U.S. President's Poll

[Viper]

Who's been voting Clinton?

The way I see, I wouldn't put any of these guys faces on any denomination.

[pvenne]

The Contras (I assume this is what you speak of) were not terrorists but were fighting to liberate their country from a totalitarian communist dictatorship led by Daniel Ortega.  Through their efforts and those of Reagan, all of Central America is free now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes I was speaking of the Contras, and yes they were rebelling against a bad regime. However, this still does not make it right for Reagan to deal with them, because in doing so he overstepped his authority and acted based on his own instinct and in an authoritian manner...he never consulted Congress about his actions, and when they were revealed, guess what? Even Reagan agreed with me...it was such a bad thing to do that he never admitted to it. It has been proven but no charges brought because he is a U.S. pres, just like Nixon was pardoned for watergate. Just because something in the end may be good does not make it right. Reagan did something he was told not to do by hundreds of congress members, and he did so because he felt he was above the law and he didn't want his reputation tarnished if the hostage situation in lebanon went sour. Would anybody agree...it is clear to see.

And thank God Latin America is free now, thanks to Reagan...its not like it is the worst place on earth to live after Africa, its not like conservative world organizations like the IMF have raped the entire continent, thank God for conservative Americans is what I'm sure every Latin American is thinking. And lets not forget the contras were rebels, meaning there were people on the other side too, for the communists. reagan didnt interven to save poor latin americans, he did so because he was worried about America. You cant paint him as a saint.

[RiversideGator]

You are quite simply way off on your interpretation of the Reagan tax cuts. Any growth in the 1980s was not a direct result of the tax cuts.

So what caused the growth of the 1980s? Carter's policies?

regan borrowed heavily on the federal side by selling bonds so that he could pump that money into the economy (is it still unproductive government spending when a republican does it?)

Reagan (this is the proper spelling) had to spend more money than we took in to win the Cold War. See above post. Government spending on almost anything but defense and infrastructure is almost always counterproductive.

Clinton's economy was better than Reagan's. Period. you can't argue on that note, I know you want to, but you can't. If it makes you feel any better, clinton was a wolf in sheeps clothing, he pursued many republican economic policies under the democratic party name. And his economy was certainly better than the typical business cycle upswing...it was a bubble economy, where real output was below output on paper, but prosperity increased as speculative stock traders continues upping their profits and the whole country benefited. How do you not see this?

Your statement refutes itself: Clinton's economy was better than Reagan's, but it was all a bubble. Which was it - bad or good? Also, how about some economic data to back up your assertion?

In fact, after bush cut taxes, they barely spent any of it. Rish people saved more and poor people got less of break when it should have been the other way around because then we would be assured that the people who got the biggest tax cuts would have had a need to spend it (like middle to lower class americans did)

So why are federal tax revenues now at all time highs? You obviously do not know any "rich" people. The rich invest and spend far more money than other segments of society because they have more. Well off people try to increase their net worth by making other investments, they dont just have all their cash in a big vault so they can look at it. And, by the way, most rich people earned the money in their own lifetimes rather than simply inheriting it like Ted Kennedy.

[pvenne]

Under Carter, communism was expanding in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, et al. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

such strong countries, good thing reagan knocked them out before they could run themselves how they wanted too...I feel less threatened now that nicaragua isnt communist.

[HartfordTycoon]

I voted without reading that they had to qualify as a Hero. I don't think there have been very many in US History. Just my opinion, but as a black person this society/ government has been our fiercest adversary or enemy for over 400 years. Clinton was the best president on the list. I don't consider any slave owners to be heroes, so that means that many you may hold dear, were enemies of my people. Anyway, not to get overly political, but the US itself has a very spotty track record on human rights and freedom. The land of free and the home of the braves, was really the land of slaves where they killed all the braves.

