When President Obama unveiled his proposals on preventing gun violence on Wednesday, he seemed eager to tout one of his predecessors. Ronald Reagan, Obama reminded his audience, was a "staunch defender" of the 2nd Amendment, but he nevertheless wrote to Congress in 1994, urging lawmakers to "listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [military-style assault] weapons."
It led the Denver Post's Ryan Teague Beckwith to take note of some pretty high-profile fights in which the Democratic president has relied on the rhetoric and positions of a Republican president the RNC once seriously labeled "Ronaldus Magnus."
The list isn't comprehensive, but Beckwith's piece featured Obama aligning himself with Reagan on gun policy, taxes, the debt ceiling, and infrastructure investments, among other things. Obama also routinely used Reagan's name in his campaign stump speech.
The piece didn't mention it, but I'm also reminded of the time in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, when Obama reflected on recent history: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." The point, of course, was that Obama intended to do the same thing, though he preferred a different direction.
Similarly, during the height of the Republicans' debt-ceiling crisis in 2011, Obama, in a private meeting with congressional leaders, expressed frustration about the talks themselves. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here?" he asked rhetorically.
The point, of course, is not to suggest that Obama is a secret Republican, though I suspect the president respects his conservative predecessor. Rather, I think Obama uses Reagan's name to reinforce a larger point about just how far today's Republican Party has strayed from its mainstream past. President Obama, in other words, is laying claim to a Reagan legacy the GOP no longer wants.
As we talked about over the summer, Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, and he supported the precursor to the Buffett Rule. In his first term, Reagan raised taxes when unemployment was nearing 11% -- imagine trying this today -- and proceeded to raise taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office. It's a fact the right finds terribly inconvenient, but "no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people" as Reagan.
Reagan gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal government, tripled the debt, backed bailouts of domestic industries, and called for a world without nuclear weapons. Reagan also routinely compromised with Democrats, met with our most hated enemy without preconditions, and was willing to criticize Israel.
And then there's his gubernatorial record: in California, Reagan increased spending, raised taxes, helped create the nation's first state-based emissions standards, signed an abortion-rights bill, and expanded the nation's largest state-based Medicaid program (socialized health insurance).
For Obama, it's likely the irony of GOP Reagan-worship is amusing -- the party has a religious-like reverence for the former president, but the GOP has no use for his approach to governance.
And if Obama can remind the public of Republican extremism by noting how much he and Reagan -- unlike the congressional GOP and Reagan -- have in common, it's hardly a surprise to hear the former president's name pop up so often in Obama's speeches.
Leave a Comment:
What Reagan wanted to help out on gun violence, oh wow anybody with half a brain would know to do that. You look at Tom Selleck like he has done these things so wrong. You got the most far worse yet with that glorified actor called Reagan who went to play pretend politics. Reagan with Bush dished out the biggest con job yet on the American people. When I seen that worthless dog Reagan campaign for President, I knew right out that was a big act and total scam being played on the American people just to give them the total shaft up the toosh. And history has and will continue to prove out how really worthless Reagan and the Bush’s were as total scammers only for the rich bastards. And to think they named schools and other places after that worthless dog Reagan that just cracks me up.
Oh please, if you are going to have an opinion, state it in proper English and try your best to not sound like a uneducated redneck!
Re: #1.1
Who gave you a "Grammar Police" badge?
If you have an opinion about the opinion in #1, let's hear it.
Deb, I suspect Benen isn't trying to glorify Reagan. I think he's pointing out that a: there are things Obama's doing which aligns with things Reagan did (things some progressives might feel are amongst the more beneficial/least distasteful things Reagan did while in office, but YMMV), and b: Republicans love Reagan while openly despising the same things Obama does or wants to do that Reagan also did or tried to do, and then either pretend that's not the case or ignore the case altogether.
I totally second Nick Seaton's opinion. Deb's writing is truly execrable. I am pretty egalitarian, but we really ought to have more respect for the language that we are fortunate enough to speak. I probably agree with much of what she believes about Reagan, but much of what she says is obscured by her unreadable prose.
Right because you are Fair and Balanced.
Oh is the writer's here taking offense.
This is just everyday people writing and what makes your writing so much better.
