Comments about ‘Mike Lee: It will be our ideas that win in 2014’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 14 2014 8:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Blue" you are partially right. The reason why Reagan would not be accepted by todays Republican party is because the Republican party has moved so far left that he would be considered an extremist. The Tea Party is more in line with Reagan, than people like McCain or Lindsey Graham.

To those of you who are complaining about the debt increases under Reagan, you should look to see what he has to say about them. When asked about some of his regrets, Reagan said "The Democrats reneged on their pledge [to cut spending] and we never got those cuts."

It seems that the Democrats lied to Reagan, and he was foolish enough to trust them. Are today's Democrats any better?

USS Enterprise, UT

To "GaryO" how did Clinton leave us in a good position economically? When Clinton left office we were in a recession. See "Bush inherited Clinton's recession" at CNN and "Last U.S. Recession Began Under Clinton, Economy Panel May Say" at Bloomberg. How is a recession a good thing?

To "one vote" now those hippies from the 1960's are the ones in charge. So why was it good for them, but bad for Conservatives to do the same thing?


Let's take back America and the values our country stands for (well used to stand for): self-reliance, family, individual responsibility, military might, integrity of a person's word being as good as his bond (in other words honesty---"you can keep your insurance"???) The Tea Party and GOP have got to get it together.........

Virginia Beach, VA

No Redshirt, we were NOT in a recession when Clinton left the White House. GW Bush ushered two recessions in on his watch. The first one (March 2001 - November 2001) was mild. The second was absolutely horrible . . . but not surprising in hindsight. After all this is Republican "leadership" we're talking about here.

You need to read something other than Right Wing propaganda.

Look it up. There are plenty of valid sources to choose from. CNBC and Investopedia both have lists on the net.

I can see why "Conservatives" so often point toward non-facts as "proof" of their contentions.

The facts rarely support their point of view.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "GaryO" I hate to break it to you, but even CNBC and Investopedia agree that there was a recession in 2000, which means that Bush inherited a recession.

Read the article "Why This Recession Seems Worse Than '70s and '80s" at CNBC which lists out most of the recessions since the 1970's. They state that "During the 1990-1991 recession, the deepest quarterly GDP decline was 3.0 percent; in the 2000-2001 one it was 1.4 percent." so we had a recession in 1990, and again in 2000. Clinton was President at that time.

Investopedia lists the Dot Com bubble bursting under Clinton. See "Market Crashes: The Dotcom Crash" with the dot com bubble bursting, that lead to another recession.

Where are your facts? Even your sources don't agree with you.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments