After the last few weeks I too have made a decision

[Brain357]

So you aren't very fiscally responsible. Reagan started the whole spending mess. What is it you think is so great?

Begging the question. You're going to have to make more of an argument than that. It wasn't that simple. There was defense spending versus the Soviets, which worked, he got a reduction in warheads, the first President to get that. There was Tip and the 3-1 deal. To say he "started the whole spending mess" is ridiculous. He doubled tax revenue. Your argument is way too vacuous to address. Try again with some content and don't pretend spending started under him

Big increase in expenditures. He was not fiscally responsible.

Each president has had his own spending style and a different, current GDP amount. Ronald Reagan began his eight-year term in 1981 with a GDP amount of about $3 trillion. During that year, the expenditures were about $1 trillion. Both the GDP and the expenditure number climbed steadily during Reagan’s two terms. The final year of Reagan’s second term, 1988, saw a U.S. GDP of about $5 trillion and expenditures of about $1.75 trillion





Presidential Spending: Expenditures by Year Presidential Spending: Expenditures by Year
Follow us: @creditloan on Twitter | creditloan on Facebook

Talk about Tip O'Neill and the impact of eliminating midrange ICBMs and reducing other nuclear warheads or I'm not wasting my time with you. Why did Reagan go along with Tip's spending? And why did he make what he called the "biggest mistake of my Presidency" by making the 3-1 deal with Tip, who reneged on it? What was the 3-1 deal?

I'm not debating your talking points, you need to get into some content. I didn't entirely agree with him on that, but if you can't discuss what actually happened and why, I'm not wasting my time on you

We are discussing facts and the numbers. Fact is Reagan was less fiscally responsible than Clinton. You are just stupidly blind to it.

Uh, huh. Not stupidly blind like you who thinks when Clinton invades Iraq, that's different than when W invades it, Clinton ran surpluses while the deficit was going up and no harm came from the half dozen countries that Clinton attacked and that Republicans are people who blame both parties for the Iraq invasion. You're a leftist drone. Oh, but you were a Republican, until you decided they were wrong and Democrats were right for pursuing the same policies and switched. LOL, you're a tyke

Clearly you are the republican drone. You can't tell the difference between an invasion costing thousands of lives and destabilizing the whole region and what Clinton did. That is just hilarious.

 

[Brain357]

No president is perfect. But the arguments for Clinton being better than Reagan are strong. You can't say Reagan was the best and act like Clinton was bad. You said we should stay out of other countries business, but Reagan did not do that.

The kool-aid you're drinking is what is strong

So far Reagan loses in every comparison. Make one where he doesn't lose.

I'm not fetching the stick for you, get it yourself

Didn't think you had anything drone. Just another moron partisan.

 

[kaz]

Begging the question. You're going to have to make more of an argument than that. It wasn't that simple. There was defense spending versus the Soviets, which worked, he got a reduction in warheads, the first President to get that. There was Tip and the 3-1 deal. To say he "started the whole spending mess" is ridiculous. He doubled tax revenue. Your argument is way too vacuous to address. Try again with some content and don't pretend spending started under him

Big increase in expenditures. He was not fiscally responsible.

Each president has had his own spending style and a different, current GDP amount. Ronald Reagan began his eight-year term in 1981 with a GDP amount of about $3 trillion. During that year, the expenditures were about $1 trillion. Both the GDP and the expenditure number climbed steadily during Reagan’s two terms. The final year of Reagan’s second term, 1988, saw a U.S. GDP of about $5 trillion and expenditures of about $1.75 trillion





Presidential Spending: Expenditures by Year Presidential Spending: Expenditures by Year
Follow us: @creditloan on Twitter | creditloan on Facebook

Talk about Tip O'Neill and the impact of eliminating midrange ICBMs and reducing other nuclear warheads or I'm not wasting my time with you. Why did Reagan go along with Tip's spending? And why did he make what he called the "biggest mistake of my Presidency" by making the 3-1 deal with Tip, who reneged on it? What was the 3-1 deal?

I'm not debating your talking points, you need to get into some content. I didn't entirely agree with him on that, but if you can't discuss what actually happened and why, I'm not wasting my time on you

We are discussing facts and the numbers. Fact is Reagan was less fiscally responsible than Clinton. You are just stupidly blind to it.

Uh, huh. Not stupidly blind like you who thinks when Clinton invades Iraq, that's different than when W invades it, Clinton ran surpluses while the deficit was going up and no harm came from the half dozen countries that Clinton attacked and that Republicans are people who blame both parties for the Iraq invasion. You're a leftist drone. Oh, but you were a Republican, until you decided they were wrong and Democrats were right for pursuing the same policies and switched. LOL, you're a tyke

Clearly you are the republican drone. You can't tell the difference between an invasion costing thousands of lives and destabilizing the whole region and what Clinton did. That is just hilarious.

They are both policies I oppose. Who are these Republicans you know who blame both parties for the endless wars in the middle east? The Republicans I know still support Iraq

 

[Brain357]

Big increase in expenditures. He was not fiscally responsible.

