59% Still Believe Government Is the Problem

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
59% Still Believe Government Is the Problem

In early October, as the meltdown of the financial industry gained momentum following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of U.S. voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Since then, the stock market has fallen roughly 3,000 points, millions of jobs have been lost, nearly a trillion dollars has been spent so far to bail out the financial industry, an additional $787-billion government stimulus package has been approved, and a new president has taken office who has proposed spending billions and billions more.

Despite all that, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that the basic views of the American people have not change: 59% of voters still agree with Reagan’s inaugural address statement. Only 28% disagree, and 14% are not sure.

Middle-income voters are more likely to agree with Reagan than those who earn less than $20,000 or more than $100,000.

Political liberals strongly reject Reagan’s view by a 60% to 28% margin. Forty-seven percent (47%) of moderates agree, while 32% do not. Conservatives are overwhelmingly supportive.

Although the Republican Party in Washington veered away from Reagan’s approach in the years since the 40th president left office, 83% of Republican voters around the country still agree with him. So do 40% of Democrats and 60% of those not affiliated with either major party.

A majority of all voters say the Republican Party should return to the views and values of Reagan to be successful.

In a corollary to Reagan’s assessment of government, most voters believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress could always make them worse.

Other recent polls show that most voters continue to believe that tax cuts are good for the economy and 48% hold the view that increased government spending hurts the economy.

Other survey data shows that 72% of voters believe a free market economy is better than one managed by the government. That’s little changed since December.

While voters prefer the free market in theory, they are clearly willing to support government intervention for specific projects. Most Americans favor a six-month moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. However, most are opposed to more bailouts.
 
Ah Reagan,
The "Giant" among Republicans

10/6/85
The New York Times Magazine runs a cover story on "The Mind of the President", in which it is pointed out that though Reagan "likes to say...that he is a 'voracious reader' and 'history buff'...neither he nor his friends, when asked, could think of particular history books he had read or historians he liked." Says a White House aide, "You have to treat him as if you were the director and he was the actor, and you tell him what to say and what not to say, and only then does he say the right thing."

11/13/85
"He's just so programmed. We tried to tell him what was in the bill but he doesn't understand. Everyone, including Republicans, were just shaking their heads." - Rep. Mary Rose Oskar (D-OH) on President Reagan's reaction to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget bill.


reagan_bonzo.jpg


reaganbush.jpg
 
Ah Reagan,
The "Giant" among Republicans

10/6/85
The New York Times Magazine runs a cover story on "The Mind of the President", in which it is pointed out that though Reagan "likes to say...that he is a 'voracious reader' and 'history buff'...neither he nor his friends, when asked, could think of particular history books he had read or historians he liked." Says a White House aide, "You have to treat him as if you were the director and he was the actor, and you tell him what to say and what not to say, and only then does he say the right thing."

11/13/85
"He's just so programmed. We tried to tell him what was in the bill but he doesn't understand. Everyone, including Republicans, were just shaking their heads." - Rep. Mary Rose Oskar (D-OH) on President Reagan's reaction to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget bill.

So...smear Reagan?

Reagan has proven a lot smarter then any of these elites a**holes ever gave (or currently give) him credit for. His style didn't scream "intellegent" so he was labeled as a dunce.

Taking a few quotes out of context and/or citing answers to questions sprung on them is typical way to try and legitimize smears. It was used on Palin with a lot of success as well as Dubya before her. Reagan went through it as well. It doesn't mean anything. All it say, at best, is that stylistically, they don't come across as very well read. It says absolutely nothing about how their judgement.

And that last comment of Reagan having to be "told what to do" is laughable. It was most likely taken out of context. But even if it wasn't, there is overwhelming evidence that counters it.

Frankly, I find it rather petty of you to come here and perpetuate blatant smears from a media that hated Reagan during his time in office. I thought you were smart enough to see through that.
 