Mine is better! I speak the truth! And, the truth is Obama is no where in the ballpark when it come to Reagan. He could be the water boy. (not to upset the ones who will obviously read a racial slur into this, cause that's what you have to do when you're wrong)
Deb + 7 numbers
“If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”
George Orwell
Which Reagan are you talking about the real Reagan or Reagan that righties made up after Reagan did the best thing for the country, dropped dead to bad it was like most things Reagan to late and after much failure.
I never said President Obama was Reagan where in the writing does it say that. Other than your wild imagination going off.
What is this the privileged few who think they are expert writers and even try to come up with fancy quotes. And on top of it, thought this was a blog for everybody regardless how they write.
Following this thread a little: the problem with your writing is that I am not really sure what it is that you are trying to say. That is why some of us are having difficulty. If you want to take time to express yourself more clearly, then perhaps "real" dialogue can take place.
I always wondered where the MSNBC trolls were.
Everybody is entitled to their freedom of speech regardless how they write. And just to let you know President Obama is a better President than Reagan ever was. And President Obama is just referencing Reagan and it is the article that is trying to push that President Obama is claiming Reagan's legacy. President Obama has never came right out and claimed Reagan's legacy at any time. Get your facts straight.
And on top of it, why would want President Obama want to claim Reagan's legacy, when he has his own legacy to claim?
It's not about freedom of speech (even though this only covers the government trying to silence you) it's about writing in a coherent manner, so that people can understand what you are saying. I have read your first post now three times, and for the life of me, I still don't know what point you wanted to get across.
And no one is trying to silence you here either. We just want to know what you're trying to say because it is incomprehensible from your original post.
But you can review history too and what Reagan has done to see that my statement was true. Plus if your paying attention to the news catch on to why too now can't you. Actually, also you could of reviewed some of my past posts also to know why hey.
Holy effin word salad , Is that you Sarah? Too also ?
This is a blog for people who would rather not waste their own or other people's time with indecipherable quasi-prose. Educated, literate people are not the "privileged few", unless you'd prefer an illiterate society, where no one can be bothered to learn.
I would think you would not want to alienate those you're trying to persuade by implying they are elitist snobs for having passed 6th grade English grammar. That says more about you, sadly, than it does about the overwhelmingly literate and thoughtful people on this blog.
And yes, each of us belongs to the "Grammar Police." Usually our enforcement acts consist of ignoring anything written by a grammar-challenged poster, but sometimes we try to give the poster a chance to improve both his/her writing and his/her chances of being read. Clearly that effort has been wasted on you.
It has nothing to do with elitism. If one is careless in one's writing, that doesn't say much about the care in one's thinking (just rewording SNFT's salient quote from Orwell).
I think deb+numbers has declared her intention to bully posters here into "tolerance" of her careless language. We'll each choose how to respond; I choose to formally ignore her (done!), and she has only herself to blame for that.
Hasta luego, amiga.
That is nice Helena you do that. Just as I know you still don't get it do you.
This is similar to how some people worship Jesus, but have no use for His approach to loving one another and taking care of the poor.
Great analogy. It's just how hero worship turns out to be. You build an image of someone that's contrary to their actual self, and no statements will convince you of your incorrect knowledge.
Was it Gandhi who said it? "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians."
Reagan was fond of the parable that one does not light a lamp and then hide it so that others cannot see. Reagan was not afraid of fighting battles whose outcome was in doubt. In his first term, Obama was fond of the maxim that politics is the art of the possible. If he rigidly followed this, he would not have heeded Emmanuel's advice that Health Care Reform was a bridge too far and it would never pass. Emmanuel and Clinton are representatives of the transactional technocrats at the center of the party. This is a model driven by pragmatism, not idealism.
Nancy Pelosi and Reagan are on the other end. They were not willing to fold a hand before playing it to the hilt. One of my favorite quotes from Pelosi is that "You can't preplay the game. You just get on the field and start playing." Reagan and Pelosi held the light high and charged onto the field. Alternately, Emmanuel was perfectly happy to see the President hold a light high during the campaign, then hide it under a bushel when it appeared that immense political would be wasted on a hopeless battle. Political advisers on the right and left are paid to make these trade-offs clear to their client. Idealists on both the right and left rail against this kind of gutless, cold blooded selling out of any risky position.
I don't think anyone recalls just how far outside of the mainstream Reagan was viewed in the late 70s. But he did not demure and instead stuck to his guns. If he went down, he would go down still holding the light high. People in the center came to admire that kind of adherence to principled positions.
