The Real Mitt Romney

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Adak

Hang out with radicals In college? No. By the time you're in Columbia or Harvard law, you should know better.

Yeah. Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Lucien Carr and Hal Chase were all pretty non-radical types.

[Stormieweather]

...

[BigV]

Adak--

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm in California, and Reagan was our Governor before he ran for President, so I don't have to rely on hearsay, from others.

A brief point of order--you may not have to rely on hearsay because of your personal experiences, but when you offer such experiences as evidence in support of your argument, to all of us and everyone else reading your argument, such "evidence" *IS* hearsay. You dismiss xoB's links as hearsay, but they're examples of corroboration of his argument, and good ones too. If you wish to be taken seriously, I respectfully suggest that you provide similar citations to document your personal experiences to better support your arguments.

[infinite monkey]

Boehner is my congressman, so I guess I have enough inside knowledge that I'm about ready to run for president.

Plus I've waited on him at parties. I'm gonna be queen of the world!

[Lamplighter]

Plus I've waited on him at parties. I'm gonna be queen of the world!

I too have often thought Boehner comes late to the party... can I be king ?

[infinite monkey]

Certainly! I dub you King Don!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Adak--


A brief point of order--you may not have to rely on hearsay because of your personal experiences, but when you offer such experiences as evidence in support of your argument, to all of us and everyone else reading your argument, such "evidence" *IS* hearsay. You dismiss xoB's links as hearsay, but they're examples of corroboration of his argument, and good ones too. If you wish to be taken seriously, I respectfully suggest that you provide similar citations to document your personal experiences to better support your arguments.

Reagan was a true conservative - everyone knows THAT. Conservatives believe that welfare - any program giving welfare - should be aimed at giving those in need a hand UP, not just a hand OUT.

Is that harsh? Yes, sometimes. Is it fair? No. Life isn't fair, people are not born with equal skills, and aptitudes, and we don't get equal parenting and education, etc.

I've been working on a program (computer), and just haven't gone through his links yet - but I'm going to view them before the debate today.

Politicians say a lot of things - Obama saying we have the wrong number of states, for instance, or Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia, from Alaska.

But look at their actions, while they're in office. Did Reagan cut Social Security? Did he increase our take-home pay by cutting our taxes? Did we in fact, have a significant recovery AND get our Iranian Embassy hostages returned, AND see the destruction of the Soviet Union's hold over several countries, during his terms in office?

Was everything perfect? Oh hell no! But our nation as a whole, was stronger economically, AND stronger militarily. Also, several countries were finally freed from the grip of the communists in Russia, for the first time since the end of WWII. This was all done (with the exception of throwing out the Cubans from Granada), with hardly a shot being fired.

If it didn't work, over and over again in our history, I wouldn't support Conservatism, as our political philosophy. I can think of a political philosophy that is much nicer - but it just doesn't work nearly as well. I believe we have to be pragmatic about what we do, as well as idealistic.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

I have a few problems with Adak's statements.

First, a community food program does not usually ask for financial information to prove you "need" their services. If you are there, you usually need it.

Thanks for backing me up on this. They don't check your income level, and people DO take advantage of it. You did not - but others DO. That's the point.

Secondly, asking for a SS# in order to make a purchase these days is a BIG no-no. If anyone (other than insurance or creditors) ask me that, they don't get my business.

Tell that to Sears in El Cajon, CA. Tool department check out clerks. (I like most Craftsman Tools). They did it twice in a row, on separate days. Since my complaint, (and I assume the complaints of others), they have changed their policy.

Thirdly, as a parent with two children attending public schools, I can testify that it is absolutely not true that 90% of the kids get free lunch. In order to get reduced or free lunch, you have to fill out and sign a financial need application form. According to the FDOE data report, the actual number is 41%.( FLDOE free lunch). That actually ties right in with the number of children living in low-income families - 44% (Child Poverty). In my poverty days, my kids got free lunch. Now that I'm no longer unemployed and poor, they do not.

I didn't say 90% was an average figure. I said the program was being massively abused, and some schools have 90% enrollment in the free lunch program, which is total crap. Low income, doesn't mean the family can't pack a damn lunch for their child!

