton to sign the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA and REVERSE that trend.

Reagan wanted NOTHING TO DO with that massive amount of spending. Even the spending Reagan promoted to defeat the USSR during the COLD WAR was only a minority percentage of the total deficit spending that Congress enacted. That was why Reagan wanted LINE ITEM VETO. Of course, liberals at the time clucked what a massive power grab by the President such a move would be - Reagan could have literally scribbled out every line item of PORK the liberals put in Omnibus bills - but notice how silent these same liberals are when OBAMA wants to CIRCUMVENT CONGRESS WITH HIS PEN AND HIS PHONE?!?

But here's the facts: if an economy is ROBUST, deficits do not matter NEARLY AS MUCH, because the economic engine is powerful enough to overcome them. But: if the POTUS is an ECONOMIC NINCOMPOOP, and doesn't know HOW to revitalize an ECONOMY, deficits can be DEADLY.

Particularly when interest rates start to rise, and we have to pay increasingly more of our total intake in taxes on INTEREST on that debt. Derp.

Another liberal meme. "Social mobility" slows with economic sluggishness: like Obamanomics. "Income inequality" is worse under Obama than at any point in the past; Obama has created a Crony Economy in which only the WEALTHIEST - those who can ensure gains through their partnerships in Government - gain.

Deny that.

In point of fact, however, "income inequality" is just a ruse. Long term, the chart looks like this:



Charts like that are drawn for the emotional reaction they cause. What is dishonest about them is that every quintile but the TOP quintile is mathematically limited to a rate of increase that is logarithmically indexed to the quintiles below. The reason that the TOP quintile isn't limited is because when members of THAT quintile massively increase wealth, they don't BECOME a member of the next squiggly line up; they assist in MASSIVELY pushing THEIR line up.

Either way: the spread in the lines does NOT equal a difference in DISPARITY. It indicates a MAGNIFICATION OF SCALE WHICH IS A NATURAL RESULT OF EXPANDING THE MONEY SUPPLY.

Do you need it put another way? A 1920's millionaire is EQUAL to a 2014 BILLIONAIRE. A 1920's PAUPER is EQUAL to a 2014 POVERTY member. A nickel in 1920 could buy a MALT. Today, that malt costs $2.00.

And you look at charts like that and squeal INCOME DISPARITY! While - gallingly - PROMOTING MORE OF IT BY SUPPORTING KEYNESIANISM.

Either nearly no liberal is mathematically astute enough to understand that (or just plain dumb) or - WORSE - they're just being DISHONEST about it.

You pick which one YOU are.

 

Gratuitous Race Card play. Drink! Thanks.

 

Let's look more closely at this "Wealth Disparity" crap that liberals are pushing.



Now, TomFitz/other economically clueless liberals: let's discuss what this chart means to you.

Here is what it means to me: unlike what many of you clowns attempt to claim, ALL INCOME QUINTILES GREW THEIR WEALTH UNDER REAGAN. ALL GROWTH OF ALL QUINTILES STOPPED since about 1995.

This tells me that the economic model of Keynesianism is FAILING.

It also tells me that there IS no "wealth gap"; it has OBVIOUSLY been about the same HISTORICALLY, and ALL quintiles stopped expanding on a statistical slope for nearly 20 YEARS now.



Ok...so maybe this 'wealth disparity' thing is as big a problem in Brazil as the US...how about Greece:



Erm...Egypt?



Gosh...is this fictitious problem of 'wealth disparity' a non-issue ANYWHERE??!



OMGWTFDIAFBBQ!! Oh, LOOKIE THERE! We cannot escape this BS "Wealth Disparity" anywhere in the world!!!

Why dat, liberals?

Because THIS IS A MADE UP PROPAGANDA TOOL BY SOCIALISTS TO TAKE WEALTH FROM THOSE WHO HAVE IT.

 

Hm. Been awfully quiet in here.

 

It seems to me they have a problem with women as well, so I think they'll be just as hysterical.

 

When January 20th comes I'll ask again with 2 years left.

 

There's a mind that's a 180 out if there ever was one.

 

BS We came close to balancing the Budget under Clinton. The primary purpose of the presidency is to represent this country in the field of foreign affairs. AS bad as Obama is replacing him with Biden would make things even worse. So no unless Obama does something completely insane replacing him isn't on the agenda.

 

I see no reason to believe that they'll do much of anything. Why would they suddenly change?

 

Because of Gingrich and Kasich not Clinton.

 

'We' is the Republicans all Clinton did was sign the paper work

 

It was done under a Republican congress, Clinton opposed the measures that brought it about and was forced to sign the budgets and tax rate cuts and welfare reform. It was not done under him it was done in spite of him,let's not give him the undue credit he and the Democrats like to claim.