I am of the same opinion of Reagan as the Jagger Bot.
To me he was just a charismatic simple thinking shill for big business who were desperate to and succeeded in undoing almost everything Ralph Nader had accomplished for the consumer and little guy.
All his deregulations led to a lot of our current financial problems.
I remember Nancy feeding him his lines because he could not remember them.
Even though he called himself a conservative he ran up the deficit to new astronomical levels.
It seems conservatives talk financial responsibility yet demagaugingly run up the greatest deficits.

If you consider this a smear, or dishonest, a mischaracterization, out of context or one of your other tired retorts then that is just your opinion and not a fact.
There must be a reason you make these posts and I'm perhaps having some fun here baitingly posting an alternative point of view.
IMO Reagan helped lay the groundwork for our current difficulties and started the whole dumbing down of America which Bush picked up on expanded and continued and now Palin wants to inherit.

Oh and just because 59% of americans agree with the vague simple notion that government is the problem does not make it a fact either, just an (ignorant) opinion.
 
I have always thought that Reagan's best acting role was President of the United States.

However, he and his advisers were amazing politicians, and knew how to 'sell' the product to America. They believed that to succeed, conservatives also need to sell a positive vision for America. The central conservative message, according to Reagan, had to revolve around what conservative policies could do to make America a better and stronger place. Reagan's rhetoric was framed in optimistic and positive terms.

That was the brilliance of Reagan - not his policies. His demeanor and language made him appealing to main street America. He was able to 'play' the part of the president that his advisers felt would get and keep him in office.

Today - the opposite is happening, the conservatives have left the 'optimistic and positive' to the Democrats, and are decrying 'doom and gloom' (Sowell's article that Foss posted is a great example). If the party really wants to succeed, they need to go back to Reagan's example.

Well - back to Reagan. He wasn't a very good actor during his days on the silver screen, however, he finally got his greatest role on the political arena.

There is a reason he is known as the 'great communicator'. His fireside chats are an amazing tour de force. He had some of the best writers in the business, and he could deliver the lines they provided to him with great skill.

I certainly agree with 04SCTLS however concerning federal policies during the Reagan administration. We are paying for his (or his advisers) mistakes to this day.

I don't think he was a dumb man, but I do believe that he was a simple man. There isn't anything wrong with that, and simple men often have great insight. But, I believe in Reagan's case, he had a few concepts he was adamant about, such as the cold war and reducing taxes, but for the rest of it, he had a tendency to believe in his staff, without review. The power of his staff was immense, and without a strong leader to rein them in, they started to call the shots. Eventually he became a figurehead, and I believe a puppet for the cabinet and his staff.
 
No one should listen to the leftist crap being repeated in this thread. If you want to understand Reagan, READ what he wrote. He wrote and spoke extensively throughout his political career and that history is available for everyone.

YouTube - Reagan - A Time For Choosing
 
I have always thought that Reagan's best acting role was President of the United States.
Isn't that a convenient way to marginalize and dismiss the man? How easy for you to perpetuate that falsehood in an effort trivialize who he was, what he accomplished, and what he stood for.

However, he and his advisers were amazing politicians, and knew how to 'sell' the product to America.
Reagan didn't just "sell a positive" vision, he believed in it. He believed in this country, what it stood for, and the potential that it still had. Even after enduring that nightmare that was Carter, the disallussionment after Nixon, the abuses of LBJ, and the tyranny of FDR.

And that's at the heart of conservatism. A faith in the individual, not in government.

That was the brilliance of Reagan - not his policies. His demeanor and language made him appealing to main street America. He was able to 'play' the part of the president that his advisers felt would get and keep him in office.
Again, you are either ignorant and little more than a lying propagandist. Reagan wasn't a puppet. He wasn't playing a part at the behest of his advisers, or puppet masters as you allude. He was the President who set an agenda for the administration to carry out.

