Compare Life Now And 15 Years Ago

[mark46]

15 years ago, the country had an government surplus. There was a plan to retire the debt in 10-20 years. Tens of millions of jobs had been added in the past 10 years. the country had done very well under both Republicans and Democrats for 20 years (under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton). We had problems, for sure. But it seemed that we were on a reasonable path.

In the past 15 years, we have had again have had both Republican and Democratic presidents. Everyone is complaining. 1/3 of the country blames the Republicans. 1/3 of the country blames the Democrats. And 1/3 of the country says a pox on both their houses. Were there policies of Bush and Obama really that different than those of those that they followed?

IMHO, those who would have backed the policies of Reagan are no longer acceptable as leaders in the Republican Party (Kasich, Bush and Christie). they are far too "moderate" (the swear world that has replaced "liberal"). And those who have been in line with a very moderate Bill Clinton are now not acceptable in the Democratic Party. To watch Hillary Clinton try to move to the left of Sanders is a very, very sad commentary on American politics, much as it is sad to see folks try to move to the right of Trump on immigration and treatment of Muslims.

Washington is held hostage by 40 Republicans in the House. IMHO, much could passed in Congress with the right leadership from the White House and from the House. And yes, House leadership might need Democratic support. There are literally dozens of issues that could be agreed upon with the kind of leadership that we had between 1980 and 2000 on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Well, gas is the same price.

 

[BrianJK]

At least least our televisions are double the size

 

[Aryeh Jay]

At least least our televisions are double the size

And half the weight!

 

[BrianJK]

And half the weight!

But we can still use them to watch "Survivor"

 

[Aryeh Jay]

But we can still use them to watch "Survivor"

And I can get Netflix on mine!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

15 years ago, the country had an government surplus. There was a plan to retire the debt in 10-20 years. Tens of millions of jobs had been added in the past 10 years. the country had done very well under both Republicans and Democrats for 20 years (under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton). We had problems, for sure. But it seemed that we were on a reasonable path.

In the past 15 years, we have had again have had both Republican and Democratic presidents. Everyone is complaining. 1/3 of the country blames the Republicans. 1/3 of the country blames the Democrats. And 1/3 of the country says a pox on both their houses. Were there policies of Bush and Obama really that different than those of those that they followed?

IMHO, those who would have backed the policies of Reagan are no longer acceptable as leaders in the Republican Party (Kasich, Bush and Christie). they are far too "moderate" (the swear world that has replaced "liberal"). And those who have been in line with a very moderate Bill Clinton are now not acceptable in the Democratic Party. To watch Hillary Clinton try to move to the left of Sanders is a very, very sad commentary on American politics, much as it is sad to see folks try to move to the right of Trump on immigration and treatment of Muslims.

Washington is held hostage by 40 Republicans in the House. IMHO, much could passed in Congress with the right leadership from the White House and from the House. And yes, House leadership might need Democratic support. There are literally dozens of issues that could be agreed upon with the kind of leadership that we had between 1980 and 2000 on both sides of the aisle.

I have more problems with the private sector of our country than the public sector. Government is basically reactionary to the mess the private sectors makes. Compared to the stability that government provides for the economy the private sector is like a raving lunatic. Regarding the national debt, the government can't print money fast enough to keep up with the damage caused by our citizens.

 

[pakicetus]

IMHO, those who would have backed the policies of Reagan are no longer acceptable as leaders in the Republican Party (Kasich, Bush and Christie). they are far too "moderate" (the swear world that has replaced "liberal"). And those who have been in line with a very moderate Bill Clinton are now not acceptable in the Democratic Party. To watch Hillary Clinton try to move to the left of Sanders is a very, very sad commentary on American politics, much as it is sad to see folks try to move to the right of Trump on immigration and treatment of Muslims.

The two aren't analogous. Most of Sanders' positions are actually reasonable (and I don't think Hillary is actually trying to move to his left, if you were being serious).

Let's be real. Even if our lack of compromise is partly due to the Democratic Party (which I see as a reasonable, moderate party that would be center-right in the rest of the first world), you have to admit it's mostly because the Republican Party has completely gone off the deep end. In the last few years, major Republican politicians have suggested we return to the gold standard, claimed vaccines secretly cause autism, called Obama a "radical socialist" or a Communist, accused Obama of stealing the 2012 election, called Mexican immigrants rapists, threatened to default on the debt twice, called the President an apologist for Muslim terrorists, claimed multiple times that America has the highest taxes in the world, called Bernie Sanders a Communist, promised not to increase the deficit while supporting a trillion-dollar-a-year tax cut and refusing to touch 80% of the federal budget, encouraged states to disobey the Supreme Court, claimed global warming is a worldwide hoax, insinuated that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan, shut down the government to repeal a law they didn't have the votes to repeal, demanded we immediately and permanently balance the budget when we had a $1.3 trillion deficit (while pledging to oppose all possible tax cuts, including the closing of tax loopholes), and accused the United Nations and George Soros of conspiring to abolish paved roads and golf courses in America. And that's just from their two leading Presidential candidates! How is it possible to even have a reasonable discussion with people like that?

 

[Thunder Peel]

The two aren't analogous. Most of Sanders' positions are actually reasonable (and I don't think Hillary is actually trying to move to his left, if you were being serious).

