The Real Mitt Romney

[BigV]

Adak, you're like the Conservative Tasmanian Devil! I can't keep up with you, I don't know how you manage to bat back all the challenges to your positions. I have one clue, you are just posting about your feelings and your memories (old and fresh, nothing wrong with that) but it's not a fair analysis of larger groups or systemic traits. You point out that glatt has a selective memory, but of course we all do. That's why citations help clarify what's been selected and what's been discounted. You speak in broad terms, but use very limited specific examples like definitions of big ideas. Now, this is a complaint about your style, not about your positions. I think you unfairly, improperly characterize a few things like "true conservatives", poor people, Islam, American government and civics for example when you talk in stereotypes and buzzwords and cliches.

It's like listening to one of those blind men describe the elephant. Yes, the trunk is like a snake, yes, the tail is like a rope, etc etc. But an elephant isn't like a snake or a rope. You fixate on a narrow example then characterize a whole swath of people based on that stereotype. It is poor critical thinking. Even you yourself retreat from many of these examples, ("I didn't say 90% was an average number", "the EPA telling me what plywood I can buy", etc.) but unchallenged, they stand as if they are Truth. Honestly, nothing of substance is purely one thing only. If it can fit on a bumper sticker, it's probably not so or not important.

I say YOU, because you're writing here, but I see this kind of communication, this kind of thinking all over the place and I find it objectionable. Depending on the motivation I sense from the speaker, that objection ranges from bemusement to frustration to anger toward those who I feel are deliberately and knowingly deceptive. I don't think you are in that category, but the bloviators from Fox News land are a lot of the time.

Like xoB, I value truth highly. To be able to discern truth, I need facts and information, and enough of them to be able to compare them. In my experience, it's rarely the case that one example defines a whole group. I need more facts to find out the truth (like I did in the diy thread about my range installation). Your input is one of many, but it doesn't seem very high quality since little of what you've presented is objectively verifiable.

So. Just a little at a time from me then. Tell me, what makes Reagan a "TRUE conservative"? I don't think you can judge "from his actions" as you correctly advise that all his actions could be described that way.

[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.

[DanaC]

What has that picture to do with socialism?

[Adak]

People are only human, after all.

When you cut taxes, people have more money in their pocket. They buy more STUFF, they update everything from their wardrobe, to their car or home. They also modernize their business, maybe expand it, maybe add another truck to their transport fleet, open a branch office, etc.

Money gets MOVING around the economy, and that's what puts a recovery, into high gear. Don't believe me, ASK ANY ECONOMIST "What makes an economy strong?" He'll tell you, it's money, MOVING fast!

When taxes are increased, just the opposite occurs. People spend less - at home, and at their business. They hold off on making that risky venture of opening or expanding their business. They're worried that people who were flush with cash before, are going to be tight-fisted, and stay at home, instead of going out and spending money.
And they're right to worry.

It's not rocket science, it's just human nature. More money for our gov't, means less money for our economic engine - the private sector.

Who do you think pays for all the new gov't employees that Obama has hired? You and me, of course. ONLY the private sector makes our economy strong, not the gov't!

It amazes me that so many people, forget that. But then again, we're bombarded with liberal lies, day in and day out, and we're only human.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What has that picture to do with socialism?

Maybe a picture of the decayed homes and apartment buildings in Cuba, would have been more instructive. There, the concrete and stucco buildings are falling down because they have not been painted or sealed against the rain, in so many years.

Now the stucco and concrete have been damaged by the water getting in, and they're falling down - literally, on a massive scale.

When you remove the private sector like Castro did, you have sure and certain poverty. Witness North Korea, China (before 1980), Soviet Union, Cuba, Greece, etc.

There is NOT ONE socialist country that has no private sector, that is not dirt poor. Only the private sector gets the real engines of an economy, revved up - you and me, and all our fellow countrymen.

WE are the engines of an economic recovery, NOT THE FLIPPING GOV'T!