Additionally, as a former poor person, I can absolutely state that asking for and receiving "aid" is the most humiliating and degrading thing I've ever done. The very moment I could manage to make ends meet without it, I dropped it like a hot potato. There was absolutely none of that *wink wink nudge nudge* that you are referring to...more like, you lazy, stupid, dumb person who is getting a free ride while I, the person who signs off on your aid, is working hard and earning mere peanuts. Let me see how many ways I can make you feel subhuman to compensate for my disdain!!

Sorry you were treated that way. But again, this wasn't about YOUR experience. It was about the way these programs, as a whole, are being abused, and have no reasonable controls, and are wasting our money. The number of kids enrolled in free or subsidized lunch programs, exceeds the number that actually need it, by several orders of magnitude.

Which do you believe is cheaper and more efficient?

1) A bag lunch from home:
Sandwich, an apple or other fruit, and a small bag of chips

or

2) A selection of hot and cold foods and drinks: pizza, salads, sandwiches, rice, potato, meat, fruit, milk, chocolate milk, soda, fruit juice, and milk shakes, etc. All catered or served up by professional food service companies. Add in the cost of hot and cold serving tables, commercial refrigeration, and at least a basic kitchen, and you have a LOT of money tied up in lunches! (Actual menu will vary from day to day, of course).

There's simply no comparison. No way that "free" lunch costs less than $5 per lunch. More probably, $7.50 - $10.00
The bag lunch from home - probably less than $3, AND the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it.

The idea that low income families can't afford to give their kids a healthy lunch is CRAP. They've been doing it for decades, and what? Now they're suddenly too strapped for it, even during the Clinton years?

What next? How about giving them the latest Nike sneakers, as well?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

Was everything perfect? Oh hell no! But our nation as a whole, was stronger economically

My recollection was that it was up and down under Reagan. There were a couple of small recessions. They seemed significant at the time, but that was before the 2008 free fall, so they seem small in hindsight. And I remember that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending so we went from having small deficits to having huge ones. In fact, I clearly remember an issue of Time magazine showing a black hole sucking dollars in, discussing the Reagan debt and the statistic at the time that in his first term alone, Reagan increased the debt more than all the presidents before him COMBINED.

Reagan broke the seal on deficit spending and taught the country that it was OK to spend more than you had. I clearly remember Mondale in a debate accusing Reagan of writing "bad checks" to fund the government, and Reagan getting really pissed off.

"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." Go ahead and Google that quote and who said it (besides tw.)

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

My recollection was that it was up and down under Reagan. There were a couple of small recessions. They seemed significant at the time, but that was before the 2008 free fall, so they seem small in hindsight. And I remember that Reagan cut taxes and increased spending so we went from having small deficits to having huge ones. In fact, I clearly remember an issue of Time magazine showing a black hole sucking dollars in, discussing the Reagan debt and the statistic at the time that in his first term alone, Reagan increased the debt more than all the presidents before him COMBINED.

Reagan broke the seal on deficit spending and taught the country that it was OK to spend more than you had. I clearly remember Mondale in a debate accusing Reagan of writing "bad checks" to fund the government, and Reagan getting really pissed off.

"Reagan taught us deficits don't matter." Go ahead and Google that quote and who said it (besides tw.)

Well, your memory is rather selective. The recession hit us under Carter, just as Reagan was about to be elected. Interest rates for home loans was up over 17%, and inflation was still strong. Carter's advice to us was to turn down the thermostat, and wear a sweater in our houses.

It was a bad recession, one of our worst ones, but Reagan had a plan - which was to destroy the Soviet Union in an arms race. The Soviets had been spending more $$$ than they could afford for at least 20 years already. They were at the "tipping point", but felt determined to match us in whatever military hardware we came up with. It was a matter of national pride and security for them.

So yeah, Reagan spent a lot of money, BUT he also got a LOT of bang for the buck. He was responsible for freeing more countries from the communists, than any president, ever.

By cutting taxes from over 50% for some categories, to a max of 33% iirc, and cutting it for EVERYONE, not just the rich, and not just the "somebody else" -- EVERYONE, he got the economy going, and we had a ROARING recovery.

Meanwhile, the Iranians wanted NOTHING to do with Reagan, and returned the hostages on his first day in office. They disliked Carter, but also, they recognized that they could pull our tail, as long as Carter was the Commander in Chief. Try that with Reagan, and you would get shredded.

I don't have the facts before me, but I believe our deficit did increase under Reagan, but you don't increase our military, with your piggy bank, and he started out with a large Democratic gov't - not the smaller and leaner one that he would have preferred. He did cut it down, but it takes time.

