I will first remind you, that 54% is not a mandate.
I think 54% is a mandate.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I will first remind you, that 54% is not a mandate.
It is more than enough, that much is for sure.I think 54% is a mandate.
Your "team" had the ball for eight years and look where the country is. In the crapper. Just as matter of REASON, you might start to question whether your team really is what is best for the country. Unless... in your view... what is best for the country has nothing to do with people being able to feed and house their families.
The Republican party is a major disappointment in my mind. The only thing they're conservative on are social issues. The amount of money spent by the last administration is criminal.
Unfortunately I don't have confidence in a Democratic administration either. Look at the stimulus plan that Obama has on the table and tell me some of the items in there aren't BS.
We haven't had a fiscally responsible government for so long that I don't know if people know what that is anymore.
Out of interest, who was the last fiscally responsible administration?We haven't had a fiscally responsible government for so long that I don't know if people know what that is anymore.
Out of interest, who was the last fiscally responsible administration?
What does governing finances responsibly involve, Ciscokid?
I was right there with you until you mentioned Reagan. Your prior post nailed it dead on, but it was under Reagan that our national debt really started to get out of control, IMO. We've been throwing future Americans under the bus ever since. He was right about the dangers of "tax and spend," but is it any more moral than "borrow and spend?" This stimulus plan takes that to a whole new level. I'm glad I'll be dead when our grandchildren get the bill.Reagans administration did pretty good I think.
I see. I don't know much about Reagan's economic policies to be able to comment. I hear they were similar to Thatcher's Conservative Party's approach - laissez-faire monetarism under the influence of Friedman and Hayek. That accurate?Reagans administration did pretty good I think.
Sounds reasonable.Ciscokid said:Governing finance responsibly would be to adhere to the same principles [from a Federal level] that we ask our citizens to adhere to. Don't spend money you don't have etc.
I was right there with you until you mentioned Reagan. Your prior post nailed it dead on, but it was under Reagan that our national debt really started to get out of control, IMO. We've been throwing future Americans under the bus ever since. He was right about the dangers of "tax and spend," but is it any more moral than "borrow and spend?" This stimulus plan takes that to a whole new level. I'm glad I'll be dead when our grandchildren get the bill.
Reagan probably wasn't the best choice, I was a kid when he was president. He did spend WAY too much on the military. I guess I was focusing on how much the government was blowing while he was in office. If you ignore the military part, he did pretty good. I think it's key that people wanted to see strength when Reagan was in office...Carter didn't spend much at all on the military prior.
The Wall Street JournalEven with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government
I think 54% is a mandate.
If by those standards, the following Republicans have all been elected by mandate, at least once, in the last century;
H.W. Bush
Reagan (in 84 got 58.8% and in 80 he beat Carter with a 9.7% margin of victory. Greater than Obama's 7.2% over McCain)
Nixon
Eisenhower
Hoover in 28
Coolidge (54.0% - 28.8%) in 24
Harding in 20
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904
The last democratic candidate with a "mandate" was Johnson. And FDR got it all four times.
Just throwing that out there for consideration.
Does it really matter? I mean, in the long run, don't we really expect them to govern as they ran (more or less)?
... so if the left wing has all the answers, why do people continue to "mandate" republican leaders?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and venture a guess that it will be a while before the people "mandate" a republican leader again.
We'll see. The democrats better get their act together if they want to hold their power. If the economy isn't fixed by the 2010 elections it's almost a guarantee that the republicans will take back the senate.
According to Rasmussen...
What consideration would that be? This line of reasoning is irrelevant.Actually Obama got 53% of the vote, my mistake.
If by those standards, the following Republicans have all been elected by mandate, at least once, in the last century;
H.W. Bush
Reagan (in 84 got 58.8% and in 80 he beat Carter with a 9.7% margin of victory. Greater than Obama's 7.2% over McCain)
Nixon
Eisenhower
Hoover in 28
Coolidge (54.0% - 28.8%) in 24
Harding in 20
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904
The last democratic candidate with a "mandate" was Johnson. And FDR got it all four times.
Just throwing that out there for consideration.
2. If the GOP were still the party of Teddy "Trust-Buster" Roosevelt, I would be a Republican.
If you listen to Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, I can understand why you have such high hopes for the future of your party.
Also known as "The Republican Polling Company".
What consideration would that be? This line of reasoning is irrelevant.
1. "Mandate" doesn't seem to correlate with actually being a good president.
2. If the GOP were still the party of Teddy "Trust-Buster" Roosevelt, I would be a Republican.
I would add that if they could get past their invasion into the social aspects of American life, and (as Lilithu stated) return to the days of fiscal conservativism, I would register as one as well.