As our national debt continues to grow, and our private sector is shrunk by the socialist policies that keep putting pressure on them, we just start to run out of money - yes, as a nation.

"Socialism only works until the money runs out", as Thatcher once famously remarked.

[Adak]

Since SS was going slowly bankrupt, Tw, isn't it just - I don't know, REASONABLE - to increase the SS taxes, to save Social Security?

Not that the poly-ticks won't probably rob it anyway later on, but that's the damn liberals for you.

Because conservatives believe that if you start a program, you FUND the program, and if the program is important, and it's going broke, you make the changes necessary to get it FUNDED properly.

Unfortunately, true conservatives like this, are few and far between, in Washington, or in our state capitals. In either party.

@BigV - am I keeping you busy?

[DanaC]

Mmm. There are several other factors that are probably more important to that picture than 'socialism' . Actually you already alluded to them in an earlier post about the soviet block. One of the key factors in communist states becoming stuck in a war communism paradigm was the absolute opposition of the USA to anything seen as a threat to capitism and the democratic economy. Opposition which was interventionist, aggressive and far reaching. Up to and including involving themselves in postwar French elections when it looked possible a communist party win was on the way.

There are lots of reasons communism failed. But being permanently on the defensive and ever actually getting to a stage where the state wasn't under overt and covert attack from a powerful enemy most certainly did not help.

As for Cuba, alongside all the above. I suspect longstanding sanctions, economic isolation and coastal waters full of mines may have affected their economic development.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

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

Had your information sources been moderates, then you would not be posting half facts. For example, $0.55 trillion per year in 1982 is over $1.3 trillion in 2012 dollars. That is over $4.9 trillion in 3.8 years. Why do they forget to mention that part?

Extremist talk show hosts routinely forget facts to hype an agenda. To invent propaganda. Who spent more? Obama's $3.7 trillion in 3.8 years or Reagan's $4.9 trillion? Those are your numbers when intentionally missing facts are included.

Meanwhile, learn why your extremists talk show hosts have provided erroneous numbers. And that your arithmetic is flawed.

'Big dic' thinking foolishly measures power in terms of military hardware. So we built Ohio class subs to only have most of them scrapped. How often have Los Angles submarines done anything useful? The B-1 bombers was a disaster when started in the late 1970s. It could not perform military functions until about 2000. 20 years to make the B-1 useful and you are proud of it? The B-1 after 2000 only did functions that the B-52 (a 1950s design) was doing. Too much 'big dic' thinking without a grasp of reality.

Nimitz class aircraft carriers did what? Were so ineffective that air tasking orders even had to be manually delivered. Carriers could not even get tasking orders via satellites or radio like all other Air Forces. Most Navy planes had to stay back protecting the carriers. Could not reach targets without land based refueling. Eventually all Navy planes were withdrawn from attack due their inability to hit targets. But somehow you just knew those Nimitz class carriers are better because ... they are so big or because extremists talk show hosts said so? Which is it? Why does so much expensive hardware do so little? And you are so proud? Facts mean that 'big dic' thinking would quickly deflate.

Why do you spend so much time hyping military hardware as if that makes America wealthier, healthier, educated, innovative, and strong? It doesn't despite propaganda hyped by extremist talk show hosts. Worse, all that hardware makes extremists want to use it in more useless wars (ie Mission Accomplished). Too much military hardware and 'big dic' thinking justifies unnecessary wars and creates massive debts.

The US Navy is larger than the next 12 Navies combined. 11 of those 12 are close American allies. But wacko extremist talk show hosts tell the most naive that we have diminished military. You swallowed their lie; hook, line and sinker. Only an extremists can be so easily manipulated by bogus propaganda.

Having wasted $3 trillion in Mission Accomplished, what did that war accomplish? Well it created massive debts that Obama is stuck paying for. Or did extremist talk show hosts forget to mention that Mission Accomplished was intentionally not in any George Jr's budgets? Mission Accomplished was financed by the Chinese. Now we (Obama) must repay the Chinese. Why do extremists talk show hosts forget to mention that? Why do you never ask damning questions? Moderates do. If you are not a moderate, then what are you? Uninformed? Manipulated by propaganda? A victim of half truths?