Without cutting taxes, you don't get the economy running as it should be. There is no motivation for people to expand, and spend on their business, when the vast majority of the money just goes to the gov't, anyway.

That's why Conservatism works so well. It doesn't rely on people being idealists, or on a gov't that will somehow, someway, know how to spend your money, better than you do.

You might think it's great having the gov't pay your way, but I'm saying, it won't be long before the gov't is telling you EXACTLY what way you can choose, in every part of your life. More government, means less freedom for you and me. Never doubt that. Sometimes you need more government, but you have to WATCH out, and be sure to also limit that government, when it's not necessary. Not just let it grow and grow, and control more and more. PULL IT BACK, from time to time.

Otherwise, you can kiss your freedom, good bye.

[infinite monkey]

Here's what I hear:

"next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawn's early my
country 'tis of centuries come and go
and are no more what of it we should worry
in every language even deafanddumb
thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry
by jingo by gee by gosh by gum
why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-
iful than these heroic happy dead
who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter
they did not stop to think they died instead
then shall the voice of liberty be mute?"

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water


--e.e. cummings

[glatt]

I'm dizzy. That post is all over the place.
But at least I got a good laugh at this line

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't have the facts before me, but I believe our deficit did increase under Reagan

[Adak]

Let's talk about the Welfare Queen!

So I'm managing some properties, and here comes the section 8 housing applications. Yep, welfare moms.

And every one of them had the exact maximum number of kids, that was most efficient for collecting benefits, according to the size of the unit they applied for. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

Section 8 housing - √
food stamps - √
free lunch program for the school kids √
money back from the IRS √
food bank √
school supplies donated √
extra nutrition program for young kids √ (I forget the name of it)
low income phone service √
low income gas and electric service √
free medical √

and more that I didn't even know about.

These were healthy women - they could have gone to work, but why should they? They couldn't have a man in the house without upsetting the welfare free bus trip, but they had male "visitors" from time to time.

The best fraud cases I heard about, were the ones that had enrolled for benefits, in three or four states. They lived near the point where the state lines came together, and just "hopped" from state to state, to pick up their monthly benefits.

Two of my friends also convinced SS that they were "disabled", and got a check every month, that way. Neither was disabled at all, but they knew how to act up, so it appeared they had "Asperger's Syndrome".

I hired them for manual labor, from time to time. One of them, was a good friend, and died from leukemia before he was 35, at Stanford Hosital. OK, Mike was so ornery, he maybe did have Aspergers.

RIP Mike.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by glatt

I'm dizzy. That post is all over the place.
But at least I got a good laugh at this line

Take off what's after the comma and that should be Adak's user title!

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

Let's talk about the Welfare Queen!

So I'm managing some properties, and here comes the section 8 housing applications. Yep, welfare moms.

And every one of them had the exact maximum number of kids, that was most efficient for collecting benefits, according to the size of the unit they applied for. I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

(Or, perhaps, they applied for that unit BECAUSE they had that many kids)

Section 8 housing - √
food stamps - √
free lunch program for the school kids √
money back from the IRS √
food bank √
school supplies donated √
extra nutrition program for young kids √ (I forget the name of it)
low income phone service √
low income gas and electric service √
free medical √

and more that I didn't even know about.

These were healthy women - they could have gone to work, but why should they? They couldn't have a man in the house without upsetting the welfare free bus trip, but they had male "visitors" from time to time.

(Unless you saw their medical history, all you REALLY can say about them is they APPEARED healthy)

The best fraud cases I heard about, were the ones that had enrolled for benefits, in three or four states. They lived near the point where the state lines came together, and just "hopped" from state to state, to pick up their monthly benefits.

("HEARD ABOUT" as in HEARSAY?)

Two of my friends also convinced SS that they were "disabled", and got a check every month, that way. Neither was disabled at all, but they knew how to act up, so it appeared they had "Asperger's Syndrome".

I hired them for manual labor, from time to time. One of them, was a good friend, and died from leukemia before he was 35, at Stanford Hosital. OK, Mike was so ornery, he maybe did have Aspergers.

(Is it at all POSSIBLE he had the Leukemia BEFORE and WHEN he knew you? That just might qualify as "disabled")

RIP Mike.

If you are going to make a case for your side of an argument, you might want to NOT make the case for the other side at the same time.