Well having been an adult under both presidents (how about you?) I agree , Reagan didn't initiate a mandatory tax cradle to grave on every legal US citizen, Obama did (and isn't finished yet)...what's your point?

If I may interject here, it's call intuition and if comes from experience. If your lucky you'll end up with some. That's how you acquire it. Until then you'll have to answer reasoned responses with sarcasm.

Well, I am sorry if I don't take your "intuition" as face value, as you are clearly on one side of the political fence.

Good thing your not, right? Otherwise that sense of clarity that can only come from youth wouldn't be a factor.

Aaaaand Obama proceeded to cut taxes by 257B$, most of it on the private individuals.

Where? He didn't cut mine and I'm nowhere close to near his artificial $250K evil rich man barrier. It really don't count if you give with one hand and take away with another. Nice try though for not paying US income taxes. I'm sure the socialists here applaud the outside assistance.

It was part of the initial economic stimulus package (gosh! a democrat who thinks that cutting tax might help the economy!)

A very simply 500$ tax credit. The lowest-income earners won't really feel the fullest effect, but technically, everybody was supposed to pay 500$ less in taxes during 2009.

Ohhh, you mean the $9.61 a week that Obama let you keep out of your paycheck, that just end up reducing the amount of you tax return, or allowed you to pay in more if you were on the edge. Because you just paid less in, so owe more at the end of the year as the brackets didn't change, so it was more a loan of you own money. Yes, how generous, I remember the big laugh we all had about that last year. Maybe that is why it is so forgettable, and even Democrats aren't crowing about it. And your right, it didn't help people that pay nothing in Federal taxes or get a credit, even temporarily. Didn't help the people on fixed incomes, like social security, they got $250 ($4.81 a week. taxable) and no cost of living. Sounds awesome! Tell you want lets start another entitlement program, we can under fund....oh wait we just did. Thank you Mr. President.

Correction - I do not claim that.  You have a definitely different mindset from most Americans posting on this site (as you have pointed out - neither conservative or liberal - american wise), but I do not even pretend to know what is in Most American minds, much less foreigners.  However, the facts taht we do know, and the information leaked by Iran, and the democrat allegations all tend to support my hypothesis.  Plus human nature. Are you afraid of someone yelling at you from across the river?  or someone shooting at you from the corner?  The Iranians knew who would shoot and who would just yell.

Was the before or after the increase in Medicare taxes, Capital Gains taxes, SS Taxes, etc.?  Let me just answer that.  It did not include where he raised them, which meant it was a net tax increase.

You want to hear something that will make your blood boil?  YOu remember that cash for clunkers?  You get $4500 for a clunker right?  So you could sell the car for $3000, but 4500 is better right?  Not after taxes.  You are taxed on the 4500!  So you net lose!  not only do you no longer have an asset, but you wind up paying for giving it to the government to junk!

Wait, can you point me to the information leaked from Iran? My own sources (STRATFOR) don't support the idea that Iranians believe that Obama wouldn't use a military strike if needed. However, they do believe he is incapable of holding back Israel if Isarel wants to strike.

That's the thing. Human nature is distrustful. The gun is still there to be used. Bush hadn't shot. Obama hasn't shot yet. But the gun is still there, ready to use when they feel it's necessary.

I don't think Iranians care much about presidential rethorics. Wether your are a Hawk or a Dove, you will still use force when needed as a country.

Obama, armed with the most powerful  military apparatus of the world, is simply applying Roosevelt's "Speak softly" part of the famous quote. You appear believe that engaging in rethorics that are openly offensive to dictators would actually change their mindset. I think they don't care what is being set. In the end, it's how many guns are aligned in your direction that counts. Obama hasn't changed that number.

No, because I did not comment on that, just the Carter campaign.  As for Obama, I only have reality to go on - how they do not seem to care what he says or does.  While with Bush, they were very careful about what they admittted and did (yelled a lot, but not much more).

The gun is always there, but they look at the intention of the wielder.  cleary one of Obama's attributes is that he is perceived as a peace lover (we can debate that at another time).  Oslo bought that.  Iran believes it.  Iran also knew that Bush was not.