Today - the opposite is happening, the conservatives have left the 'optimistic and positive' to the Democrats, and are decrying 'doom and gloom'
This was only true during the campaign, but the difference is- as I mentioned, Reagan had faith in the individual. The Democrats have faith in government.
 
Reagan didn't just "sell a positive" vision, he believed in it. He believed in this country, what it stood for, and the potential that it still had. Even after enduring that nightmare that was Carter, the disallussionment after Nixon, the abuses of LBJ, and the tyranny of FDR.

Oddly enough, we now have a leader who believes in his country, what it stands for, and the potential it still has; and yet we have a forum full of diehards who want nothing more than to discredit the man.
 
No one should listen to the leftist crap being repeated in this thread. If you want to understand Reagan, READ what he wrote. He wrote and spoke extensively throughout his political career and that history is available for everyone.

No one should listen to the right wing rhetoric that is constantly trying to place Reagan on a pedestal. Read history, look at the results of his policies, check out what really happened during the Reagan years... I recommend... Ronald Reagan by Kenneth T. Walsh

Isn't that a convenient way to marginalize and dismiss the man? How easy for you to perpetuate that falsehood in an effort trivialize who he was, what he accomplished, and what he stood for.

Cal, all I am saying is that he played the role of president superbly. I think it was a calculated move on his part as well as his advisers. He used his skills to get to the top of the heap. He played to the people. He knew what type of man the people wanted as president and he conveyed that man. Some of it was sincere, but I also believe, over time, he, and his advisers used that persona to sell America on their ideas for the country.

I think Obama channels black preachers when he really wants to get a point across. You can hear it in the cadence of his voice. He is using a speaking skill, much as Reagan used his acting skills, to sway people. In both cases it is somewhat a designed move.

Reagan didn't just "sell a positive" vision, he believed in it. He believed in this country, what it stood for, and the potential that it still had. Even after enduring that nightmare that was Carter, the disallussionment after Nixon, the abuses of LBJ, and the tyranny of FDR.

But, he did sell it. I think he believed it as well. Just as Obama believes in his vision of a positive America. After enduring Bush, It seems the people also believe in Obama's positive vision. Obviously they rejected McCain's 'no-vision' view.

Again, you are either ignorant and little more than a lying propagandist. Reagan wasn't a puppet. He wasn't playing a part at the behest of his advisers, or puppet masters as you allude. He was the President who set an agenda for the administration to carry out.

Ah, lets go for lying propagandist - they get paid more...

Reagan wasn't a puppet about some things, He believed strongly in reducing taxes and had an almost irrational fear of the communists. But, I do believe that he didn't care a lot about many other things. I think he choose people around him that echoed his stance on those two top agenda items, and then he agreed with them on their personal agendas. That is how he was manipulated.

This was only true during the campaign, but the difference is- as I mentioned, Reagan had faith in the individual. The Democrats have faith in government.

No, it is still true now. The Republicans are gambling the bank on the atmosphere of 'no' they have created within their party. If Obama succeeds, then they don't have any credibility. It is a huge gamble. I wish they hadn't made it. I really don't want to see a one party system. Can you imagine what will happen if the economy turns positive quickly? If you thought the 2008 elections were a blood bath for the Republicans, it wouldn't be anything compared to what they could face in 2010, and 2012.
 
If Obama succeeds, then they don't have any credibility. It is a huge gamble. I wish they hadn't made it. I really don't want to see a one party system. Can you imagine what will happen if the economy turns positive quickly? If you thought the 2008 elections were a blood bath for the Republicans, it wouldn't be anything compared to what they could face in 2010, and 2012.

And what happens when it doesn't?
What makes you think there's going to be an economy that turns quickly? The FDR model? We've been over that, it FAILED.
Not only did the economy not recover, after the second phase of the New Deal, we went into a SECOND depressionary cycle.
And back then, our country was much stronger. We weren't indebt and we had a strong industrial base.