[pvenne]

By the way, all of your liberal friends shrieked with fear and anger when Reagan was implementing policies which ended the cold war (such as supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, supporting Solidarity in Poland, invading Grenada, deploying nuclear missiles to W Germany, putting pressure on communist regimes around the world, etc, etc).  To say that Reagan was in the right place at the right time and had little to do with ending the Cold War is simply to either misread history or to lie.  Communism was indeed an evil empire which threatened the world for 80 years.  Thanks to people like Reagan, people no longer have to worry about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not a liberal. i have progressive views, and I am certainly not a conservative, but to call me a liberal as if to imply I have long hair and play hack sack smoking dope all day praying for a better world is way off. I am for whatever works, and I was for bucs in afghanistan, but not iraq, for example. does it make me a liberal (in the negative sense) that i dont support the iraq war? no, just makes me smart. I am not in the streets blowing my horn or beating my drums so that bush will leave iraq...I see exactly why he went in geopolitically speaking, but I disagree with the morality of it.

and you really need to read up on the invasion of grenada...it wasn't even planned the way it happened, it was a last minute face-saving attempt...look it up and find out for yourself since you think i misread history.

[RiversideGator]

now youve just lost it...the hostages were already freed, they were just staying in iran for political reasons. here, read this.

" REAGAN'S 1980 "OCTOBER SURPRISE" -- ARMS FOR HOSTAGES

This is entirely made up. Of course Reagan wanted to use the hostage crisis against Carter in the election but there is no evidence that he somehow got the Iranians to keep them until Reagan was inaugurate. What leverage would Reagan aids have to get the Iranians to do this? This is quite simply left wing lunacy. You need to consider the sources that you are using. These same people are wrong on every issue and have been in the past and have a vested interest in lying. This should tell you something. No competent historian accepts this theory.

[pvenne]

Of this lot to choose from the only President that has my respect is Jimmy Carter. 

He never sold out to big business, put in sensible energy policy that if we had stayed the course would not be in an oil crisis now, and truely cared about the individual in this country.

As to the earlier comments about Reagan's economic policy, even Bush Sr. , referred to them as "Voodoo Economics".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you all the way, but I am not surprised by that, you seem like a smart guy.

[HartfordTycoon]

I am not a liberal.  i have progressive views, and I am certainly not a conservative, but to call me a liberal as if to imply I have long hair and play hack sack smoking dope all day praying for a better world is way off.  I am for whatever works, and I was for bucs in afghanistan, but not iraq, for example.  does it make me a liberal (in the negative sense) that i dont support the iraq war?  no, just makes me smart.  I am not in the streets blowing my horn or beating my drums so that bush will leave iraq...I see exactly why he went in geopolitically speaking, but I disagree with the morality of it.

and you really need to read up on the invasion of grenada...it wasn't even planned the way it happened, it was a last minute face-saving attempt...look it up and find out for yourself since you think i misread history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Liberal is not a bad word. Look it up. Even by definition conservative is far worse. Liberal means open minded and Conservative means closed minded. I'm a liberal and proud of it. Most of the people going to war on both sides are all conservatives. Conservative religious regimes in the middle east, and the western world are the problem in my opinion.

[RiversideGator]

I voted without reading that they had to qualify as a Hero. I don't think there have been very many in US History. Just my opinion, but as a black person this society/ government has been our fiercest adversary or enemy for over 400 years. Clinton was the best president on the list. I don't consider any slave owners to be heroes, so that means that many you may hold dear, were enemies of my people. Anyway, not to get overly political, but the US itself has a very spotty track record on human rights and freedom. The land of free and the home of the braves, was really the land of slaves where they killed all the braves.

Blacks in America have the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world. Blacks have been mistreated in the past, but you must focus on the present and the future.

[HartfordTycoon]

Blacks in America have the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world.

[pvenne]

I voted without reading that they had to qualify as a Hero. I don't think there have been very many in US History. Just my opinion, but as a black person this society/ government has been our fiercest adversary or enemy for over 400 years. Clinton was the best president on the list. I don't consider any slave owners to be heroes, so that means that many you may hold dear, were enemies of my people. Anyway, not to get overly political, but the US itself has a very spotty track record on human rights and freedom. The land of free and the home of the braves, was really the land of slaves where they killed all the braves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am white, but I have to say, I can agree with you 100% America wa sbuilt by black people, and now they get no compensation for it. It is just wrong. And some people still blame their lowered economic status as a whole on them...I wish people would take responsibility and stop blaming the victim. But on the bright side, look at colin powell and rice, two black people, one a woman, who are the highest ranked u.s. officials under the pres.