Like Clinton did.  Bombing Aspirin factories is not very intimidating to nations (to aspirin factory owners it is, but they do not wield much power).  Bush & Bush both kicked some butt.  To get a reputation (again the Fonz creed), you have to have hit someone at least once.  Aspirin factories  (clinton) and little old ladies (Obama) do not count.

One could argue that Carter was the same way.  But as we saw, it was not a question of having it, but of the will to do so.  Carter did not have the will.  Obama has demonstrated (through words so far, he has not been tested for deeds) that he does not either.  Jawboning only works when the enemy is afraid of the jawbone of an ass.

With Bush, they captured a British speedboat, they supported militas against your military in Iraq and they got forward their nuclear development program.

Not much less than what happened under Obama. Swap taking over a very symbolic oil field located in a disputed area with the British speedboat, and more pressure for sanctions from Obama than Bush.

Yet, everybody saw the military increase Obama ordered in Afghanistan.

While Obama is using a much softer tone than Bush (the very thing you hold against him), he still use the stick when needed. Oslo congratulated him on his softer tone. Iran still worries about the stick.

Which is THE important thing. The softer tone is to be on the good side of your allies, so you don't seem arrogant. The stick is for your ennemies, so they know to fear you.

Is it the USA's military apparatus that made the USA so unpopular in Europe and Canada? nah, it was Bush's aggressive rethoric, which is just rethoric. We don't fear the apparatus, we are annoyed at the rethoric.

The soft tone don't work on tyrants. Nor the aggressive tone, to be honest. They only care about the military apparatus, which is still there and might be used on them if they step over the line without any backup.

Yea, we don't police the world (although most want us to so tehy can damn us for it).  They had a nuclear program under bush, but very covert and slow.  With Obama it went public and fast.  I never said they were saints before.  But openly running around doing something and covertly trying to enact changes (so there is plausible deniability) are 2 different things.  NK did not stop their nuclear program either, but both have ramped it up over the last year.

Which were less than requested and took 6 months to decide.  Here's a bone, stop barking.

That should be "if he needs to" since he has yet to use it.

It worked so well with Chamberlain, right?

As it was Reagan's.  Yet Carter didnot blow the wall down, but Reagan's presidency led to it.  Evil men do not care about soft tones, only force.  This is not a perfect world, and people have to realize it.  Soft words did not cow Qadaffi, the USSR or Noreiega.

I am afraid of repeating myself again. Soft words are not meant to cow anyone. Nor do harsh words cow anyone. Words are words.

Should be interesting to see what comes of North Korea sinking a South Korean military vessel.

My bet is zip, nada.  Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Remember that Biden bit about how BO would be 'tested' & we wouldn't like the response?

If the North Koreans did sink the ship, the MSM is keeping a tight lid on it. All I've heard was that NK is not suspected.

Golly Gee, Cap'n.  How the hell that hole get there?

And I repeat myself.  Words are just words, without steel behind them.  Obama's words have no steel behind them.

Now there is talk of mines. It will be interesting, to say the least, if NK is behind it. I'm not expecting much from the prez though.

Last time I checked, your military apparatus is still there in full force. So there is steel behind them.

It is up to SK to react to that, as they were the ones to lose a ship. If SK asks for the USA's support in the matter, only then can the USA interfere.

But a lot of sparkles happen in that naval region anyway. Quite a few shots were exchanged there in the past 60 years, and it is within the classic behavior of NK before a new negociation round.

Possibility is it was an explosion, an accident.  Got ahead of myself a little.  Given the history of 'official maritime investigations', we'll never know.

I have a gun.  If a perp knows I have no intention of using it, then there is no threat to the perp. Obama's gun is not loaded and he is unwilling to use it, and they know it.

I know you have faith in him, misplaced in my opinion.  But you are also aware of enough to know that I am not the only one voicing these concerns - inside and outside of the borders here.  You do not have to read far to read it (and I am not talking right wing sites only).