oh dear, there goes that myth

[PLC1]

Of all the presidents in your lifetime, no president did a better job of controlling the size and power of government than Reagan. Yet you continually condemn him while commending Big Ears. I wonder why? If you think Carter or Mondale would have cut back the size, expense and power of the federal government more so than Reagan, you are really off your rocker.

I suppose you would vote for BO over Reagan if they were running against each other....hypothetically speaking. Right?

While the real Reagan is not all that different from Obama, I'd not want to see either of them get another chance at the WH. Both of them are deficit spenders, after all. Now, the demigod of legend, that's another matter, but the real guy was no small government sort of conservative.

And, I don't really care how big the president's ears are.

or even which party he belongs to.

 

[Gipper]

While the real Reagan is not all that different from Obama,

That does it, you really need to consider your mental condition.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have read in ages. Leave it to my old buddy who by this time of day, is stoned away.

 

[Pandora]

While the real Reagan is not all that different from Obama.

You really cannot be serious?

Was the "real" Reagan a supporter of infanticide? Or perhaps he wanted to "spread the wealth" oh wait ... I know

He had a really low opinion of America and Americans?

Or maybe it was how he loved apologies to foreign leaders???



If you were being serious, you have lost all credibility with me… If you were joking, you need to have a better delivery because it wasn’t very funny J

 

[dogtowner]

You really cannot be serious?

Was the "real" Reagan a supporter of infanticide? Or perhaps he wanted to "spread the wealth" oh wait ... I know

He had a really low opinion of America and Americans?

Or maybe it was how he loved apologies to foreign leaders???



If you were being serious, you have lost all credibility with me… If you were joking, you need to have a better delivery because it wasn’t very funny J

he was referring to expansion of government and like it or not, Reagan was mainly bark.

 

[dogtowner]

That does it, you really need to consider your mental condition.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have read in ages. Leave it to my old buddy who by this time of day, is stoned away.

do the math Gip. Reagan was a lot of things but spendthrift was not one of them. you can argue the military needed rebuilding but lets be honest, that wasa not free and is a form of govt expansion. but yall have been focused soley on expansion and both guys have a poor record on that metric.

 

[Pandora]

he was referring to expansion of government and like it or not, Reagan was mainly bark.

I can’t disagree about the expansion but even that was like grapes in size to obama's bowling balls. They were nothing alike even in that. Bush might be an easier comparison though every president expanded things some… obama doubled down.

 

[Pandora]

do the math Gip. Reagan was a lot of things but spendthrift was not one of them. you can argue the military needed rebuilding but lets be honest, that wasa not free and is a form of govt expansion. but yall have been focused soley on expansion and both guys have a poor record on that metric.

That freak and ***** carter gutted the military. Because of that it took more money to re build it. I think that is not very fair to blame Reagan for what the ***** carter did. But star wars and stuff like that, yeah he spent way too much money. But he outspent Soviet Union and they are no longer so at least he got something for his spending

 

[dogtowner]

I can’t disagree about the expansion but even that was like grapes in size to obama's bowling balls. They were nothing alike even in that. Bush might be an easier comparison though every president expanded things some… obama doubled down.

Reagan allowed it to jump a surprising amount, about double over his 8 years, aroiund 600b to arount 1.1 t.

 

[Pandora]

Reagan allowed it to jump a surprising amount, about double over his 8 years, aroiund 600b to arount 1.1 t.

So did Bush and obama even more but again we actually got something for Reagans spending, don’t know that I can say that about Bush's and I know I can’t say that about obama and remember obama has spent more in 3 1/2 actually most of it in the first 2 than Bush or Reagan did in 8

 

[Johnny Tremain]

That freak and ***** carter gutted the military. Because of that it took more money to re build it. I think that is not very fair to blame Reagan for what the ***** carter did. But star wars and stuff like that, yeah he spent way too much money. But he outspent Soviet Union and they are no longer so at least he got something for his spending

The Great Trap set up by EVERY democrat president for the next Republican President--who we, at least, know will put the welfare of the nation ahead of communist dogma the democrats now cleave to more that Vladimir Putin ever did.

If re-elected--Obama and Vladimir will pursue his momma, daddy, and gramps and granny's communist dream for America.
That is--when he is re-elected and "FREE" to make more decisions for the International Communist Movement.
And don't think for a moment Putin is not all for that.

 

[PLC1]

I can’t disagree about the expansion but even that was like grapes in size to obama's bowling balls. They were nothing alike even in that. Bush might be an easier comparison though every president expanded things some… obama doubled down.

