Presidents in Perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.

TimT

Junior Member
Jan 19, 2010
4
0
0
Carter: Is underrated. Much of what he told the American people has come to pass. Issues we face today, he warned us about decades earlier. The problem is, Americans don't want to be told the truth. Instead, they want to hear what sounds good, they want to believe we can spend forever, that everything is going to be okay etc. Result? Trickle-Down Economics of President Reagan which saw spending increase to unprecedented levels.

Bush: Very determined to fight terrorists, but ineffective in his understanding how to work with the international body to get it done. Deficits ballooned under him, relations with many countries were strained. The end of his presidency was capped by the economic crisis which soured what little support he had with the American people.

Obama: Just like some people on a rebound from a bad relationship tend to go to the first person that tells them what they want to hear - the American people fell in love with Obama's 'sweet' talk, compared to Bush he was like a godsend, a man with a messiah like quality, and people who were so utterly disappointed in Bush, swarmed to support Obama. Now, our deficits are growing at an ever more accelerated rate. There is talk of the US defaulting under the load of its debt. Wall Street is cashing in while Mainstreet is left in tatters. Wars that were suppose to end, are instead expanding. What was promised is not what is being delivered and Americans are once again becoming disillusioned.


The real issue here is that Americans are downright awful at picking presidents. They don't choose based on logic, but instead on emotions. They get swept away by the hype, the promises, the spin in the media and ultimately choose wrong. The only candidate that really made sense in the last election, one who spoke honestly, and much of what he said has been proven correct is Ron Paul. That is not to say I agree with him on every point, but compared to McCain & Obama he was the better choice. Something that is proven by the fact that much of what he was saying during the election is now being spoken by more and more Republicans and Democrats - HR 1207 is a testament to this.

Isn't it about time Americans wake up and listen to this guy?
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Having recently written 20,000 words on Carter (largely agreeing witrh you), and millions on Bush, I'll just hit your main point.

So, you are victim of the Paul appeal - the "wow, he saaid something I really agree with" pretty much everyone has, but not yet the "oh my gosh, he said THAT" becaus he's a (bad) radical.

He's the pepsi sales guy who starts you on the 10 soda a day diet you're really excited about until you check the science. The gutting of government he proposesleads to the destruction of society,

You didn't mention the name Dennis Kucinich.

In my opinion, he's the guy you are looking for in your description - the one not getting much attention who had 'real solutions'. On those appealing Paul issues, Kucinich and Paul actually allied at times.

The basic issue is your fustration, why do we elect bad presidents? Check into the issue of political corruption by big corporate moeny being allowed to be needed to win.

Try the book "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann - but it's bad news.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
The real issue here is that Americans are downright awful at picking presidents. They don't choose based on logic, but instead on emotions. They get swept away by the hype, the promises, the spin in the media and ultimately choose wrong. The only candidate that really made sense in the last election, one who spoke honestly, and much of what he said has been proven correct is Ron Paul. That is not to say I agree with him on every point, but compared to McCain & Obama he was the better choice. Something that is proven by the fact that much of what he was saying during the election is now being spoken by more and more Republicans and Democrats - HR 1207 is a testament to this.

Isn't it about time Americans wake up and listen to this guy?

You got it dead on, and it absolutely is time. The parties are gleefully driving us off a cliff right now.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
He's the pepsi sales guy who starts you on the 10 soda a day diet you're really excited about until you check the science. The gutting of government he proposesleads to the destruction of society,

This is, perhaps, the most stupid thing I've ever seen you write on this forum, and that's saying A LOT.

In your view, if the gubb'ment isn't there to hold our hand, society will crumble? You, sir, have no clue.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
This is, perhaps, the most stupid thing I've ever seen you write on this forum, and that's saying A LOT.

In your view, if the gubb'ment isn't there to hold our hand, society will crumble? You, sir, have no clue.

Add him to the ignore list. Not only does it make threads shorter, it raises the average intelligence considerably. :awe:
 

TimT

Junior Member
Jan 19, 2010
4
0
0
I am not sure what is meant by 'Ron Paul bot-bot'? Please do explain.
Also, Curious, is your sarcastic & dismissive message a form of 'initiation'? :)

Craig234, I never said I agreed with Ron Paul entirely... I lean towards the Austrian School of Thought so my views on the economy are very similar to his... In addition to that, I also agree with him on his stances on war, foreign relations, personal liberty, small government, elimination of the Fed...
 
Last edited:

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I wish you had started the post with Ron Paul so I would have known to stop reading there :(

Ron Paul's a funny guy, but from what I've read about it, the vast majority of his ideas seem not well thought out and largely impractical in real world applications.
 

ra990

Senior member
Aug 18, 2005
359
0
76
Very much agree with OP. Also liked Ron Paul and felt he was the most honest candidate.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I wish you had started the post with Ron Paul so I would have known to stop reading there :(

Ron Paul's a funny guy, but from what I've read about it, the vast majority of his ideas seem not well thought out and largely impractical in real world applications.

On the bright side, PJ continues his prediction record with the post following his being the one he predicted wouldn't be made. TimT, read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" on the Austian school.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I am not sure what is meant by 'Ron Paul bot-bot'? Please do explain.
Also, Curious, is your sarcastic & dismissive message a form of 'initiation'? :)

Craig234, I never said I agreed with Ron Paul entirely... I lean towards the Austrian School of Thought so my views on the economy are very similar to his... In addition to that, I also agree with him on his stances on war, foreign relations, personal liberty, small government, elimination of the Fed...

Austrian economics is a failure because they don't recognize the necessity of redistribution. America was founded with it (home steading) and ran with it (small business loans, FHA etc) and unfortunately today has largely subsided because we don't give away land anymore to people, and bailed out banks have a strangle hold on funds currently, hence worse economic news.

Why is redistribution necessary? Because unregulated capitalism moves wealth from the labor that creates it to the owners who accumulate it. Simple as that. The rich get richer and poor get poorer. Over time the wealthy control of capital enables them to control politics like we see now, banking like the private FED, and job creation and pay nothing to workers (let them eat cake) because there's more workers than capital. Owners have succeeded in getting it all many times and spawned a revolution because all of a society's productive assets and policies are controlled by a small elite. You get fabulous wealth on the one hand, and destitution and misery on the other.

The way to fix this w/o bloodshed and revolution, is to establish mechanisms to move wealth from the top back to the bottom. One simple way to do that is labor unions or higher wages. The other simple solution is progressive taxation.Guess what, our modestly unionized, progressively taxed economy from the end of the war into the mid-1970's was just amazingly prosperous almost to the bottom of society. Not only that, every rich country on earth has capitalism with strong socialistic undertones. Take at look at your "no tax" , "free market", "minimalist government" paradises. They have names like "Guatemala", "Bolivia" and "Chad" you wouldn't be caught dead in.

Never underestimate the power you were given by those that sacrificed before you, unless you care to repeat those conditions. Many of you couldn't survive in the misery and poverty of a "minimalist government" paradise. I'd be interested to see how Mr. Paul paid for his medical school or primary school for that matter, couldn't have been redistributionist taxpayer funded education? Nah.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Some good points a lot of people need to be educated on, on an issue we have a lot of agreement, Zebo.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
What is "aid" to poor/needy countries?

In the case of the US government, acting on the wishes of the people to help others. Ideologues who want to whine about their money being taken at the point of a gun get the usual ignore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.