The truth about Newt Gingrich

[Blood_splat]

People still believe in our bought and paid for Democracy.

[Sailor Steve]

And once again the extremists who claim they represent the center go to extremes to justify their guy over the other guy. You don't get it. It's obvious that you don't really care about anything other than getting one of your own into office. The only ones you seem to be fooling are yourselves.

Steve, on a local perspective as you are pretty much central station, what have been the recent local takes on a LDS polling well in a primary in an area dominated by evangelicals?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Reaganism is the problem. The man started us on this suicidal path of deficit spending, free trade and belligerence in foreign policy. The 1980's are when the Republican party started to lose it's way, and the Cult of Reagan has been just as destructive to our nation as the radical left. Death by gunshot and death by drowning both result in the same thing. Don't try to tell me that one is better than the other.

OK... I have to warn you...

"THEM THERE ARE FIGHIN WORDS!"

I would disagree with you on a number of points. First, suicidal path of deficit spending. This country has had debt since at least 1791, and it had grown every year. However, the question is by how much (measured against GDP). If you look at the treasury reports and compare them, Reaganism had the lowest GDP / debt spending since the 1950's, and is MUCH lower than it is today. Curbing government spending is healthy for an economy - especially when its deficit spending. If you look at GDP in relation to debt spending, the idea that "Reaganism" is worse than "Obamaism" is clearly not factually based.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

Free Trade - I agree - this needs to be more "Fair Trade", but the reality is that the US began moving to Free Trade right after WW2, well before Reagan. To label it "Reaganism" is inaccurate from a historical overview.

Aggressive Foreign Policy - OK yes he did act outside our borders repeatedly, but not in ways that are comparable to the neocon idiocy that was created by Bush 1 and everone after. Reagan struck Hard, Fast and Decisively. He didn't stick around for "nation building" that would suck up our national treasure. He was in and out of Grenada in less than a year, knocking back the communist rebellion and causing the country to return to its legitimate constitution. Libya? No real deployments of ground troops. The Reagan Doctrine didn't cause protracted wars. It was effective without being provocative. The later presidents never learned how to implement it!

A return to true conservatism - as demonstrated by Reagan, and fleeing from the neocon crap that the Bushes and folks like McCain (and Romney) promote is where we need to be. Newt is one who can do it - and will.

*edit for correction of link

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Steve, on a local perspective as you are pretty much central station, what have been the recent local takes on a LDS polling well in a primary in an area dominated by evangelicals?

To be honest, I haven't really been paying attention. I've sort of fallen into 'Who mode'. You know, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." For all the talk, I don't see any of these guys wanting to help anyone but themselves.

Also, I live in the middle of Romneyland, so the majority here are happy about it. I'll admit I'm shallow. I don't like Romney because he created so much hype over the Olympics here, and I was one of the few who had a bad experience. It probably had nothing to do with him, but as I said, I'm shallow.

[Takeda Shingen]

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OK... I have to warn you...

"THEM THERE ARE FIGHIN WORDS!"

I would disagree with you on a number of points. First, suicidal path of deficit spending. This country has had debt since at least 1791, and it had grown every year. However, the question is by how much (measured against GDP). If you look at the treasury reports and compare them, Reaganism had the lowest GDP / debt spending since the 1950's, and is MUCH lower than it is today. Curbing government spending is healthy for an economy - especially when its deficit spending. If you look at GDP in relation to debt spending, the idea that "Reaganism" is worse than "Obamaism" is clearly not factually based.

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

Free Trade - I agree - this needs to be more "Fair Trade", but the reality is that the US began moving to Free Trade right after WW2, well before Reagan. To label it "Reaganism" is inaccurate from a historical overview.

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.

Aggressive Foreign Policy - OK yes he did act outside our borders repeatedly, but not in ways that are comparable to the neocon idiocy that was created by Bush 1 and everone after. Reagan struck Hard, Fast and Decisively. He didn't stick around for "nation building" that would suck up our national treasure. He was in and out of Grenada in less than a year, knocking back the communist rebellion and causing the country to return to its legitimate constitution. Libya? No real deployments of ground troops. The Reagan Doctrine didn't cause protracted wars. It was effective without being provocative. The later presidents never learned how to implement it!

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.

A return to true conservatism - as demonstrated by Reagan, and fleeing from the neocon crap that the Bushes and folks like McCain (and Romney) promote is where we need to be. Newt is one who can do it - and will.

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mookiemookie]

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. I guess we'll just ignore all that when facts differ from our rosy mental image of Saint Ronnie.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Anyone who wants to "cut government" has to be a radical.

Republicans are not for small government, never have been

[mookiemookie]

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.

[Blood_splat]

He sure let the Bull loose.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

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.

[Tchocky]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The Department of Education still exists today.....
The Department of Energy still exists today.

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.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Newt's private life, well that is his business.So what if he had an affair? Humans have a right to be happy, obviously he was not happy with his first two wives, so he found another who he is apparently happy with.

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.