Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Need a new Reagan in the WH... or Congress..... or as a Governor


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

Clinton years - 624 billion

Obamao is working on 610 billion.

 

so, Tour Tiny Dancer. Which is greater.....

 

no, you won't admit it.

 

624 is the bigger number. Obamao is whittling away at our defense budget...

down to 610.

 

624 is greater than 610. Obamao is cutting the defense budget. Carter diminished our military preparedness.

 

Let's take a football team, TittieTour. If you cut the major stars off the team, and draft new players to replace them and sign

really expensive free agents to replace them,

but draft poorly and they are busts, and the free agents were over the hill and didn't have much gas in the tank..

but you ended up having a higher budget.... and you DIMINISHED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR FOOTBALL TEAM.

 

So, paying more money... or as much... doesn't mean the football team is going to be a better team.

and...

 

if ...it isn't a better team, but actually worse, even though Tour thinks big money means better team...

 

nope. Diminishing effectiness is not a direct correlation to amount of budget. Go ahead, post another graph

and dance, sucker, dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal you realize all that spending under reagan went on tje credit card right? Cleve

******************************************

you realize that we still have a deficit, and we're still doing it, right? Only worse, right?

That has nothing to do with the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cal you realize all that spending under reagan went on tje credit card right? Cleve
******************************************
you realize that we still have a deficit, and we're still doing it, right? Only worse, right?
That has nothing to do with the subject.

 

 

no it has everything to do with the subject. Reagan started a trend that unfortunately with the slight exception under Bill, has continued mostly unabated till this day. Both parties now just do what they want and put it on the card. Now, reagan just did what he was advised to i get it. I don't think he was nearly smart enough to see the future ramifications of what he was abiding by. But others like Goldwater absolutely did.

 

What you don't get is that reigning in spending, while not a bad idea...doesn't even begin to touch our monetary problems. We have a blown out butthole of a currency. The only thing that's kept us from runaway african style hyperinflation is the fact that we have had a unique position in the world. This was a ride that was never going to be indefinite, but entities within our economy have acted like it would be and have locked us into some incredibly bad paradigms of personal debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=president+reagan+years++

 

What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest. President Reagan - January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 7, 1980, Carter signed Law H.R. 5860 aka Public Law 96-185 known as The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979, bailing out Chrysler Corporation. He canceled military pay raises during a time of high inflation and government deficits

 

NOW, CLEVE... was Carter pres before Reagan or not?

 

and Carter created the NEA, after campaigning to slash gov agencies. No, he didn't, he added this one:

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=31543

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/23/opinion/la-oe-cebul-smaller-govt-20120123

 

Carter's reorganization plan for Georgia succeeded in reducing the number of agencies from about 300 to 30, but his programs increased the number of state workers from under 50,000 to almost 61,000. Carter also ballooned the budget by 55%. Georgia's government hadn't gotten smaller. Its workers simply huddled together under bigger umbrellas. And once he was president, Carter dumped his promise to slash federal agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=president+reagan+years++

 

What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest. President Reagan - January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

 

 

no issue with low taxes cal, but low spending too. Not just low spending where you don't want any spending and high spending where you like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your chart doesn't prove your point. I have shown that carter cut military pay, it doesn't mean

that the overall budget wasn't more, at least by inflation. The same goes for diminishing

the military standing - as in, less people enlisting because benefits were cut.

 

My cousin was a special forces advisor with S. Vietnamese forces in combat in

Laos and Cambodia. Before he retired from service, his benefits were cut, retirement

pay was cut, and he had to work because what he could have lived on, wasn't there anymore.

Carter was president. He was a democrat with a democratic controlled Congress.

 

sound familiar ? Obamao had the same democratic controlled Congress for a few years.

and the disasterous obamaodoesn'tcare happened.

 

You diverged into a sidetrack where you could pretend you made a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

I did not dispute the Carter cuts... never did... my chart never did.

 

I took issue with and showed every other comment you made to be wrong... in chart form...

 

What the chart does show is that Obama's military funding is greater than any before him excepting Bush's Iraq War period. It is still at or above pre-war levels.... AND... discretionary spending is trending down.

 

Therefore it is impossible that Obama has cut military spending for "free handouts"... everything else your deluded mind posted.

 

Here it is... one more time... the chart... take your time...

 

military_%26_non-military_discretionary_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall discretionary spending is a complete 'nother issue, asswhole.

 

you're looking more and more like a moron. congrats.

 

we looked behind the curtain and you're seen now.

 

idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proper rebuttal would be something with more context and support.

 

 

 

calfoxwc, on 20 Aug 2016 - 9:53 PM, said:

a proper dance would feature bells on tours' toes and a tamborine, mexican

hat, and a few mexican dancing beans in his front pocket.

 

 

qzkdF.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

I did not dispute the Carter cuts... never did... my chart never did.

 

I took issue with and showed every other comment you made to be wrong... in chart form...

 

What the chart does show is that Obama's military funding is greater than any before him excepting Bush's Iraq War period. It is still at or above pre-war levels.... AND... discretionary spending is trending down.

 

Therefore it is impossible that Obama has cut military spending for "free handouts"... everything else your deluded mind posted.

 

Here it is... one more time... the chart... take your time...

 

military_%26_non-military_discretionary_

 

 

 

The blue line looks like a pair of boobs but with a bra halfway on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty rough looking boobs...

 

Ginger,

No examples of discretionary spending that are not a giveaway?

 

Apparently nothing I can do that you cannot do... in heels... and backwards...

 

cha cha cha...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...