Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 16 Jul 2014 9:25 am » wrote:
I blame reagan for your pathetic state of mind and the dark corruption of your deformed soul, untermensch. Your highest and best use if to be put on a train bound for a work camp.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jul 2014 11:26 am » wrote:You are on record in arguments with ME, kid. You have advocated and defended open borders TO ME.

Go ahead. Deny it. Deny that you have defended globalism on THIS board (putting you ON RECORD, kid).

I'll wait, and then I'll gobsmack your lying ***.

Deny it.

golfboy » 16 Jul 2014 9:29 am » wrote: That's because you're a liar and too **** stupid to confront reality.

I denied it, demanded to see your proof, and you ran away.
**** coward.

RichClem » 16 Jul 2014 7:50 am » wrote:
True, Tip O'Neil broke his promise to cut spending. Reagan called the deal the biggest mistake of his presidency.

But in the end, Reagan won. Federal spending fell by 2% points relative to GDP, despite Dems' efforts to keep spending high.

bingster » 16 Jul 2014 9:42 am » wrote:
Fell by 2% points relative to GDP compared to what timeframe, ****? What part of "He tripled the debt" don't you understand?

bingster » 16 Jul 2014 9:42 am » wrote: Fell by 2% points relative to GDP compared to what timeframe, ****? What part of "He tripled the debt" don't you understand?

bingster » 16 Jul 2014 9:42 am » wrote: Fell by 2% points relative to GDP compared to what timeframe, ****?

What part of "He tripled the debt" don't you understand?

Cannonpointer » 16 Jul 2014 9:25 am » wrote: I blame reagan for your pathetic state of mind and the dark corruption of your deformed soul, untermensch. Your highest and best use if to be put on a train bound for a work camp.

RichClem » 16 Jul 2014 10:29 am » wrote: I know it's mostly bulls***, like almost every word you write.

Other than the badly needed defense buildup that helped win the Cold War, Reagan was on the side of spending restraint.

The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan - October 1988

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Misty » 16 Jul 2014 12:51 pm » wrote: Talk about ****.

RichClem » 16 Jul 2014 1:00 pm » wrote:But the fact remains, Reagan managed to shrink government spending by 2% points over eight years.

Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

Misty » 16 Jul 2014 1:52 pm » wrote:
You sure do get nasty when anyone dares to criticize your boy Ronny.

Misty » 16 Jul 2014 1:52 pm » wrote: You sure do get nasty when anyone dares to criticize your boy Ronny.

RichClem » 16 Jul 2014 2:01 pm » wrote: And of course, no link so we can laugh at the source.

TotallyRad » 15 Jul 2014 11:24 pm » wrote: Bush Sr signed the CRA in to law.

Please seat yourself.



I like the very things you hate.

Four Deformations of the Apocalypse-By DAVID STOCKMAN-Published: July 31, 2010

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970.

The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts.

deezer shoove » 16 Jul 2014 2:14 pm » wrote: Aren't you the one I said "I hate this gotcha ****" to? ****.

Your fave source wiki:
The original Act was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 12, 1977 (Pub.L. 95-128, 12 U.S.C. ch. 30).[
38] The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods.[
4] Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta ofNational People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act.[
39] Several legislative and regulatory revisions have since been enacted.

Now shut the **** up. CARTER SUCKED.
He competes nicely for worst president ever. Tied with Bammy the Turd.

golfboy » 16 Jul 2014 1:58 pm » wrote: I've got a question for you, are you aware that an increase in spending of "national income" from 27.9% to 28.7% is 0.8%, not 3%?

Misty » 16 Jul 2014 2:18 pm » wrote: David Stockman-Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985).

Misty » 16 Jul 2014 2:06 pm » wrote: It's from the same link that I posted in post #508.

You laugh at any sources that are not right wing opinion pieces.
We all know that.

RichClem » 16 Jul 2014 1:00 pm » wrote:
But the fact remains, Reagan managed to shrink government spending by 2% points over eight years.

And more than any individual won the Cold War.

And brought about a huge historic economic boom that benefited everyone. More jobs were created in one good month under Reagan than the average year under Obama.