Maybe later Obama can restrict freedom of speech, access to firearms, empower the labor unions, set wages, limit competition, raise taxes, limit competition, and jail those that dissent- JUST LIKE FDR.

We're not even discussing how this is going to be paid for? On the hope that China will continue to carry our debt? Print more money? What'll it be worth?

Also, where's your outrage at the way this Obama agenda is being passed? Why is there no debate? Why are all of these "priorities" being hidden inside spending bills and rushed through the congress without any review or public discussion!? Why is healthcare in the stimulus? Why was $700B set aside for socialized medicine... I mean "Universal healthcare" the properly focused grouped term, inside the spending budget this year, along with the 9k earmarks? Where is YOUR outrage and disgust!

They're doing precisely what I've accused you of doing- deception. Advancing their agenda in the shadows because if it would be rejected if exposed to the public. This is a socialist blitzkrieg.

That's not merely "change"- that's a coup.

The change associated with FDR and LBJ HURT this country.
And the "change" associated with Reagan was just an embrace of the principles the country was founded on, a return to values. It was not a progressive utopian revolution, reminiscent of the Democrat failures of the past century I just mentioned and that you alluded to in glowing terms.
 
And what happens when it doesn't?
So, it's not crazy to anticipate civil unrest or a world war.

You make life easy by giving us the answers to your questions :)

What makes you think there's going to be an economy that turns quickly? The FDR model? We've been over that, it FAILED.
Not only did the economy not recover, after the second phase of the New Deal, we went into a SECOND depressionary cycle.
And back then, our country was much stronger. We weren't indebt and we had a strong industrial base.

The reason the economy will turn is because it is driven by Americans. American people work longer and harder than almost anybody else around the world. In addition, we have one of the most flexible economies to be found, and we are still sitting on conspicuously huge amounts of natural resources. It isn't *if* we recover, but *when* and *how quickly.* Even if you insist on comparing FDR's policies to Obama's and think that they failed, you will also take note that the American economy expanded & contracted in a very healthy manner for half a century following FDR - so clearly the aftermath of FDR's "failed" policies was not as detrimental as you make them out to be.
Strong industrial base? Welcome to the New World Economy. Manufacturing goods is not the end-all-be-all of economic power as it once was. While very important, you cannot deny the increasingly huge impact that the Digital Era has had in creating jobs everywhere that never used to exist - I am in one of such jobs that, twenty years ago, did not exist.

Maybe later Obama can restrict freedom of speech, access to firearms, empower the labor unions, set wages, limit competition, raise taxes, limit competition, and jail those that dissent- JUST LIKE FDR.

Of course, it's not like the Wire Tapping Act, or the Haliburton no-bid contracts, or the Haliburton no-bid contracts (I listed that twice since it appears you think limiting competition was twice as important), and those falsely accused of terrorism & imprisoned under the Patriot Act were really that far from FDR anyways.

Where's your outrage at the way this Obama agenda is being passed? Why is there no debate? Why are all of these "priorities" being hidden inside spending bills and rushed through the congress without any review or public discussion!? Why is healthcare in the stimulus? Why was $700B set aside for socialized medicine... I mean "Universal healthcare" the properly focused grouped term, inside the spending budget this year, along with the 9k earmarks? Where is YOUR outrage and disgust!

There was debate. Just, very little of it because the decision makers were pretty much in agreement about it. If my friends and I are hungry and want to order a pizza, we don't debate about it, we simply tell someone to pick up the phone and order.
Unfortunately, the system is working exactly the way it was designed. The American people voted in the politicians whom they thought would do the best job. Said politicians are now doing the job they were hired to do in the manner they see best to do it. Just because it doesn't yield the results that you wanted does not mean that they are doing anything wrong or decieptful, it just means that they have different ideas than you do about how to fix the country.
 
Where is YOUR outrage and disgust!

Why would I be full of outrage and disgust? I voted for the man, I worked for his campaign, and now he is enacting the programs that he said he would when he was running for office.

