Nuts. You're going to make me multi-quote. I hate multi-quoting. It's not that I don't like the look of the format, only that I am a lazy, lazy man.

No spin from me. Just graph. Find when the spending starts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...71_to_2001.png


Who negotiated NAFTA? Was is Nixon? Truman? Ford? Nope. Negotiations began in 1986. It was completed under Bush '41 and signed by Clinton. They're hands are dirty too. But it was started by Reagan. American manufacturing was never the same.

Are you kidding me? He set the mold! It was all 'let's go in here' and 'let's go in there'. Every president, R or D, that has followed has continued that tradition. Nation building or not, it exacerbated our 'role' as world police. Under Reagan, we started fighting fights that didn't need to be fought.

I agree that we need a return to true conservatism. Unfortunately, Reagan does not represent true conservatism. Everything about the prosperity of this era was an illusion. He set the tone for the out-of-control spending that has plagued us. I personally like the quote from Senator Benson in saying that if he had hot checks for $200 billion, he could give the impression of prosperity as well. Sure, the growth was there, but it wasn't sustainable. It wasn't responsible. Hell, even the tax cuts were an illusion. Sure, Reagan cut income tax rates, but he compensated for it by raising the payroll tax. He gave with one hand and took with the other. And so, what we see is not conservatism, but a repackaged NeoConservatism that has been, through no small effort of many, many supporters, touted as the conservative path to fiscal responsibility. And that's just crazy.

Mind sourcing that? I don't know how to paste pictures, so I can't post the graph - but here are a few for you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...icit_brief.php

The graph you show does not reference GDP. The ratio of debt to GDP went DOWN under Reagan. See the link. The GDP to debt ratio was higher under Carter and under Bush (and later presidents) than it was under Reagan. Even Clinton had a higher one because the debt was so much higher because of Bush.

Again - I didn't say Reagan didn't support free trade - I merely pointed out that Free Trade predates Reaganism.

[quote]Are you kidding me? He set the mold! It was all 'let's go in here' and 'let's go in there'. Every president, R or D, that has followed has continued that tradition. Nation building or not, it exacerbated our 'role' as world police. Under Reagan, we started fighting fights that didn't need to be fought. [/quote

Actually - if you look at Clinton - and I know I will make heads spin here - Clinton was the only one who followed the Reagan model when it came to "intervention". He almost didn't when you look at Bosnia, but he never got us embroiled in something we couldn't just walk away from. There is a difference between striking and then walking away because the goal has
been met compared to striking, camping and helping to "rebuild".

Your right, he set a mold. Its not HIS fault that the Neocon administrations - aka both Bush presidents - have failed utterly to follow it.

Again, here we differ. Yes, there were tax cuts and tax increases. Reagan was not perfect. The increase in payroll taxes helped to fund social programs for the non-working. COMPASSIONATE Conservatism or so its called. I don't agree with it. But the reality is that not one president - or candidate really - that team R has had until now has been a true Reagan conservative.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees. On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000.

In 1980, the U.S. national deficit was $2.78 trillion. In 1989 it was $5.48 trillion.

So much for the good ol' conservative values of small government and deficit reduction. :doh: I guess we'll just ignore all that when facts differ from our rosy mental image of Saint Ronnie.

Republicans are not for small government, never have been
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBavo8IIVCM

Reagan during the 1982 State of the Union speech: "The budget plan I submit to you on Feb. 8 will realize major savings by dismantling the Department of Education." The Department of Education still exists today.

Also in 1982, he promised to dismantle the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy still exists today.

In addition to NOT cutting the size of government, he expanded it. Reagan elevated the VA into a cabinet level position in 1988.

Anyone that tries to conjure the shade of ol' patron Saint Ronnie in talking about smaller government is a fool.

He sure let the Bull loose.

There is no universal "truth" in world. Everyone on this mud ball we proudly call Earth (among other names) has their invidual point of view. There will always be someone who disagrees with "truth" someone else attempts to shovel down their throats.

What Bubblehead1980 have posted in this thread is not an "truth" its merely his opinion.

Expect a strong effort by Republican campaign committees and high-level consultants to ensure that Romney is the nominee. Nominating Gingrich would be a gift to the Obama team.

Ahh, the invasion of Grenada. Never was so much owed by so, er....communism...domino theory....medical students... to so few.

And who controlled the Congress during those years? A president can make all the speeches and promises he wants but if he doesn't control Congress he isn't dismantling anything.

