In response to:

Sometimes It’s The Messenger

Matt in N.C. Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 8:45 AM
SMyles and JustMC have a point. Reagan had three goals: revive the economy, smash the Soviet Empire, and dismantle Big Government. He would've been extremely optimistic to think that he could reach any of these with a Democrat Congress. It's miraculous that he scored two of three. His tax-cut program started the longest peacetime expansion in American history and doubled federal tax revenue. Faced with a resolute, rearming United States, the Soviet Empire collapsed. The price of these two victories was a Congressional spending binge that has yet to end. Looking back, we have the luxury of second-guessing Reagan. Maybe he should've cut government and left the Soviets alone. But at the time Reagan's deal with the left looked pretty good.
wiseone Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 10:34 AM
Regarding Reagan and farm subsidies, if you could get in a time machine and go back to the 1980s you could read all kinds of political commentary about "What Ronald Reagan has done to the farmer" because Reagan did in fact reduce farm subsidies and reformed the way they were awarded.
wiseone Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 10:32 AM
The problem I have with Rep. Roby, as well as with Smyles and JustMC, is that farm subsidies are not about saving farmers when there is a drought or some other weather disaster that destroys crops. Farm subsidies are about preventing the production of so much food that the bottom falls out of the market price and they all go broke.

Farmers subsidies were created to pay farmers to not grow crops so the supply wouldn't outpace the demand. This attitude occurred at a time when the vast majority of farmers were family operations. Today the vast majority of farms are operated by large corporations. Individual family farms are at their mercy in good times and bad.

But I still believe the free market would handle this better than gov't does.
SMyles Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 11:28 AM
Not sure if you meant you have a problem with me (my position) or not? I don't agree with farm subsidies.
SMyles Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 11:33 AM
My folks got money for years on farmland in MI for not farming it. Go figure.

When the SCOTUS overturns Wickard vs Filburn, I might start believing they quit using the Constitution for toilet paper.
wiseone Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 11:43 AM
I have no real problem with you (other than I disagree with you about Ron Paul). I wanted make it clear that the problem was that I think you misunderstood why we have farm subsidies (as does Rep. Roby) but I kept running up against TH's character limit.

Please take no offense. I do not agree with you on everything, but you are polite, clear thinker and much more a political friend than opponent.
SMyles Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 9:09 AM
Thank you Matt. I liked Reagan. In my opinion, he was sincere. I believe he understood the ideals of individual liberty our country was founded on and put that ahead of his own aspirations. Do we see that today? I saw it in Paul.

Infighting continued amongst conservatives and Republicans this week. Karl Rove angered Tea Partiers by implying they don’t know how to pick candidates. Majority Leader Eric Cantor told anyone who would listen Republicans need to learn to craft their message better for a broader audience. Every conservative group and politician is scrambling to find a way to appeal to various groups of Americans in a way that will “work” to win them votes. It reeks of desperation…and it’s nothing new.

After every election loss by Republicans in the last 20 years, the media has declared them dead, particularly the conservative wing of...