Ronald Reagan's standard: "Are you better off ... ?" In 2017? In 2021?

because your idiots lied to the country

Only brain dead idiots on steroids can continue using this moronic talking point. Yay YOU!

The list of liars, ALL Democrats:

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
 
#5

d94353db4e1c6866195a90c97242f277f6bf313.jpg

Trickle Down is a leftist talking point based on the stupid assumption that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a BAD idea. Yes, it is moronic and stupid but what can one expect from a moron class who thinks we should all clamor for higher taxes and giving more of our wealth to a corrupt political class in Washington DC.
 
A resounding "no" with Bush in 2008.

A very clear "yes" with Obama since 2008.

And that's not opinion.

i'm not sure how you come about this 'fact'. i'm making approximately 40% more money than I was during bush, but almost all of my expenses have doubled, at a minimum. I'm pretty sure im not alone in that, so how are we better off?
 
Governor Reagan's closing statement after his debate w/ President Carter included Reagan looking into the camera and asking:

"Are you better off ... " (after 4 years of President Carter's stewardship?)

 
he raves about kasick and trashes hil and smart economic ideas based on facts

hes yours

he trashes elitist and establishment economic ideas based on the fattening of their OWN bank accounts. you are short on facts, long on partisan craptastic shit eating, and thing appears to be more libertarian liberally than you are an american, you racist traitor to democracy.
 
" "NO." Just listen to the rhetoric from the Democrats; racism, wage inequality, wage stagnation and income inequality." #20
You seem to be suggesting a process of judging based upon what critics say.
That's not the topic question.
The topic question is what the president has actually accomplished.

Job creation for example:

“... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:
- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...
more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...
70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.
...
It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields

"Trickle Down is a leftist talking point based on the stupid assumption that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a BAD idea." #22
74335df04f8464c6181790357939a8f5102740e.jpg


Your wording: "allowing people".
That's inaccurate, a misrepresentation.

It's actually about tax rates proportioned to ability to pay. Why shouldn't the wealthy pay more, if they have more? Taxing Americans only at the tax level a pauper could afford would bankrupt the U.S. in short order.
 
Governor Reagan's closing statement after his debate w/ President Carter included Reagan looking into the camera and asking:

"Are you better off ... " (after 4 years of President Carter's stewardship?)

a) Is that a viable standard for appraising a president's performance? Is it a valid basis to consider voting an incumbent another 4 years, or voting him out of office?

b) What conclusion would you draw, if you apply this Reagan standard to the 8 year presidency of the younger President Bush?

c) What conclusion would you draw if you apply this same standard to the 8 years of the Obama administration?

d) And do you think we'll be better off 4 years from now?
Hell yea I'm better off. I'm earning significantly more (and so is my spouse) than in 2008. Haven't had to worry about a bunch of greedy Wall Street traders crashing the economy. My 401K rebounded cause I was smart enough to put 10% into a money market and used that after the Bush crash to buy stocks in 2009 and I don't have to worry about a bunch of cowboys deciding to invade Canada or Argentina if we get attacked by the Russians.

So yea...count me in for better off. :)
 
It's actually about tax rates proportioned to ability to pay. Why shouldn't the wealthy pay more, if they have more? Taxing Americans only at the tax level a pauper could afford would bankrupt the U.S. in short order.

or an even grander idea would be cutting taxes for the lower income tax brackets, allowing them to KEEP more of their money, you think?
 
I was worse off in 2009 than I was in 2008.......except for the cost of my health insurance and my share of the fifteen trillion in new debt, I am almost in the same position now that I was in 2006.......I look forward to a Democrat free government and a return to prosperity.......
 
We were as a nation much worse off after W's eight years.
We were as a nation better off after Obama's eight years.

Who knows, but I suspect we will, after a short and overdue recession starting in the early part of 2017, ultimately be better off in 4 years, regardless of who wins.
 
i'm not sure how you come about this 'fact'. i'm making approximately 40% more money than I was during bush, but almost all of my expenses have doubled, at a minimum. I'm pretty sure im not alone in that, so how are we better off?

2008-09 were incredibly bleak. No one was hiring - no one. We were bleeding millions of jobs. The economy was losing about $1 trillion per month for a stretch. The market was in a freefall.

Frankly, it's not even a discussion. I would by no means describe today's economy as "great," but companies are hiring, people can get jobs, the market has done a lot better and we're growing. How is that not better? Does no one remember that time?
 
he trashes elitist and establishment economic ideas based on the fattening of their OWN bank accounts. you are short on facts, long on partisan craptastic shit eating, and thing appears to be more libertarian liberally than you are an american, you racist traitor to democracy.

Fairly accurate. I don't really align to anyone, but I definitely feel more aligned to the libertarians these days than to Democrats & Republicans.
 
Back
Top