Reagan, like Steve Jobs had a way of creating a reality distortion field. He would go out with positions that conventional wisdom regarded as ridiculous just a few short years prior. But it turned out that much of the obstacles were not as great as imagined, and some never materialized. People were living in a different universe of possibility, and loved Reagan because of that.
Obama cannot be transformational unless he holds the light high and disregards how the nay sayers who have pre played the game. The rhetorical position is strong, and Sandy Hook engaged the national psyche in a way the cynics have underestimated.
The President held the light high in his news converence this week.
I do fault the President for not availing himself of the outside ground game. If he wanted to put pressure on congresspeople, hitting them where they live, he would communicate to them by establishing strong OFA* operations in the districts of centrist Dem and GOP representatives who might vote with the NRA. So far, I have seen no sign that either he or some other group is willing to "communicate" to the GOP in this mode.
As far as I am concerned, it is the only communication the gutless centrists ever listen to.
-----
*Obama for America campaign organization which used sophisticated statistical behavioral psychology, and social media techniques to energize grass roots activity. The group will according to todays reports be relaunched as a non profit pressure group headed by Jim Messina which is completely separate from the DNC. Let's hope Messina goes big, engages in a serious money drive, and redeploys to all the battleground districts for 2014.
The DNC called me once again after the President's initiative, and I again told them my intention to go with an OFA type operation, and they would see no more money from me until I got the feeling they had wised up about their massive errors in 2010 and 2012.
It drives the TeaBaggers crazy when Obama invokes the name of Ronaldus Magnus, expecially when he compares his policies with Reagan's. However, when you put it all on paper and compare, Ronaldus Magnus would be more Democrat than TeaParty Republican today.
You're right, Raygun didn't have any taste for the "Christian coalition", even though he did use them.
Only thing that drives us crazy is how your side can be so fooled by this snake oil salesman. He was a community organizer, and you think he's the savior! Get a job , and help support his minions.
Jeff: I'd take a community organizer over a bad actor literally any day. You need to pick up your game to hang around here IMHO, it's so boilerplate to throw those stale talking points around, 2010 was years ago...
Goes to show you just what I'm talking about. If you don't agree with someone, just bitch and cry as most from the liberal side do. Like Jack says in a movie "You can't handle the truth" And, in 2010 what were you 15? I can tell you about years ago!
Oh Jack, still climbing that beanstalk I see. What is it outside of the President's color that really bothers you about the job that he's trying to do: extricate US from unnecessary wars, the attempt to regulate health-care and insure more Americans and bring down costs, trying to wrest our democracy from the Oligarchy and their political minions - please name something other than the boiler plate talking points from FAUX NOOZ?
See, it's not that we hear on the Maddowblog don't appreciate well argued, well reasoned logical arguments in opposition of our own stated opinions; it's that we're tired of the worn-out, trite, unreasonable, nonsensical bs that comes from trolls that have either lost the ability to use their brains, or have become so lazy that it's easier to repeat the talking points. Don't get angry, get educated.....
Peace, love and light...
I kinda love it when Obama punks the Republicans.
Seriously, though, I don't much respect Reagan--not by a long shot, but when Obama throws Reagan-esque things and have the Right go batsh*t about it, only to realize later that it was actually their Ronalds Magnus said it... well, as the saying goes, "Yes, Maximus, I am entertained."
Reagan did not raise taxes on rich people, he cut them drastically in most respects. The top income tax rate dropped from 70% to 33% and capital gains rates were only slightly increased (28% to a max of 33%). Corporate rates were formally raised but these are basically meaningless because of loopholes. Payroll tax rates were raised substantially.
Why keep repeating the silly myth that Reagan raised taxes?
If like Romney (and most rich people) most of your money comes from capital gains, a 5% increase is a big damn deal.
Reagan raised Taxes
He advocated reduced business regulations, controlling inflation, reducing growth in government spending, and spurring economic growth through tax cuts. He believed that such tax policies would create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor, but the policies failed to work. Investments declined and savings plummeted.
Unlike the GOP idiots today, Reagan had the good sense to course correct with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which actually did two things that required the affluent to pay higher taxes: it raised the effective tax rate on long-term capital gains from 20 to 28 percent, and it eliminated the ability to write passive losses against ordinary income. This meant that after 1986, Warren Buffett's taxes would have been at least as high as his secretary's.