Each president has had his own spending style and a different, current GDP amount. Ronald Reagan began his eight-year term in 1981 with a GDP amount of about $3 trillion. During that year, the expenditures were about $1 trillion. Both the GDP and the expenditure number climbed steadily during Reagan’s two terms. The final year of Reagan’s second term, 1988, saw a U.S. GDP of about $5 trillion and expenditures of about $1.75 trillion





Presidential Spending: Expenditures by Year Presidential Spending: Expenditures by Year
Follow us: @creditloan on Twitter | creditloan on Facebook

Talk about Tip O'Neill and the impact of eliminating midrange ICBMs and reducing other nuclear warheads or I'm not wasting my time with you. Why did Reagan go along with Tip's spending? And why did he make what he called the "biggest mistake of my Presidency" by making the 3-1 deal with Tip, who reneged on it? What was the 3-1 deal?

I'm not debating your talking points, you need to get into some content. I didn't entirely agree with him on that, but if you can't discuss what actually happened and why, I'm not wasting my time on you

We are discussing facts and the numbers. Fact is Reagan was less fiscally responsible than Clinton. You are just stupidly blind to it.

Uh, huh. Not stupidly blind like you who thinks when Clinton invades Iraq, that's different than when W invades it, Clinton ran surpluses while the deficit was going up and no harm came from the half dozen countries that Clinton attacked and that Republicans are people who blame both parties for the Iraq invasion. You're a leftist drone. Oh, but you were a Republican, until you decided they were wrong and Democrats were right for pursuing the same policies and switched. LOL, you're a tyke

Clearly you are the republican drone. You can't tell the difference between an invasion costing thousands of lives and destabilizing the whole region and what Clinton did. That is just hilarious.

They are both policies I oppose. Who are these Republicans you know who blame both parties for the endless wars in the middle east? The Republicans I know still support Iraq

And clintons was far closer to reagans. They both did things they shouldn't have, but it didn't lead to the deaths of thousands and destabilizing the region. Well any republican supporting trump shouldn't support Iraq given what he has said. If they still do they voting for the wrong guy.

 

[kaz]

Talk about Tip O'Neill and the impact of eliminating midrange ICBMs and reducing other nuclear warheads or I'm not wasting my time with you. Why did Reagan go along with Tip's spending? And why did he make what he called the "biggest mistake of my Presidency" by making the 3-1 deal with Tip, who reneged on it? What was the 3-1 deal?

I'm not debating your talking points, you need to get into some content. I didn't entirely agree with him on that, but if you can't discuss what actually happened and why, I'm not wasting my time on you

We are discussing facts and the numbers. Fact is Reagan was less fiscally responsible than Clinton. You are just stupidly blind to it.

Uh, huh. Not stupidly blind like you who thinks when Clinton invades Iraq, that's different than when W invades it, Clinton ran surpluses while the deficit was going up and no harm came from the half dozen countries that Clinton attacked and that Republicans are people who blame both parties for the Iraq invasion. You're a leftist drone. Oh, but you were a Republican, until you decided they were wrong and Democrats were right for pursuing the same policies and switched. LOL, you're a tyke

Clearly you are the republican drone. You can't tell the difference between an invasion costing thousands of lives and destabilizing the whole region and what Clinton did. That is just hilarious.

They are both policies I oppose. Who are these Republicans you know who blame both parties for the endless wars in the middle east? The Republicans I know still support Iraq

And clintons was far closer to reagans. They both did things they shouldn't have, but it didn't lead to the deaths of thousands and destabilizing the region. Well any republican supporting trump shouldn't support Iraq given what he has said. If they still do they voting for the wrong guy.

You dont' think Clinton killed thousands in his half dozen wars? You're delusional, he killed way more than that

 

[Brain357]

We are discussing facts and the numbers. Fact is Reagan was less fiscally responsible than Clinton. You are just stupidly blind to it.

Uh, huh. Not stupidly blind like you who thinks when Clinton invades Iraq, that's different than when W invades it, Clinton ran surpluses while the deficit was going up and no harm came from the half dozen countries that Clinton attacked and that Republicans are people who blame both parties for the Iraq invasion. You're a leftist drone. Oh, but you were a Republican, until you decided they were wrong and Democrats were right for pursuing the same policies and switched. LOL, you're a tyke

Clearly you are the republican drone. You can't tell the difference between an invasion costing thousands of lives and destabilizing the whole region and what Clinton did. That is just hilarious.

They are both policies I oppose. Who are these Republicans you know who blame both parties for the endless wars in the middle east? The Republicans I know still support Iraq

And clintons was far closer to reagans. They both did things they shouldn't have, but it didn't lead to the deaths of thousands and destabilizing the region. Well any republican supporting trump shouldn't support Iraq given what he has said. If they still do they voting for the wrong guy.

You dont' think Clinton killed thousands in his half dozen wars? You're delusional, he killed way more than that

Give a US military head count then. We will compare to bushes wars.

 

[washamericom]

with that, i pronounce you man and wife... gasp...