Education from extremists talk show hosts means you do not know what socialism is. Communism happens when top management subverts socialism. Cuba is a communist country. Why would anything confuse communism with socialism? Extremists talk show hosts. Had they been honest, then you knew Cuba is communist - not socialist.

But then extremists talk show hosts define a world as "liberal verses conservative" to keep their disciples confused and militant. You even confused military hardware with what makes a nation strong. Classic 'big dic' thinking.

Please learn facts so that extremist talk show hosts do not so easily manipulate you. Your many paragraphs demonstrate how easily they manipulate using lies, myths, and half truths. So bogus is your claim of a diminished Navy. Only the least educated would believe all that obvious nonsense.

Meanwhile, despite lies from extremists talk show hosts, Reagan increased (did not decrease) taxes.

[Adak]

More fun facts about socialism in action:

Here's what to expect from your new Socialist President, France:

From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19814806

It has not been a great week to be French. Unemployment has just hit three million, growth for next year is estimated at barely above zero, and the popularity of (Socialist) President Hollande has plummeted.

...unemployment here just hit the three million mark and is going to keep rising.

Every week sees a new announcement of large-scale lay-offs. Just this week the last blast-furnace in Lorraine - once
the crucible of the French steel industry - has closed.

Taxes are going up, and no matter what the socialist government says, it is not just the rich who will be affected.

Business-creators are furious because the new rules mean that people who build up an enterprise from scratch will lose more than 60% to the government when they try to sell it on. More and more of the brightest and the best are thinking of moving abroad.

London! is now the sixth largest "French" city.

============== End of BBC Report ================

Why do I dislike Socialism? Because it doesn't work at all well, but liberals keep telling you it will work, and before long, they bring the gov't into EVERY part of your life, and your freedom and rights, go right down the drain.

It's time to Wake Up, about socialism!

[Adak]

Meanwhile, despite lies from extremists talk show hosts, Reagan increased (did not decrease) taxes.

The Congressional Budget Office, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the FHFA, and the IRS are "extremist talk show hosts", now?

You're in deep lying waters, and you have a 40 lb. tool belt of lies strapped around your middle. I suggest you lose a few of them.

So you REALLY believe that a strong military, and a strong economy, somehow combine to make us weak?

Please... that is THE MOST pathetic argument, I've heard all year.

Why don't you prove it to me, that taxes were higher in 1980 , when Reagan took office, than they were in January 1988, (or Dec. 1987), when he left office.

You can adjust for inflation if you like. It's only 8 years here, but the stats including adjustment for inflation, as well as nominal, are available at the url I posted with the data.

I'm sure if you dig around, you can find SOMEBODY whose tax loophole was closed by Reagan, and then had higher tax liability, as a result. But go ahead, it will be fun.

Because the basis of your belief system is a lie. Our country was founded on individual freedoms and opportunity - not gov't hand outs. The gov't will NEVER be nearly as efficient as the private sector. Not even the military is that efficient.

You should read up on just what our private sector has done for us:
http://www.economist.com/node/21555532

it's the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie, where the wicked corporation tries to take over the world, unleash biological weapons, destroy the moon, etc.

Again, it's just a fact. You can run away or slander them or whatever, but they're still THOSE DAMN FACTS.

Read it and weep!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

You're in deep lying waters, and you have a 40 lb. tool belt of lies strapped around your middle. I suggest you lose a few of them.

So you REALLY believe that a strong military, and a strong economy, somehow combine to make us weak?

So the B-1 Bomber, Nimitz carrier, Ohio and Los Angles submarines, 600 ship Navy, etc all made the American economy stronger? History says just the opposite. Why are you no longer defending those weapon systems once their value was better defined? And why are you imposing extremist talk show myths to misrepresent what I posted? That misrepresentation is a classic debating trick used when the many previous claims were too far from reality.