His tax-cutting policies were so devastating to the economy that Reagan signed this massive tax increase and several increases in the years that followed. In fact, he raised taxes 11 times!
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1990
Interesting if you look objectively at what Reagan proposed and apply it to todays world with the GOP shift to the far right Reagan might be considered a moderate Dem today. But it shows that the far right has their own agenda and what was very acceptable to the GOP base under Reagan today they find reprehensible when Obama suggests the same things
EVERYTHING Obama suggests is unacceptable. I swear, Obama could cure cancer and the GOP would complain about all the jobs lost in cancer research and treatment.
It is obvious to me that President Obama has long admired Ronald Reagan. That isn't surprising when you consider that Reagan was President during Obama's formative years. After all Clinton seems especially fond of his picture with President Kennedy.
You are going to say Obama is a liberal Democrat and Reagan was a conservative Republican. We'll yes but what is the essential difference between Reagan conservatism and Obama liberalism anyway. Bottom line Obama wants to be viewed as a transformational President, just like Reagan.
For me the big differences between the two are Obama is far smarter than Reagan and became President at a relatively young age.
Obama is not a liberal democrat he is a moderate democrat, good lord I'm tired of that crap.
You haven't talked to my brothers the Fox News Republicans. Inside the bubble at best Obama is a flaming liberal democrat whose positions are akin to Bernie Sanders.
I know it isn't reality, Obama is a center right Democat, but I don't think Reagan was really as conservative as he claimed.
What are you guys smoking?
Smoking beats drinking GOP koolaid every time.
Independent thinking here! I call em as I see em. And, I vote whom I think will do what is best for my country. Obama ain't the one!
Well to bad for you that your vote meant nothing just like your opinion on opinions given to you by Fox news that you repeat like those opinions are anything more then insane rantings to get delusional people to work against themselves.
Skeptonomist, just because he lowered taxes on the wealthy doesnt mean he didnt raise taxes, he raised taxes on the middle class a bunch of times. You can look it up in the Library of Congress. Stop only picking the facts that support your statments, you can act like the other things didnt happen, but you are just lying to yourself.
I don't understand why liberals like comparing Obama to Reagan or invoking Reagan for analogies. Obama himself has described himself as a 1980s style moderate conservative, and that's not a good thing. The Democratic Party's embrace of center-right economics since Clinton (if not earlier) has limited the realm of political possibility and political discourse in this country, and it also encourages the Republican Party to move further to the right because most of their economic views (including those on health care and the environment) stem from reactions to Democratic proposals. The next time I have to hear someone say that Ronald Reagan would not fit in today's Republican Party, I would like to remind people that George McGovern would be well to Bernie Sanders's left.
Additionally, the frequent Democratic refrain that "Reagan raised taxes" ignores just how radical some of the tax changes he implemented were. Over the course of his presidency, he lowered the marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% and collapsed the number of tax brackets down to 2.
Obama has been able to see through all the fog that Reagan DID fundamentally change this country, decimating the middle class through his financial policies, and driving us into enormous military expenditures while denigrating the poor (with his false accusations regarding 'welfare queens' and 'some fellow over in South Succotash" that he couldn't give a hoot about...He also inaugurated the belligerent tone that now dominates his party -- etc.)
Obama is trying to reverse this and he's doing an amazingly good job at selling the people on why we need to change the direction Reagan sent us down.
Steve said "Reagan gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal government, tripled the debt, backed bailouts of domestic industries".
What is Barry doing differently?
reagan. i'll concede that he put this country on a different trajectory, but its not one i'm fond of. the destruction of the middle class, redefining environmentalism as treason, concentration of wealth in a steadily shrinking portion of the population, the emergence of right wing demagogues like limbaugh, the politicalization of ordinary religion, and on and on. fdr, lbj, and the gipper were each transforming presidents. i'll give reagan that, but i'll hasten to add that some transformations are nothing to celebrate. dubya is proof positive of that.
After Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan was the most popular Democratic president of the 20th Century.
This is in contrast to the speech he gave at the 1964 Republican National Convention.
Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of
government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our
grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate
these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between
two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities - Reagan
The list of things left out that He was a former Democrat and Union Member and that he took public responsibility for the Iran-Contra affair.
