Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ronald Reagan was right!

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


I wouldnt raise our taxes. In fact I would kill the 16th Amendment. But in return I would do some major dismantling. I would bring our troops from the 130 countries they are sitting in home. I would kill FEMA, Dept of Edu, Dept of Energy, and a whole host of other government bureaucracies. I would raise the corporate taxes a hair and tax the hell out of anyone who ships jobs over seas. With no individual income taxes that would spur the economy for the next 100 years. Thats what I would do. But as long as we have this empire to maintain its going to cost and if we leave the status quo then we would all have to raise our taxes to 70% to pay for it all. So something has to give. Either we shrink government or raise taxes to 70%.




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I see this as the historic moment Ronald Reagan decided to sell out and get rich. Before that I think he was a decent guy.

I believe Goldwater was an authentic small government fiscal conservative but everyone knows those guys can't get elected! Current example Ron Paul. Republicans think Ron Paul is crazy!


I voted Ron Paul.
He represents my ideals.

------



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
This video shows a man who never abandonded his principles. The man you see in 1964 was the same man you saw in 1980. The same beliefs, convictions, ideals. Many agreed with him, many hated him, but he never waivered.

In my opinion he was right.

There seem to be no more like him interested in public service.

May God have mercy on this nation.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bkcrt
 


I am ok with "agreeing to disagree," however I do have data to back up the claims.
Clinton did wonders, considering he went into office with a deficit as large as this one, and came out with a surplus. (edited for Loutty who got confused)

I'll try posting the chart again:

i23.photobucket.com...

info found here

zfacts.com...
source

and finally, the TRUTH about Reaganomics
It Was Reagan, Not Congress
Some say Reagan had nothing to do with the debt's U turn
They say it was Congressional Democrats. Not true. Had things worked out just as Reagan proposed and predicted, the debt still would have gone up 85% as much. But even this is deceptive. The reason his predicted savings did not materialize was not Congress. The reason was that he predicted much more economic growth from supply-side magic than actually happened. So he counted on taxes that were never collected to help his budgets. In fact a study by the House found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed.



From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained
"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]

From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006." Downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf. Page 5.



High inflation allowed Reagan to misstate an inflated-dollar debt as a real growth in debt. On February 5, 1981, two weeks after taking office, in his "Address to the Nation on the Economy," Reagan said:
"By 1960 our national debt stood at $284 billion. ... Today the debt is $934 billion. ... We can leave our children with an unrepayable massive debt and a shattered economy."
source:

here is a good site with plenty of visuals that are easily understood.
www.cedarcomm.com...

the author explains the second graph:
Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.



If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have rais

[edit on 11/14/08 by irishgrl]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Reagan was great at talking the talk, but he never walked the walk.

I was a young man when Raygun was in office, and he was one fo the worse presidents in our nations history, turned us from a net creditor country into a net debtor nation, and putting into place the policies that gave IC's control of our country.

Raygun did nothing to take down the USSR. The USSR collapsed under its own wieght, and was in a downard spiral before Raygun took office.

Yeah, he could deliver a good speech, but that was about it.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bkcrt
That's a lot of positive propaganda for Clinton. Very nice. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



How can you call that "propaganda"????

Those are called FACTS my friend. The chart she listed, also FACTS. Facts are not propaganda. To say otherwise is misinformed in the least and idiotic at worst. I know you do not like these facts as they do not support your assertions, however, not liking them does not lessen their validity to the status of "propaganda."



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
The last thing a constitutional Conservative wants is anyone messing with the constitution!!


If that were true, why did you "constitutional conservatives" sit idly by while your conservative president tore the constitution to shreds??? Why did you sit by when Bush extended his executive powers to initiate preventive war and institute domestic surveillance of American's telephone calls and e-mail messages, all without specific congressional authorization?

Why did you sit idly by when it was contended that the president may designate, seize and detain any American citizen as an "enemy combatant," and imprison him in solitary confinement, indefinitely, without access to legal counsel and a judicial hearing?

Why did you sit idly by when Bush said the constitution was "just a piece of paper"?

I can only hypothesize that for the last eight years you decided to pledge your allegiance not to the constitution, but to George W. Bush. I am sorry man, your actions, or non-actions, speak much louder than your words.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by bkcrt
That's a lot of positive propaganda for Clinton. Very nice. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



How can you call that "propaganda"????

Those are called FACTS my friend. The chart she listed, also FACTS. Facts are not propaganda. To say otherwise is misinformed in the least and idiotic at worst. I know you do not like these facts as they do not support your assertions, however, not liking them does not lessen their validity to the status of "propaganda."


I love how when it supports YOUR view they're facts and I'm an idiot for not believing them. I won't debate with a person who calls me names because I can't possibly win that one. The truth is out there. Read more.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by irishgrl
 


Spelling? Your grammer is atrocious.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bkcrt
I love how when it supports YOUR view they're facts and I'm an idiot for not believing them. I won't debate with a person who calls me names because I can't possibly win that one. The truth is out there. Read more.



First off, I did not call you any names. I merely said that your statement that her facts were propaganda was "misinformed at the least" and "idiotic at the worst." Did you see that, I did not call you "misinformed" or "idiotic", I called your statement that.

Secondly, guess what, if facts don't support my view, I change my veiw...it is that simple. You should try it. Look, you have to allow yourself to be wrong from time to time else you will never grow as a person. Allowing yourself to be wrong in the claim that Clinton did not balance the budget may help you to grow as a person and maybe next time you will not vote for the worst president in American history, which I am guessing you did. If you didn't, sorry for the insult.