Alright, we can give him a pass on that as long as he supports Gay marriage rights as well as Polygamous and Polyamorous marriages (hey he wanted one!).

Hey, as you said: humans have a right to be happy.

He's still a douchebag, like every other politician.

Neal should start charging for paid political announcements. Fair is fair, use his board to promote your candidate, you should have to pay for the commercial.

The only thing I feared about Palin was the thought of McCain kicking the bucket and her actually becoming president. I would be embarrassed for America if we showed the world that we think this woman is presidential material. It's not even funny, Matt Damon summed it up perfectly, it's like a bad Disney movie, soccer mom turns president.


What party is this and where can I sign up?


I think the reality of it is; no president knows the true reality of our situation until after he's sworn in. Then he's given the book of secrets, told all the truths that nobody knows, told where we are really heading, and the only way to survive is become a figurehead for the true masters. (Probably the owners of the Federal Reserve, since nobody knows who they really are).



"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe~

Be careful what you wish for. If I were Neal i'd charge you for using Matt Damon to make a political point...

As a BTW, this site is pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff:

http://www.politifact.com/

Again, tell me why I am wrong, do not try to insult me, somewhere it along the line things got personal for you.I am not close minded, offer something valid instead insulting me in an attempt to mask your inability to counter what I say with sarcasm and your poor attempt at humor.Really, it never fails, you exaggerate about past comments I made concerning professors and texts providing inaccurate information etc.They are not always wrong but it is a well known fact that majority of academia is liberal and fail to remain objective in lieu of perpetuating the left wing perspective.I encountered this most often in undergrad, such as in history courses.Law School, well I have had a few radicals thus far but most are fair.

Tribes, I remember making statements supporting Beck but I am not a fan.However, at times he makes valid points and has done a service to the country.Beck lead to Van Jones(dangerous guy) resignation from the Obama Admin as well as Mao loving Anita Dunn.I despise Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman, but at times they are correct and I agree(ever defended them before against some right wing friends), definitely does not make me a fan.

I watched American Idol during the last debates.

I'm with Steve...."Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." Nothing changes in DC except the last name of the person residing at PA Ave. Nothing gets done. Spend. Travel the world. Play golf. Cut wood on your ranch. Ride ponies on your ranch. Get a little something in the Oval Office. Quit. Get a book deal. Retire denying anything of any significance occurred during your term. Go to a new library dedicated to you. Cut the ribbon. Next TV appearance for you will be in a casket. Life moves on.

That kind of relativism is crap, but does not surprise me considering you are in Europe.Sure, there is a gray area often but there is a truth out there.For example, Keynesian Economics does not work, never has and never will yet there are people who defy that truth and still advocate that garbage .Fact aka the truth, Gingrich was later cleared by the IRS and was basically forced out by a Democratic lead witch hunt.Opinion? no, we are are far enough removed from those years and the info is out there, just do some reading and consider the times to put things in context.

Attitudes like that are how we end up in the situation we are in, people just give up, never understood that.Truth is, as a voter you are never going to get just what you want but you can stay informed and not by such a cynic.

Ohhhhhh boy :haha:

Fact: your first post was about 1/3 historical figures and past events, 1/3 personal justification/interpretation of said events, and 1/3 conjecture about possible future events based on completely theoretical summer oil prices and your own previous justifications.

1/3 facts and 2/3 conjecture does not make for "truth".

Wow, this one went downhill pretty fast. I was going to reply to Halpo now that I am home from work, but I don't want to get in the way of Bubblehead trashing kraznyi for being European and placing all of America's problems at the feet of AVG (who, by the way, is absolutely correct). And to think that I was about to compliment you for your improved tone and rhetoric, Bubblehead. Boy would I have looked silly.

Halpo, the graph is just from Wikipedia's 'Reaganomics' (a crappy term, to be honest) page. It was quick and handy. Also, if you want to paste an image, right click, select copy, then right click the forum text box and select paste where you want it. So much easier than it used to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bu...71_to_2001.png

Bubbles, you were first one to come here with really big shovel and bulk carrier. You opted in your original post to just throw to us your version of "truth" without providing references on where you are basing your assesment of "truth". I have been on this forum relatively short time but I have learned this: when somebody comes here telling people about "facts" and what is "truth" in American politics its best to remember to take your own salt mountain with you to that "discussion".

Until you prove to me otherwise I'm going to assume that that bulk carrier is loaded with political brown stuff.