You didn't see what I did there and I didn't derail it too far. Please remember that I am not the one that decided to talk about "what they say about people who assume," but then when asked, not say "what they say." In fact, you even said that "what they say" is not the typical "&*^ out of you and me" phrase, as if there's some other well-known saying about people who assume things that I don't know about. Frankly, there isn't any other saying about it. I put you on the spot since you said I was wrong about the saying, but you refuse to actually say what you're thinking. Please, I implore you, put me in my place and tell me what you think "they say about people who assume." If there ever was a time to "own" someone on the Internet, now is your chance! Just simply put your money where your fingers went, that's all! I'm sure you'll post something about how you're above this petty arguing or you're too mature to do it (you already did something akin to that) just to avoid admitting that I already nailed "what they say about people who assume" and you were full of crap when you said that was "not quite" it. So what will you do... (1) declare you're too mature to say what "they say about people who assume" (2) avoid admitting being incorrect (3) or put me in my place? Or the wildcard: (4) not post again. I'm leaning towards #1.
somewhat incorrect. The president submits a budget request to congress, committees in the House and Senate draft budget resolutions then vote on them. Congress changes the propsals all the time in order to get them passed. It isn't as if the President submits a budget and they just pass it.
Wow. I'm such an idiot. All this time I never realized that the President had the power to write a budget into law. Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc are all dumber than I thought. Why would they waste time asking Congress to vote on a budget and put the things they want in it in when they are the ones who set the budget unilaterally? Man, if only I had stopped my education at high school Social Studies, maybe I'd still be "aware" that the president is the one with control over the budget. Congress is the one that rules on Constitutionality right? Spoiler Some stuff that you learn AFTER high school social studies: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budgetprop.htm http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budget_page5.htm
I thought his presidency was one of his better parts, but I also liked Law and Order and The Winning Team. The movie with the monkey wasn't too bad. He was good with Bogart in that other movie, can't think of the title.
Reagan was a disgrace. He worked for the wealthy, at the dire expense of everyone else. He is the second worst thing to happen to the United States during my lifetime.
That's going to be Obama by far. He will also be president during double digit unemployment and possibly the worst recession in decades. Usually, it is very unfair to blame any single president for economic conditions. Doing so usually makes one look like a partisan hack. It is also unfair to pin the early 80's recession on Reagan. The economic cycle pretty much goes on regardless of who is in office. If Clinton got elected to a 3rd and 4th term, he would have been run into deficits as the tech-bubble bursted. And we could all unfairly blame him too.
And yet, you're already accusing Obama of things that haven't even come to pass. He's not even 1 year into his term and already you're blaming him for things. But no, you're not a partisan hack.
That is a really unthoughtful thing to say. Say he was stupid, wrong, anything...but Hitler? Are you one of those Holocaust deniers?
He may have benefited from good timing, since 1968 onward seems to have been the most f'ed up time in postwar America. Twelve years worth of lying, incompetent or uninspired leadership. Basically appearing more confident, straightforward and decisive must have appeared original and appealing. That having been said, I think Reagan has to be given some praise for his tax cuts. I think those high marginal rates were a little easier to stomach when the country was going to the moon, not losing wars and expanding economically; it doesn't seem like any of that was going on in the '70s. And I guess we have to credit him for restoring our military confidence: losing a 14 year war, possibly indirectly causing a genocide in Cambodia, watching Russia roll into Afghanistan and completely missing the initial rise of Islamic terrorism all probably made massive defense spending seem appropriate and overdue. I guess if Bush 41 were more consistent and engaged, and Clinton and W had switched decades, Reagan might not look so great in comparison.
Lowered every single tax rate, rebuilt a decimated military, helped bring an end to the Cold War, refused to accept the status quo of mutually assured destruction. He helped bring about a safer, more prosperous union, can't ask for much more than that.
I think we can ask for more than a President who acted with his veto power to support Apartheid in South Africa. I think we could ask for more than a President who increased the gap between the wealthy and poor. I think we could ask for more than President who traded arms with a nation that is one of the largest supporters of terrorism. I think we could ask for more than a President who supported brutal dictatorships in Central America. It would be hard to ask for less.
No, do bother...If you disagree explain your reasons why. I'm liberal, but if someone is making sense then it's worth listening too.