It's not that I am seeing his presidency through rose colored glasses but that compared to the modern incarnation of the Republican party He can be seen as a very moderate conservative on many issues and was at least open to thinking outside of ridged party ideology.
Much of the same can be said of Obama and I think it's important to remember that sometimes when a President is really shooting for the center he actually can hit the target.
How is letting North take the fall while claiming he knew nothing about Iran/Contra until after it hit the media is taking responsibility for Iran/Contra?
Well, then have Obama step up and take the fall for the Gun running to Mexico, and Benghazzi. He's all about cover up. So much for that huh?
Except it was GWB's ATF that had the gun running program not Obama nor Holder, in fact when Holder learned of ATF gun running left over from GWB he closed it down. Really take your fake outrage back over to Fox, that garbage was debunked from day one when Fox started pushing the lie.
Well, once again you show your ignorance. The program may have been started while Bush was in office. And, I don't beleive any of those weapons were used in the killing of our border patrol agents! The guns used were from the continued action by this administration. And, to say they didn't know about it is just bull, and you know it! If Holder didn't know of it he should be removed from that position right away. It's his job to know what is going on by his agency. Look at the facts! They point ot a cover up. You don't, and I don't need FOX news to tell me that. Try watching it sometime, as I watch NBC,CBS, MSNBC, and ABC just to see different points of view , and how they differ. From my independent point of view FOX is so much less un bias as the other stations. And, most of the ones on msnbc just whine all the time. They need to release their lips from you know where. As some others I find. All because they expect Obama to give them something for their vote. Instead of going out and earning it. Don't get me going with the military as I have 3 of my children who served, and one still in with 2 Purple Hearts, and a Bronze Star.
Right watching Fox news is like watching reruns of the 3 stooges the only difference is the 3 stooges didn't call themselves a news station. Really when it came out that Fox news watchers were less informed then people who watch no news at all, well you prove just how misinformed Fox viewers are, congrats, you now proved you know less then every other person on the planet who doesn't watch news. Really you then try to play the military service card which you can't nor will prove, like that makes a known lie spreader into something other then a lie spreader.
To bad for you and Fox that gun running lie never got past the smell test. In fact what did come out of the whole fake outrage was the fact that the problem wasn't caused by the ATF the problem came from AZ lax gun laws that allowed Mexican drug dealers to pay 18 year olds to buy guns for them.
It seems to me that the "conservatives" forgot the meaning of the word. Mr. Obama is by far the most conservative president since Clinton.
When I voted for Pres. Obama in 2008 I was really exited because I thought he "got it". He was going to address the country's problems head on and "put us on a fundamentally different path".
But to my dismay, Obama doesn't get it. To be a "transformational president" you have to, you know . . . transform things.
Obama's signature achievement is health care reform. When he ran for president in 2008, there were an estimated 50 million Americans without health insurance. The entire health care system was heading toward collapsing upon itself as the health insurance corporations and health care corporations and pharmaceutical corporations hollowed out the system in their quests for larger and larger profits.
But Obama refused to put the healthcare system on a "fundamentally different path" -- a path that would lower costs and improve outcomes using one of the proven models from the rest of the industrialized world. Instead he fixed the worst of the system's abuses. like rescission, but kept the existing, for-profit system in place.
So now the for-profit corporations are once again hollowing out the health care system, before Obama's reforms are even fully implemented. And the costs of health care continue down a path that eventually will swallow up the entire federal budget.
Wall Street reform was a similar failure to put our financial system on a "fundamentally different path". The too-big-to-fail banks are even bigger now. And the "reforms" are only sufficient to cause the banksters to hesitate for about ten seconds before continuing business as usual.
The next Bubble-Bust-and-Bailout economic catastrophe will be the true legacy of the Obama presidency.
Could Obama have achieved the drastic changes necessary? No, especially not with a radicalized opposition party taken over by zealots and crazies.
But Reagan didn't achieve everything he wanted either. He took what he could get. But he never stopped talking -- in specifics -- about the need to go further. Reagan mapped out a roadway and his Republican successors continued laying down the pavement, a few miles at a time.
Obama refuses to chart new roads. He puts temporary patches on the existing roadways that lead away from where we need to go.