[pvenne]

This is entirely made up.  Of course Reagan wanted to use the hostage crisis against Carter in the election but there is no evidence that he somehow got the Iranians to keep them until Reagan was inaugurate.  What leverage would Reagan aids have to get the Iranians to do this?  This is quite simply left wing lunacy.  You need to consider the sources that you are using.  These same people are wrong on every issue and have been in the past and have a vested interest in lying.  This should tell you something.  No competent historian accepts this theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No competent historian, such as the political science professor who taught it to me? He was a grad professor at columbia before coming to UVM, and though he didnt say it in so many words, he indicated that there was next to no way that the hostages would have been released on innauguration day by coincidence. you can believe it is because they were afraid of reagan if you want, but then why wouldnt they have released them as soon as they knew he won the election (which is generally a long time before innauguration, if you need to be reminded)?

[pvenne]

Liberal is not a bad word. Look it up. Even by definition conservative is far worse. Liberal means open minded and Conservative means closed minded. I'm a liberal and proud of it. Most of the people going to war on both sides are all conservatives. Conservative religious regimes in the middle east, and the western world are the problem in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the text book definition of a liberal is not a bad thing...it is how people use it. whenever you make a valid point that isnt conservative in nature, then you all of a sudeen become a gay loving, minority liking, homeless sheltering "liberal"...as if any of those things are bad. the term is used to scare people by making them think change is bad.

[HartfordTycoon]

I am white, but I have to say, I can agree with you 100%  America wa sbuilt by black people, and now they get no compensation for it.  It is just wrong.  And some people still blame their lowered economic status as a whole on them...I wish people would take responsibility and stop blaming the victim.  But on the bright side, look at colin powell and rice, two black people, one a woman, who are the highest ranked u.s. officials under the pres.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not want to get that political but I appreciate you being able to empathize. I just feel like if everyone just treated all people as people (nothing more, nothing less) the whole world would be alot better. I really don't understand why the world has so many problems. Maybe because I am not selfish and ignorant like too many people seem to be today. The vast majority of white people I know are great people. To be honest with you there are waaaaaay more of my own people that I have problems with. That's the truly sad part.

[monsoon]

  Do you recall the time in the 1990s when the Republican Congress shut down the government to force Clinton to spend less?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An interesting perspective about spending. I like looking at the numbers.

When Clinton left office, he left it in a state where the government had a surplus and could start paying down the federal debt. In contrast, wild spending by Reagan, Bush Sr, led to much of that debt in the first place. And now, the complete orgy of spending by Bush Jr. threatens to dampen our economy for the forseable future due to the enormous debt he is adding to the country. Even members in his own party are alarmed by the national debt.

Reagan republican's like to claim they fiscally conservative, but the reality is quite different. Maybe that is why Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics. Borrow today, because you can blame it on a Democrat in the future.

[pvenne]

Blacks in America have the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world.  Blacks have been mistreated in the past, but you must focus on the present and the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did these words really come out of your mouth? What an insult to every black person alive, and to every white person who wants to change our image as an oppressor. You continue to blame the victim when in reality youre not seeing the big picturee. Blacks around the world are in worse positions than blacks here in America because their countries have been treated as poorly as black humans have here. Tell me you aren't unfamiliar with the "scramble for africa". And standard of living is measured by more than just income. Why am I not surprised that you think the way you do, you don't know how good you have it.

From the sounds of it, you are (unless youre lying) a pretty successful guy..well let me tell you although you likely had to work hard for it, you would never be where you are today if you were black and still worked as hard. There is a correlation between race and income. The blacker you are, the poorer you are. Now unless you believe that blacks and whites are biologically different (which its been proven that they aren't) then there is some sort of societal prblem and institutionalized racism at fault for this. Dont start calling this black guy a liberal or a cry baby because he complains about what white people did to blacks. he has every right to. I wasnt here when it happened, and neither were any of my ancestors, but I am benefitting from everything his ancestors worked for today, and that just isnt fair. I benefit simply by being white. and while you dont have to change the world single handedly, please spare us all and dont preach to a black person about how good they have it here in america.

[monsoon]

Look at the national debt in the Clinton vs Bush Jr. years. The slope was headed downward when Clinton left office. Look at it now. Republican's like to spend more money than the nation has.