He is keeping his campaign promises.
 
The reason the economy will turn is because it is driven by Americans. American people work longer and harder than almost anybody else around the world.
That's heartwarming. But you're missing the point, you're making the same argument that I would, or Reagan, would have made. That the American economy will recover BECAUSE of the strength and power of the individual.

You and I agree that Americans make this country great.
Obama and the Democrats are arguing that GOVERNMENT makes us great.

Do you see this difference?

I'm sure you think the rest of your post was thoughtful and open minded, but it's really naive.

Even if you insist on comparing FDR's policies to Obama's and think that they failed, you will also take note that the American economy expanded & contracted in a very healthy manner for half a century following FDR - so clearly the aftermath of FDR's "failed" policies was not as detrimental as you make them out to be.
I don't even understand what your point is. You're making an argument that because the country survived the New Deal there's nothing to worry about now? That would almost make sense, if we rolled back the "progressive" clock between then and now.

Let me give you an idea how absurd your point is. This would be like saying after someone is still alive after being shot, that we can shoot them two or three more times since they were able to get up after the first one. It just doesn't work like that.

The New Deal was every bit as detrimental as I've "made them out to be." And the Great Society was detrimental.

Another mistake you're making is thinking that the the administration and Democrats controlling congress are done. That the "stimulus" was just a bloated pork project. That other than the huge one time cash outlays, we'll get back on to the business as usual. That's not going to happen.

I'm simply unable to present to you the enormity of the "change" taking place right now. It's not JUST the so-called stimulus. It's not just the bloated omnibus spending bill this week. It's not JUST pork spending. It's not JUST socialized medicine. It's not JUST higher tax rates. It's not JUST government policy that is going to hurt industry, like Cap & Trade. It's not JUST an aggressive anti-2nd Amendment Attorney General. It's not JUST the nationalization of banking and industry. It's not just the White House politicizing the census and taking it from the commerce department and putting it under the pervue of bitter partisan Rahm Emanual. It's not JUST any of these things. And remember, it's JUST been a month!

Strong industrial base? Welcome to the New World Economy. Manufacturing goods is not the end-all-be-all of economic power as it once was. While very important, you cannot deny the increasingly huge impact that the Digital Era has had in creating jobs everywhere that never used to exist - I am in one of such jobs that, twenty years ago, did not exist.
That argument made a lot of sense ten years ago. In fact, I've made that argument in the past. I was wrong. Without a manufacturing sector, how are we going to grow the economy enough to pay for the massive spending? How do we benefit from a digital economy if the rest of the world is in a depressionary cycle? How do you mobilize an army of middle management to rebuild the country?


Of course, it's not like the Wire Tapping Act, or the Haliburton no-bid contracts, or the Haliburton no-bid contracts (I listed that twice since it appears you think limiting competition was twice as important), and those falsely accused of terrorism & imprisoned under the Patriot Act were really that far from FDR anyways.
You honestly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Listening to international telephone calls placed to associates of terrorist and awarding some no-bid contracts to a company that has been granted them since the 1960s is so vastly different and unrelated, I'm going to pause for a moment, and in good faith, presume you're simply uninformed on this subject and not full of crap.

Are you aware of the policies advanced by Roosevelt during the phases of the New Deal, because your response indicates that you don't. I will elaborate on my point in greater detail if you really are unaware of what I'm talking about. I can either summarize it in another post, send you some links, or even e-mail you books on the subject.

There was debate. Just, very little of it because the decision makers were pretty much in agreement about it. If my friends and I are hungry and want to order a pizza, we don't debate about it, we simply tell someone to pick up the phone and order.
Really, when was there debate?
You said there was agreement on it. Then why didn't it receive unanimous support? Why didn't it even receive unanimous support from the Democrats?
After it went to committee, why did they vote on it the next morning, before anyone even had time to read it?