Let's be real. Even if our lack of compromise is partly due to the Democratic Party (which I see as a reasonable, moderate party that would be center-right in the rest of the first world), you have to admit it's mostly because the Republican Party has completely gone off the deep end. In the last few years, major Republican politicians have suggested we return to the gold standard, claimed vaccines secretly cause autism, called Obama a "radical socialist" or a Communist, accused Obama of stealing the 2012 election, called Mexican immigrants rapists, threatened to default on the debt, called the President an apologist for Muslim terrorists, claimed multiple times that America has the highest taxes in the world, called Bernie Sanders a Communist, promised not to increase the deficit while supporting a trillion-dollar-a-year tax cut and refusing to touch 80% of the federal budget, encouraged states to disobey the Supreme Court, claimed global warming is a worldwide hoax, insinuated that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan, shut down the government to repeal a law they didn't have the votes to repeal, demanded we immediately and permanently balance the budget when we had a $1.3 trillion deficit (while pledging to oppose all possible tax cuts, including the closing of tax loopholes), and accused the United Nations and George Soros of conspiring to abolish paved roads and golf courses in America. And that's just from their two leading Presidential candidates! How is it possible to even have a reasonable discussion with people like that?

How's that different from the Democrats who accused Bush of stealing the election, masterminding 9/11, lying to us about the war, leaving people to die during Katrina and being a fascist? Don't pretend like the left is any different when it comes to lies and accusations. Democrats have never wanted to work with Republicans and continue to sling mud, then turn around and complain that the other side won't work with them.

 

[cow451]

Things have really gone down hill in the last 15 years. I am fifteen years older.

 

[Thunder Peel]

We didn't have Nikki Manaj 15 years ago. Things have definitely gotten worse.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

At least least our televisions are double the size

And half the weight!

That's what I'm talking about!

15 years ago, the country had an government surplus. There was a plan to retire the debt in 10-20 years. Tens of millions of jobs had been added in the past 10 years. the country had done very well under both Republicans and Democrats for 20 years (under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton). We had problems, for sure. But it seemed that we were on a reasonable path.

In the past 15 years, we have had again have had both Republican and Democratic presidents. Everyone is complaining. 1/3 of the country blames the Republicans. 1/3 of the country blames the Democrats. And 1/3 of the country says a pox on both their houses. Were there policies of Bush and Obama really that different than those of those that they followed?

Well, to be clear, we didn't have a true surplus, we had a quasi-surplus.

If it would've been a true surplus, the national debt would've actually dropped during that time period, however, it didn't.

We had a surplus in the sense that we were spending less than the allotted target amount set out by the congressional budget committee.

For example, if the country is taking in $100, and the congressional office says "Your budget this year is $120", and you spend $110, according to the budget office you have a $10 surplus, but in reality, you're still at $10 deficit in terms of comparing the true values of income vs. expenditures.

...in regards to your question, presidential policies aren't nearly as impactful on us as congressional aspects. If you look at Obama/Bush/Clinton...all 3 had very low veto rates in terms of the number of bills coming across their desk from congress...which is indicative that the presidents have just been going along for the ride for the most part.

So, short version...no, presidential policies of Obama & Bush aren't that drastically different than those of Clinton. What is different is the congress that's in place, specifically, from the Republican camp. There wasn't as much of this "oppose the other side at all costs just for the sake of opposing them" mentality in place. Republicans in congress at that time weren't as dead set on opposing Clinton on every single thing as they are today with Obama.

 

[Thursday]

I have more problems with the private sector of our country than the public sector. Government is basically reactionary to the mess the private sectors makes. Compared to the stability that government provides for the economy the private sector is like a raving lunatic. Regarding the national debt, the government can't print money fast enough to keep up with the damage caused by our citizens.

You are wrong. All of our financial problems in the past two decades are the result of government meddling, in particular the government backing of the financial industry which leads to irresponsible behavior.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are wrong. All of our financial problems in the past two decades are the result of government meddling, in particular the government backing of the financial industry which leads to irresponsible behavior.

I am right. The government once again cleaned up a mess created by the private sector.

 

[Thursday]

I am right. The government once again cleaned up a mess created by the private sector.

That's funny.

Typical leftist revisionism.

The problem was that the government was insuring loans. This allowed mortgage banks to take incredible risks in their efforts to make money. They didn't have to worry about covering their losses. This led to the disaster of 2006.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am right. The government once again cleaned up a mess created by the private sector.

It's like heroin addictions. The private sector provides the heroin and the users, the government agencies are left to clean up the mess, with the exception of most hospitals which are private (albeit under government regulation).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's funny.

Typical leftist revisionism.

The problem was that the government was insuring loans. This allowed mortgage banks to take incredible risks in their efforts to make money. They didn't have to worry about covering their losses. This led to the disaster of 2006.

I'm a conservative.

So the government was entirely responsible? That's like saying that drug dealers are entirely responsible for people's additions.

 

[Thursday]

I'm a conservative.

So the government was entirely responsible? That's like saying that drug dealers are entirely responsible for people's additions.

It woudn't have happened without government meddling.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It woudn't have happened without government meddling.

Agreed.

 

[cow451]

It woudn't have happened without government meddling.

Nothing really bad does. But government is not always the problem. It is a convenient scapegoat.