[monsoon]

Did these words really come out of your mouth?  What an insult to every black person alive, and to every white person who wants to change our image as an oppressor.  You continue to blame the victim when in reality youre not seeing the big picturee.  Blacks around the world are in worse positions than blacks here in America because their countries have been treated as poorly as black humans have here.  Tell me you aren't unfamiliar with the "scramble for africa".  And standard of living is measured by more than just income.  Why am I not surprised that you think the way you do, you don't know how good you have it.

From the sounds of it, you are (unless youre lying) a pretty successful guy..well let me tell you although you likely had to work hard for it, you would never be where you are today if you were black and still worked as hard.  There is a correlation between race and income.  The blacker you are, the poorer you are.  Now unless you believe that blacks and whites are biologically different (which its been proven that they aren't) then there is some sort of societal prblem and institutionalized racism at fault for this.  Dont start calling this black guy a liberal or a cry baby because he complains about what white people did to blacks.  he has every right to.  I wasnt here when it happened, and neither were any of my ancestors, but I am benefitting from everything his ancestors worked for today, and that just isnt fair.  I benefit simply by being white.  and while you dont have to change the world single handedly, please spare us all and dont preach to a black person about how good they have it here in america.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have crossed the line with this post. Enjoy your suspension. You are not in a position to speak to the other forumers in this manner. There are been plenty of warnings about this in the past. There is a difference in maturely discussing a topic and hurling attacks at another forumer.

[RiversideGator]

Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics

Bush Sr was a moderate to liberal Republican and did not favor the policy of cutting spending. Repeating "voodoo economics" is not like producing some magical talisman that refutes the argument that tax cuts create economic growth and additional tax revenue. This you cannot prove.

When Clinton left office, he left it in a state where the government had a surplus and could start paying down the federal debt. In contrast, wild spending by Reagan, Bush Sr, led to much of that debt in the first place. And now, the complete orgy of spending by Bush Jr. threatens to dampen our economy for the forseable future due to the enormous debt he is adding to the country. Even members in his own party are alarmed by the national debt.

When Clinton left office he had a Republican Congress, which he had since 1995. As you may recall, Clinton proposed nationalizing the medical system which would have exponentially increased spending. Remember Hillary's plan?? This was shot down by Congress.

Having said this, GW Bush's spending record and that of the Republican Congress is disgraceful (except for increased spending on the military). They have acted like Democrats by overspending on social programs (see the new medicare entitlement and school spending). But, I would guess that you would support these programs anyway (as did Ted Kennedy). I wish Republicans would start acting like conservatives (note that these two are not always the same).

[Snowguy716]

The only one I could say without hesitation would be Lincoln.  I unfortunately do not have enough knowledge, other than popular opinion,  on Washington (or others) where I could comfortably say I'd consider them a hero. 

As for Lincoln, his stoicism and humilty transcended his presidency.  The more I learn about him, the more I come to admire him, faults and all.  In fact, his recognition of his faults are what I think lead me to admire him most.  His life really fascinates me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The noblest thing I believe that George Washington did for this country after the revolutionary war was to reject offers by the other founding fathers to become king. There was wide speculation after the revolutionary war that 100% democracy would not work.

But George Washington rejected that wholeheartedly and was instrumental in the drafting of the U.S Constitution.

And while I agree that all presidents that supported slavery were an enemy of the blacks in this country, one must realize that George Washington helped create and supported fully the system that eventually freed the slaves (even if he didn't support that himself). Of course you can spend all day saying "What if".. but I'm glad our democracy led to the election of presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and FDR.

As far as recent presidents go, I also choose Jimmy Carter, followed by Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., Reagan, and then last and certainly least, George W Bush.

[Snowguy716]

Bush Sr was a moderate to liberal Republican and did not favor the policy of cutting spending.  Repeating "voodoo economics" is not like producing some magical talisman that refutes the argument that tax cuts create economic growth and additional tax revenue.  This you cannot prove.

When Clinton left office he had a Republican Congress, which he had since 1995.  As you may recall, Clinton proposed nationalizing the medical system which would have exponentially increased spending.  Remember Hillary's plan??  This was shot down by Congress.