Don't read too much into it. It's a strategy by Obama. Look, if you're being reviled as a fascist/socialist tyrant by the far right, and if enough moderate conservatives still look up to Reagan as an icon of practical conservatism, then you (Obama) show how your policies actually align with much of what Reagan did or tried to do-- as it suits you to do on specific policy issues. It creates (valid) dissonance within the mindset of the opposition, and ideally, weakens it or even gets you some agreement and/or support.
Obama is not worshiping Reagan. He's appropriating him to suit his needs. Any astute politician does that. I don't have to like the long-term impact of Reagan, or even all the policies of Obama, to see this is smart politics in the current climate.
I don't think anyone should try to claim the legacy of one of the worst Presidents in US history.
What? Are they talking about Obama? That's the one who comes to mind here.
To bad for you that title has already been given to at least 3 republicans, Hoover, Reagan and GWB.
Oh, and your the all knowing? Now that was funny! I guess you might need to start your own comic strip. You say some funny things. Not factual, but funny.. Continue, as I am amuzed.
Don't forget Richard Nixon.
He's definitly one! but as he said " I'm no criminal" hahaha
No Nixon said he wasn't a crook even though one of the charges dropped when Ford pardoned Nixon had to do with theft. Really all people remember is the break in of the democratic head quarters at Water Gate, but Nixon also had other crimes he committed while president and here is the really amusing part, it was the Republicans that brought the charges against Nixon even though democrats got the blame.
maybe not the strongest argument, but will certainly appeal to a subgroup of the NRA.
It seems the teabaggers are emulating 'Bonzo' rather than Ronnie.
Help me out here. The Congress of the US passes the laws and
allocates the money. The President administers those laws and spends the money
as directed by Congress. How is it then that Regan raised or lowered taxes?
That Clinton raised or lowered taxes. They didn't, Congress did. The President
can ask, he can demand, he can veto, but that's all. We elect a President, not
a king. I know it's easier to talk about one person than a whole group but
easier is not always right.
Old Dog, you are technically correct, but "read my lips" as long as I can remember the President has taken the credit or blame every time there is a tax increase or decrease.
Reagan wasn't as rightwing as Obama.
Curious how many are fond of referring to Reagan as "The Great Communicator"
when he had two hostage crises, longer than Carter's, illegally, covertly intervened
in Nicaragua against the law, (how's it going Ollie?) and couldn't convince congress
not to increase taxes or spending,. specially on the military even after the Grace
Commission! And,. a drug war strategy comprised of "Just Say No!",. which should
of been used on the defense budget! How many pages in the current DOD budget
and has congress read it?
It bothers me that the list of things that Reagan did which are supposed to be liberal includes "tripled the deficit and added trillions to the debt." That is actually a very Republican thing to do. In the last 45 years, Republican presidents have consistently increased deficits and Democratic presidents have decreased them or even run surpluses - and Reagan increased that trend by a huge amount. I have never understood why Republicans claim the mantle of deficit hawks - Democrats should reclaim that title.
Witness a powerful public relations effort dealing with a weakminded press. The beltway press even finds its way to public areas called spin rooms where foolish journalists are told whoppers by professional liars and everybody smiles knowingly.
Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined. Yep it's the Republican's fault. The Rich Republicans. Anybody bother to check out how much Ole Nancy Pelosi's net worth went up during her time as Speaker? Wake up folks, the Liberal Leaders you keep saying are for the greater good, are lining their pockets with your money just like the Republican's. If you think different, then do your research. Its all there. While you are at it, look into some of the companies that were recipient to the Stimulous Monies, then look at who bought a bunch of stock in said companies, many that have since failed and shut down.
Except he hasn't but really keep telling the lie and maybe some other brain dead person will believe your lie.
@Helena Vargas; I agree with you. @Deb+#s; you're incorrect and who knows where you get your view. Obama is the worst president ever; really it's scary. Obama can't hold a candle to Reagan; if Reagan were here, he would listen to Obama talk on and on (the way Obama likes to listen to himself when he talks on and on and on) and he would give a one liner to sum up everything the deceitful Chicago politician just said and make it clear how deceitful his intent is to lessen America's greatness and then, Reagan would make a sweet joke to make Obama smile because there IS a difference between the two; Mr. Reagan UNIFIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obama, dissects and puts down and most of all he divides. But, Ronald Reagan has passed on..........so, we need a strong leader because Obama is destroying our Country.