The Real Mitt Romney

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

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?

Selective reasoning and outright lies are continuous. Each soundbyte claim is missing the many other paragraphs necessary to actually know this stuff.

Reagan increased taxes mostly by raising SS taxes. Then took that money (without leaving an IOU) from the SS Trust Fund to pay for a massive increase in government spending. And still increased government debt massively.

As Cheney so often said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Or is that reality just forgotten along with Reagan's tax increases?

As a result, Reagan was the only president to be reelected when the economy was still depressed; when unemployment was so high.

What happened to increase employment? Tax increases. Reagan increased taxes. Unemployment went down. Clinton increased taxes. Unemployment decreased. Why does the rhetoric conveniently forget reality? Soundbyte reasoning.

Reagan did not do anything to end the Iranian hostage program - other than get elected. Later he tried to illegally sell arms to the Iranians - Iran Contra. To finance an illegal war in Central America. He even illegally mined the harbors if Nicaragua. This was good? Or just conveniently forgotten to have justify a 'liberal vs conservative' arguments?

[Adak]

Sadly, Tw, lies and liberals, tend to go hand in hand.

You may want to believe them, you may have been told them by the news media, but you just can't QUITE make those liberal lies, into FACTS: Such is the life of the liberal - so sad.

First, some good humor from RR, to lighten things up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3Eo...eature=related

The problem with Socialism, in a picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1790-2009.png

The "CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario", is something for your pipe dreams. The "CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario", is much more likely.

You can see the rise in the national debt, during Reagan's terms of office, as we went forward with a large amount of military spending, to bring back our military strength, and to break the Soviet economy, as they felt compelled to try and keep pace.

National Debt:
first year's budget is credited to last term's president, since the budget was his.

Reagan, in 8 years: 1.65 Trillion increase
12/31/1981: 1.028 Trillion Dollars
12/31/1988: 2.684 Trillion Dollars

An increase of 0.55 trillion dollars, per year.

Obama, in 3.8 years: 3.7 Trillion increase
12/31/2009: 12.311 Trillion Dollars
10/01/2012: 16.011 Trillion Dollars

And THAT is over one trillion dollars of increased debt, per year.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm


Housing loan rates, Freddie MAC, 30 year fixed:
January 1980: 12.88%, January 1988: 10.38

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mor...tes/charts.asp


Jobless Rates, Bureau of Labor Statistics:
1980: 7.1% 1988: 5.5%

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04...ds=Annual+Data


Was the US Military weak before Reagan?
"
Between 1970 and 1980 the total number of ships in the U.S. Navy fell from 847 to 538 and uniformed personnel strength declined from 675,000 to about 525,000. Although the remaining ships were newer and more capable than those retired, the Navy now has substantially fewer ships with which to sustain its peacetime commitments or to conduct wartime operations.
"

What did Reagan do?
"
President Ronald Reagan was elected President partly on his pledge to restore America's military superiority. Caspar W. Weinberger, the nation's 15th secretary of defense, Weinberger served as the point man for President Ronald Reagan's unprecedented peacetime military buildup. Weinberger also championed the so-called "Star Wars" missile defense program, the Air Force's B-1B bomber, and a "600-ship" Navy. Weinberger took office Jan. 21, 1981, and served until Nov. 23, 1987, making him the longest-serving defense secretary to date.

In addition to strengthening the nation's strategic retaliatory arm with advanced B-1B bombers, deploying Pershing II theater missiles to Europe, and producing sophisticated Abrams main battle tanks and Bradley armored fighting vehicles, his administration dramatically increased the size and capability of the U.S. Navy. In 1981 USS Ohio (SSBN-726), the largest submarine ever built and the first of her class, was commissioned. The ship carried 24 Trident I nuclear missiles, each one capable of hitting targets 4,000 miles distant.

Stepped up was construction of the 90,000-ton, nuclear-powered Nimitz-class carriers, Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines, and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers equipped with the revolutionary Aegis antiair warfare system. Also joining the fleet during the 1980s were Tomahawk land attack, Harpoon antiship, and high-speed, anti-radiation (HARM) missiles; improved versions of the F-14 Tomcat fighter, A-6 Intruder attack, and EA-6B Prowler electronic countermeasures aircraft; and the new F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. The venerable battleships USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) once again put to sea with their awesome 16-inch guns and new Tomahawk surface-to-surface missile batteries.
"

What's our Naval strength in # of ships, now?

"
Since the end of the Cold War, the size of the U.S. military decreased dramatically. At one time, the Navy envisioned a need for a 600-ship fleet. At the end of fiscal year (FY) 1988, the Navy had a total battle force of 566 ships. By the end of FY 1998, this number had dropped to approximately 330.
"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...981-reagan.htm

Federal Tax Rates, actual, Married filing jointly, $50,000:
1980: 43%
1988: 28%

While cutting taxes, he also had the number of tax brackets reduced, simplifying the tax code marginally.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...d-20110909.pdf

Please go spin your fables somewhere else. Facts, refute fables, every time.