Since those 'big dic' military claims are bogus, you are now running to blame socialism for economic malise. Nonsense again. Strong economies are not created by "deregulation verses socialism". Or conservative verse liberal. Or "them verses us". Or 'big dic' inspired wars. Strong economics occurs due to innovation found in all free market economies, including France. Political spin does not explain what makes or undermines economies. Closing tax loopholes did not end the economic disaster created by a conservative and wacko president Nixon. A president who is slightly more socialist did not suddenly create a massive recession in France.

Posting mockery does not prove knowledge. It only proves you cannot defend those myths in previous posts.

A country prospers when better educated people do not promote the extremist political agendas that you have posted. Innovation is not defined or promoted in your accusations. Innovation is the reason for America's strength. Innovation is the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie where the evil liberal destroys corporations, unleashes biological weapons, and creates massacres. The real threat is someone who blindly preaches half truth propganda and the resulting hate from those extremist political concepts.

A real threat is one who sees solutions in 'big dic' concepts. As we learned from useless and unnecessary deaths in Vietnam and Iraq. But no. Extremists politic, rather than logic and reality, proves 'them verses us' justifies destruction. "Conservative verse liberal" rhetoric even justified hate of Muslims in Lower Manhattan.

It is sad that your politics rather than well proven historical concepts explain the world. Those politics historically justified waste, stilfled innovation, hate, environmental disasters, fear, and even words such as nigger.

Meanwhile, other terms not found in your politics (ie STEM, R&D, education) explain what makes an economy and nation prosper. 'Big dic' military and conservative agendas did not make America prosper. A tolerant society that even welcomes immigrants does. A society not polarized by rediculous "liberal verse conservative" hate is prosperous. Your extremist politics is a serious threat to what made America great.

[BigV]

Yes, Adak, you continue to outpace me by a wide margin.

I see we've strayed far from "the real mitt romney", fine, fine. But I still have some questions about some buzzphrases you keep using. You've still not helped me understand what constitutes "true conservative". And I've noticed another recurring theme in your posts. You keep decrying "a government hand out", and you contrasted it to "a government hand up" at one point. A couple questions--what is the difference between a hand up and a hand out? And what are these government hand outs you're so bothered about in the first place?

---

Thank you for the inclusion of the links in your previous posts, I appreciate that. I have some suggestions for improvement, but I must first acknowledge this first big step. Nice work!

[DanaC]

So, what, France's economic woes are a result of socialism?

As opposed to the near collapse of global finance?

Socialism may or may not be the solution to their ills. But it certainly wasn't the cause. It staggers me that with such a clear demonstration of the dangers and downside of capitalism as we have seen in the last couple of years, still the bogeyman is the red under the bed, rather than the financial wizards and global corporate culture that have crippled whole countries and regional economies.

[DanaC]

You should read up on just what our private sector has done for us:
http://www.economist.com/node/21555532

it's the kind of thing you won't see in ANY Hollywood movie, where the wicked corporation tries to take over the world, unleash biological weapons, destroy the moon, etc.

Again, it's just a fact. You can run away or slander them or whatever, but they're still THOSE DAMN FACTS.

Read it and weep!

This caught my eye. I won't dispute the details of Herman's study; I don't know nearly enough about that period of history for my own country, let alone anyone else's. But...

Alarm bells always sound for me when I see someone cite a historian's findings as bald fact. That just isn't how history works as a field. His analysis will be replete with individual facts, but taken as a whole no analysis, no piece of research, no academic study (within humanities/arts/ social sciences) should ever be taken as the last word on a given topic.

I'm currently teaching historical skills and historiography to 1st year undergrads, and one of the first things they learn is that, unlike at school and college, the texts they read are not to be treated as unassailable fact. They are not to be approached in the same way as a school text book, where the word on the page is what you learn to be true.