Unfortunately, the system is working exactly the way it was designed. The American people voted in the politicians whom they thought would do the best job. Said politicians are now doing the job they were hired to do in the manner they see best to do it. Just because it doesn't yield the results that you wanted does not mean that they are doing anything wrong or decieptful, it just means that they have different ideas than you do about how to fix the country.
They just passed a stimiulus bill and an omnibus spending bill that is establishing a socialized medicine system in this country. Were you aware of that? It's just the tip of the iceberg.

Do you think the issue of socialized medicine should be tucked away in a serious of spending bills or do you think that's a discussion and debate we should have in the open? That's just a single example, but a good example. What do you think of that.

Do you know what the socialized medicine system is going to look like in this country? Who'll run it? How it'll be paid for? Or if it should even be established? Doesn't matter, they didn't ask you nor do they care about your opinion.

Whether they think it's in the countries best interest or not has nothing to do with the whether it's deception or not. You can make "greater good" arguments for anything, that's not the point.
 
Why would I be full of outrage and disgust? I voted for the man, I worked for his campaign, and now he is enacting the programs that he said he would when he was running for office.

He is keeping his campaign promises.

I wasn't aware that you worked for his campaign.
 
All his deregulations led to a lot of our current financial problems.

Any proof? Or is this merely speculation on your part?

Even though he called himself a conservative he ran up the deficit to new astronomical levels.

More ignorance. Congress controls the purse strings and ran up the deficit. All the budgets he proposed were DOA (Tip O'Neil stated exactly that). The only thing he contributed to spending was an increase in military spending he pushed through which lead to us winning the cold war (so it was very justifiable).

So, basically, you are blaming him for the actions of Congress. That is like me saying you caused my cold.

The fact of the matter is, "Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals."
bg1414cht1.gif


If you consider this a smear, or dishonest, a mischaracterization, out of context or one of your other tired retorts then that is just your opinion and not a fact.

Actually, no. The facts prove what you say to be wrong, so what you say is by definition a smear and only and opinion. It is not based in reality.

IMO Reagan helped lay the groundwork for our current difficulties and started the whole dumbing down of America which Bush picked up on expanded and continued and now Palin wants to inherit.

Nevermind that there is absolutely no logical basis for your view; unless you define "dumb" as "not agreeing with elitists". Only under that assumption is your view at all based in reality.

Oh and just because 59% of americans agree with the vague simple notion that government is the problem does not make it a fact either, just an (ignorant) opinion.

Yep. An ignorant opinion that the facts and history support logically support. Oh, wait, that would make your view the ignorant one. :rolleyes:
 
I wasn't aware that you worked for his campaign.

Mostly in the trenches.... ;)

I was also involved with the platform committee, the DNC here in Denver this summer, and was more involved with Hillary's campaign.
 
Mostly in the trenches.... ;)

I was also involved with the platform committee, the DNC here in Denver this summer, and was more involved with Hillary's campaign.

Well, so long as he advances the cause by any means necessary. I guess it's o.k. with you then.
 
However, he and his advisers were amazing politicians, and knew how to 'sell' the product to America. They believed that to succeed, conservatives also need to sell a positive vision for America. The central conservative message, according to Reagan, had to revolve around what conservative policies could do to make America a better and stronger place. Reagan's rhetoric was framed in optimistic and positive terms.

That was the brilliance of Reagan - not his policies.

That is so ignorant, I don't know where to begin. You clearly only know liberal dogma concerning Reagan. You are arguing that he was all style and no substance in spite of the fact that he campaigned on and pushed through his agenda through substantive and specific explainations of why his policies should be enacted. Obama doesn't. He talks in vague platitudes and basically only works to instill faith in him. There is no substance and no specifics (unless he has to give them).
 
Well, so long as he advances the cause by any means necessary. I guess it's o.k. with you then.
Have you noticed that fox never hesitates to brag about how and to what extent she helped Obama get elected?

Narcissism much?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top