Of course it was expansion of government I was referring to above. The president has no control over abortion laws, anyway. Actually, every government (which actually constitutes more than just the president, after all) has gotten bigger and bigger for as long as I can remember. Reagan talked a good game, but did not cut back the size and expense of it. Obama and his Democratic congress did no better, but much of the deficit has been due not to increased spending, but do decreased revenues due to the recession. We had a thread on that already, I believe.

Plus, I like to compare Obama and Reagan as it makes the Gip nuts.

 

[Pandora]

Plus, I like to compare Obama and Reagan as it makes the Gip nuts.

Yeah I bet it does make people nuts, for me its just more fustrating than anything

 

[Gipper]

This argument is nonsense.

Does anyone here really think Reagan could have significantly reduced the federal budget, while building up the military with a D controlled Congress?

It has been clearly stated by all in the Reagan administration that Reagan knew full well he would never get the Ds to reduce spending, while he was increasing spending on the military and aggressively controlling the USSR.

He came to office with three mandates.....1. rebuild the military 2. improve the economy 3. end the USSR. He succeeded on all fronts in amazing fashion.

Libs everywhere believed the USSR was economically strong and impossible to topple...when he came to office in 1981...but he did it...even though Fat Ted Kennedy committed treason in an effort to undermine him and John Fing Kerry (who served in Vietnam and lied about it) was pushing a nuke freeze on America (the freeze did not apply to the USSR...libs love to appease tyrants) in an effort to undermine him.

Would he have liked to abolish gov. departments, drastically reduce the welfare state, and cut spending...Hell yes, but he was forced to compromise with the Ds in Congress. Why does our dope smoking moderator want compromise today, but faults Reagan when he did? If Reagan wanted those three mandates to succeed, he had to accept the liberals desire to expand government.

Blaming Reagan for blowing up the budget is failing to recognize the facts at the time. Yes it is disappointing, but failing to lay blame on the Ds who controlled Congress, is nonsensical.

And another thing you are forgetting. While he signed off on Congresses spending, he also grew revenues to the treasury considerably during his eight years preventing the deficit from exploding....something Big Ears has no clue about how to do.

And finally, to compare Reagan's spending (really D spending) to Obummer's spending, is like saying Mt Everest and the hill in my backyard are the same. CRAZY!!!

 

[dogtowner]

This argument is nonsense.

Does anyone here really think Reagan could have significantly reduced the federal budget, while building up the military with a D controlled Congress?

It has been clearly stated by all in the Reagan administration that Reagan knew full well he would never get the Ds to reduce spending, while he was increasing spending on the military and aggressively controlling the USSR.

He came to office with three mandates.....1. rebuild the military 2. improve the economy 3. end the USSR. He succeeded on all fronts in amazing fashion.

Libs everywhere believed the USSR was economically strong and impossible to topple...when he came to office in 1981...but he did it...even though Fat Ted Kennedy committed treason in an effort to undermine him and John Fing Kerry (who served in Vietnam and lied about it) was pushing a nuke freeze on America (the freeze did not apply to the USSR...libs love to appease tyrants) in an effort to undermine him.

Would he have liked to abolish gov. departments, drastically reduce the welfare state, and cut spending...Hell yes, but he was forced to compromise with the Ds in Congress. Why does our dope smoking moderator want compromise today, but faults Reagan when he did? If Reagan wanted those three mandates to succeed, he had to accept the liberals desire to expand government.

Blaming Reagan for blowing up the budget is failing to recognize the facts at the time. Yes it is disappointing, but failing to lay blame on the Ds who controlled Congress, is nonsensical.

And another thing you are forgetting. While he signed off on Congresses spending, he also grew revenues to the treasury considerably during his eight years preventing the deficit from exploding....something Big Ears has no clue about how to do.

And finally, to compare Reagan's spending (really D spending) to Obummer's spending, is like saying Mt Everest and the hill in my backyard are the same. CRAZY!!!

no but to clain he was a cutter just doesnt jibe with math. talk is nice but veto was a real possibility.

 

[Gipper]

no but to clain he was a cutter just doesnt jibe with math. talk is nice but veto was a real possibility.

A veto would have meant the Ds would have fought him on every bill to fund the military and cut taxes. He compromised in an effort to improve the economy and end the USSR.

We tend to forget what it was like during the Cold War. The USSR was aggressively pursuing a imperialistic and militaristic foreign policy. They were the greatest threat to world peace and liberty. Reagan's first objective was to put an end to them.

Today our greatest threat to liberty is Obama and the D Party (really commies).