Having said this, GW Bush's spending record and that of the Republican Congress is disgraceful (except for increased spending on the military).  They have acted like Democrats by overspending on social programs (see the new medicare entitlement and school spending).  But, I would guess that you would support these programs anyway (as did Ted Kennedy).  I wish Republicans would start acting like conservatives (note that these two are not always the same).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The age-old argument of "conservative vs. liberal" is a tired one. The assumption that liberals want to spend more and conservatives less is invalid.

To me, conservatives want to cut taxes and spur economic growth through private enterprise. In the mean time, funds to schools, health care, welfare programs, and other social programs are cut.

Unfortunately, most of the policies promoted by conservatives in this country today are to spend more money and inefficiently at best. Many times they champion new laws that are to improve our nation (No Child Left Behind) and then they don't fund them. So while the books look good in Washington, the states end up footing the bill.

Two state where liberalism works are Minnesota and Wisconsin. Minnesota has been voted the best state to live in for quality of life, schools, healthcare for 9 of the last 10 years.

We are in the top 5 for education, have the highest life expectency, arguably the best healthcare system, an excellent business climate, some of hte highest personal income, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation.

We have the 4th highest tax burden in the nation. Since the 1970s, the state has grown by leaps and bounds in all sectors and our tax burden has gone from 7th in the nation to 4th.

A common outlook on government in this state is simple:

1) Government is expected to be accountable. If it is not, we will vote pro-wrestlers into office to make it that way.

2) It's not how much you pay in taxes, but whether or not the tax dollars are spent wisely.

3) A high standard of living is dependent upon good health care for all residents and a good education for all young people, up to and through college.

4) You don't help the poor by doing nothing, nor do you help them by giving them a free break.

Minnesota's welfare system works like this: If you're out of the job and can't find work, you apply for assistance.

If you are not able to work for some reason (young, single mother with children without high school degree or disabled), you are immediately given cash/food benefits.

If you are able to work, the state pays for your rent, utilities, day care, groceries, etc. and gives you a very small amount of cash for expenses. There are conditions: In order to receive the assistance, you must spend 40 hours/week looking for a job at state funded job centers.

These job centers have computer access and are in touch with hiring agencies and companies that are hiring. As long as you are actively looking for a job you receive the assistance from the state. If, after 4 months, you cannot find a job, you are then given full welfare benefits.

If you do find a job, your welfare benefits are given to you based on how much money you are making.

Minnesotans are also given state funded health insurance if they are low income or disabled. MinnesotaCare (created and fully supported by a republican governor) is not seen as a burden on the state, because it provides health insurance for hte working poor. People working in low paying jobs can then keep in good health and can seek to improve themselves because medical expenses are not a burden.

Poor Minnesotans are also eligible for substantial financial aid at public and private college/universities.

The point is not to "feel bad for them" and give them money. The point is to invest in our disadvantaged to keep them working and going to school so that they can make it.

That is what I would call a progressive idea in this country. And it is why Minnesota has the highest amount of growth of any state in the region.

[RiversideGator]

Snowguy: To each their own. That is the beauty of the federalist system. If you want to live in a higher taxed state with more social services you can. If you want to live in a more conservative state with less services, you can move to one. I would like to visit Minnesota one day, by the way.

By the way, I agree with your take on Washington. He was a great example for all Presidents who followed. Also, I think it is difficult to judge 18th and 19th century men based on 21st century morals. It was a completely different time. You have to look to their timeless ideas of freedom and liberty which were eventually extended to all people in America.

[Snowguy716]

I agree. That is why I support more emphasis on state spending rather than federal. But I do believe that federal mandates (like special education, no child left behind) should be paid for by the federal government (which, as it is right now, are not.)

I also agree that one must look at people in the context of the time, and not let someone's stance on one issue wash over his/her over all personality. Of course, like it has been said earlier.. that doesn't justify their mistakes at all.

If you do visit Minnesota, I would recommend visiting the Twin Cities and making your way to Duluth and up along the north shore of Lake Superior. It is absolutely beautiful over there. It's also a hidden jewel. Very few people know about it.

(I would also recommend visiting in the summer)

[Snowguy716]

I know this is very off topic.. but just this once!

Minnesota's north shore:

Palisade head in winter.

http://www.infionline.net/~bwca/arrowhead_...isadewinter.jpg