Lastly, what am I supposed to read to discover this "truth" you speak of??? Perhaps the latest Rush or O'Reilly book? Now those are examples of propaganda.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Reagan pretty much had GHB thrown on him. 60 days after Reagan enters office, there is an assassination attempt on him. If successful, who would become president? Former head of the CIA during the previous admin.

Upon entering office, Reagan was against the fed, tried to look at what tax payer money was going etc. After the attempt, he became a puppet.

He changed after and that was when the neo-con agenda hit.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loutty
reply to post by irishgrl
 


Spelling? Your grammer is atrocious.

I fixed the part that confused you Loutty, my apologies for my stream of consciousness post.... and by the way, how ironic is it that you try and ding me for spelling yet you spelled "grammar" wrong! Dear Santa: please bring Loutty a dictionary for Christmas. Thank you.

(oh and Loutty, when you get that dictionary, please feel free to look up "ad hominem")


[edit on 11/14/08 by irishgrl]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Reagan pretty much had GHB thrown on him. 60 days after Reagan enters office, there is an assassination attempt on him. If successful, who would become president? Former head of the CIA during the previous admin.

Upon entering office, Reagan was against the fed, tried to look at what tax payer money was going etc. After the attempt, he became a puppet.

He changed after and that was when the neo-con agenda hit.



Nope. just not supported by the facts, sorry. Reagan's Presidential policies were very much in line with his Gubernatorial policies. We in CA knew what Reagan was all about long before the rest of the country, so all you Reagan apologists are barking up the wrong tree.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Was Reagan right? Sure. All of these politicians say the right things. Backing it up is a different story. Obama said a lot of right things too. Seriously folks, have you looked in a Wall Street Journal or turned on any one of dozens of news outlets? How much 'wealth' is there really left to 'spread' among 300,000,000 folks?

Here is your buzz kill:
Who is really responsible for our mess?



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Reagan was right we are going to lose our country the set up election is proof we need to get ready its comming the lifes we live wil change by 2012 obama has made plans with other goverments that hates us and hes going to disarm the usa keep us open for attack we need to watch this next 4 years and how he makes deals with iran see how many attacks we have like 9/11 watch and see we will not do anything about it



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Proofs of a Conspiracy, by John Robison, [1798]

www.sacred-texts.com...

Norman Dodd several parts to this [1982]

www.youtube.com...

Several parts of this.........shocking and true. www.youtube.com...

1961 speech Eisenhower Warns us of New World Order
uk.youtube.com...

JFK warned us and was murdered for it
uk.youtube.com...

Congressman Larry McDonald, killed by the planners by taking out an entire commercial Jetliner. Watch video to the finish as it gets juicy later

vodpod.com...



reply to post by ZindoDoone
 



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
He had high ideals until they warned him and shot him to prove that they were serious. He then changed......like all the rest except JFK, RFK, Martain Luther, Malcom X, Ghandi, Congressman Larry McDonald [they took out an entire commercial jetliner in 1983 to kill him] and many others died not cooperating with the Illuminati and their ambition of creating a world government

reply to post by darkbluesky
 



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Great, Great find. Kudo's. Right on the Money...(no pun intended).

Scoffing is not in order here. This is representative of the real Ronald Reagan. A great Man, a true American.

"Thousand points of Light, New World Order" former CIA chief, GHWB, effectively became our President after the assassination attempt on President Reagan's life.

Why? How could that happen?

A story was published the day AFTER the attempt, in the Washington Post, stating that Marvin Bush had lunch with Hinckley's brother the day BEFORE the attempt on President Reagan.

The Story disappeared...

Was John Hinckley a MKULTRA Manchurian candidate?

Did his brother promise him if he did it" he could have Jodie Foster"?
Hinckley was obsessed with her, remember?


Check out JFK and Executive Order # 11110, written June 4, 1963.

By re-issuing Silver backed Treasury notes in $1 and $2 denominations, did Kennedy forfeit his life, like Lincoln and his Greenbacks?

Read "Timeline of the Rothschild's" by DB Smith on Google.
and Benjamin Freedman's Speech, Louis T Mc Fadden and Charles Lindbergh, Sr.
also, Eustace Mullins on the Subject of Zionists and Bankers. It's a Political Ideology,
not religious in the common sense.
Non-Fiction



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 



I feel ya.... When I was a bit younger I thought I had a grasp on the good and bad of politics and then I woke up and seen the political parties do not care for anyone except the next wave of politicians shuffled through who can raise money. I have never payed less tax money...this system always manages to have a reason to spend more money or raise more taxes on something. I guess I have faced the true fact that I am a worker bee and my part is to just work and keeping feeding the colony money so we can be the next roman empire to fail under it's narrow minded leaders who try to make the rules for everyone to follow as the were only meant for the few.



posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Yes, "amazing" that an actor , trained professionally to speak well, spoke well. Many love an illusion.

And just consider: Those that thought him a great president admired a brain-addled old man!

What does that say about his admirers?

Bwahahahaha.

I still recall his dismantling of the best free college system in America AND TRIPLING our state taxes as our governor. And running up more DEBT than ALL the presidents before him, while taking the US from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation, in just 8 short years. "Conservative?"

Yeah, in an alternate reality.

But some admire folks that can't even recall their own face in a mirror.

When I say "I Rony", I'm not speaking of what Reagan called himself.









 
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join