Is Obama Really the Liberal Reagan?

Obama is the Anti-Reagan

He is the best I have ever seen at what he does. Joseph Goebbels could not even match Obamas' skill level.

Matt of TN @ Feb 21, 2008 01:44:12 AM

Barack Hussein Obama

That says it all. And only seven years after 9/11. Americans can't be this stupid. Then again...

Kevin of WA @ Feb 20, 2008 15:20:18 PM

EDR,

On charitable giving. I've heard this before, that charitable giving in red states is bigger than in blue states and I think you rightly point out above that this is, in large part, religous - giving to their churches. And absolutely, churches do much great work.

To make a fair comparison, however, I think we would need to back out the amount of church donations that go to the O&M and capital programs of those churches. If sources that say giving in red states is greater look only at the tax forms of our citizens, they are overstating the true charitable giving.

Until I know that, I will always take this w/ a grain of salt. Are you aware of any neutral study that does back this out? For churches in both red and blue states, of course.

Curt of DE @ Feb 19, 2008 21:27:59 PM

Guys GUyse

I still have this steamin duece sitting in my pants...HOly Moly MOther of the Baby Jesus it does stink!

jim hon of NE @ Feb 19, 2008 11:25:12 AM

Response to Curt of DE

Curt of DE,

I think we are coming to an agreement here that the federal government is not and should not be treated as a charity. If it isn't a charity, by definition, it should not attempt to engage in charitable acts, such as taking money out of one person's pocket to specifically benefit another person. Rather, it should support projects that benefit all citizens equally.

When the government takes money from one person and gives it to another, it is attempting to engage in charity, but is in essence violating one citizen's fundamental propery rights to benefit another. The very reason it is NOT charity - and I agree with you - is that it can use the power of force to compel citizens to make "donations" (which violates the "freely given" portion of the definition of charity). Once it uses force to engage in any sort of redistribution, any of the good in the act has been lost, and the government has crossed over into illegitimacy, into morally unjustifiable acts. It's the equivalent of me holding you at gunpoint to take your money, and then donating that money to the local homeless shelter. Even though my intentions may be honorable, the circumstances (my acting with free will and your lack thereof) and the act itself (violent robbery) do not justify the intent (to help people).

As for my "painting with a large brushstroke", I will admit to doing so in regards to my comments about the charitable contributions from liberals, even though the facts support the aggregate. While the large majority of liberals are not generous donors, I can't logically say that you are or are not generous. My bad. However, I am still left to wonder why a movement that speaks so glowingly of helping people, is - in the aggregate - minimally charitable. This seems a logical contradiction.

However, the majority of my comments are not generalizations, they are logical reasoning. If one believes X, in order to be logically consistent, belief Y follows. I suppose that is a form of generalization, in that I am assuming that people wish to be - and strive to be - logically consistent. People can - and today largely do - believe things that are logically inconsistent.

EDR of FL @ Feb 18, 2008 14:23:03 PM

Where to start and where to end?

First Jim Jones of KS:

I agree the supluses began w/ Reagan - he raised taxes 3 times after they saw what the tax cuts did to the deficit. Including an increase larger than Clinton's. Clinton raised taxes and then he and Congress cut spending, in large part reductions to the military. Republicans criticize the military cuts but have no problem claiming credit for balancing the budget.

Bottom line - name any tax cut that hasn't been accompanied by a far greater infusion of borrowed money. Example - Bush cut taxes $1.2 trillion, transfering the existing money from the public sector to private sector but so far has pumped $3.4 trillion of new money into the economy. The new money had a far more stimulative effect. The Republican economic policy.

To EDR of FL:

I'm afraid you just don't answer my questions. An example:

Would you still give 7% to those same charities if you faced that?

[I already do, as stated above. But I chose charities because they are far better at what they do than the feds. Plus, it is CHARITY. Freely given. Not forced.

EDR - My question was would you still give 7% if your charities could force you pay more later and you say "I already do" - you already do what? Do your charities have the ability to force you to pay more later on? I'm going to copy a little of your projection; you sense disagreement and use it to promote you view point but don't really talk to the person sitting across from you.

You also epitomize one of the larger problems in the way our national debate has progressed - that we paint people with a large brush. Both sides do it; assuming that if you feel this way, you must feel that way. We all need to temper it down.

To Obama lover of ME:

I'm sorry but what does "dueced" mean? Nevermind, I can probably guess.

To Crikey Charley:

I actually wore a suit today (for not good reasons), it's not as empty as it used to be.

Thank you all. This was actually my first experience w/ internet political debate. Good night.

Curt of DE @ Feb 16, 2008 22:18:18 PM

If I hear the term empty suit one more time I will scream - please be a little more creative with your slurs. I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of parrots.

Crikey Charley @ Feb 16, 2008 08:01:22 AM

Obama/Taxes

No....I don't know if Obama will raise taxes. I don't know much about him but I do know this: He will certainly support the murdering of the innocent unborn while he says bring our troops home. The aborted won't have a home to go to, now will they? This poor excuse for a man who refuses to save the innocent does not deserve

to be president. He should be happy his mother did not abort him. Clinton is no better. You people who support him and the pro choice (pro death) movement truly need a spiritual, moral and mental awakening. One would think a strong but compassionate prez would be the choice here. I think Hell will be very overcrowded when all is said and done.............but don't take just my word for it..............

Dee of PA @ Feb 15, 2008 14:52:14 PM