So then you agree that Reagan increased spending, and here you’re claiming he desired it.

You guys are poster children for cognitive dissonance.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I know you have a hard time with logic, but its really not that difficult. Carter was working on decimating the military and making the country look weak – like Obumble is doing now. Reagan wanted to, and succeeded in turning that around, and as a result the Soviet Union fell apart – i.e. we won the Cold War.
However, the Dems insisted on bumping up social spending, which in my view is not Constitutionally valid. But since Reagan had to deal with a totlly Dem controlled congress, he had to compromise.
But the part you seem to miss is that the President can’t spend any money unless it is first appropriated by Congress – see US Constitution.
That’s why I don’t entirely blame Obumble for the spending problems we have right now – Congress writes and passes the bills. But Obumble had Dem control of both houses of Congress for his first 2 years, and they did whatever he wanted – which is where our huge debt came from.

so the spending went up faster than Reagan wanted – and as you indicate in areas that didn’t do us any good – but he had to do it to get what he wanted that actually made sense.

dentarthurdent on December 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM

So then you agree that Reagan increased spending, and here you’re claiming he desired it.

You guys are poster children for cognitive dissonance.

tom on December 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Congratulations; you managed to contradict yourself within four sentences.

Obama is going to “get his wish” on higher taxes

…start another party Jimmy!

Also, it assumes that the level of spending is the only issue. Reagan pushed Congress to spend money to win the Cold War, and we are all safer for it. If he had spent less money and lost the Cold War, that would have been irresponsible.

It’s not just how much you spend, but what you spend it on.
tom on December 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

The other piece of that equation is that in order to get the spending he wanted to win the cold war, Reagan had to agree to let the Dems controlling congress have some of their entitlement increases – so the spending went up faster than Reagan wanted – and as you indicate in areas that didn’t do us any good – but he had to do it to get what he wanted that actually made sense.

Every president over the past 60 years or so, including Reagan, has grown government, has increased spending, has increased the debt, has increased the deficit. The day the Republican Party wants cuts in spending is the day hell freezes over.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM

A useless metric that pretends the president has complete control over spending, when it’s Congress that has the budgeting power. Reagan dealt with a Democratic Congress during his entire administration. The Republicans barely had control of the Senate for part of his administration, and never had control of the House.

Also, it assumes that the level of spending is the only issue. Reagan pushed Congress to spend money to win the Cold War, and we are all safer for it. If he had spent less money and lost the Cold War, that would have been irresponsible.

It’s not just how much you spend, but what you spend it on.

Of course, you’re still suffering under the Ron Paul delusion that we only need a military if someone is trying to invade, so that point flies over your head.

Let it burn. Just make sure the Republicans’ fingerprints are on as little of it as possible.

Doughboy on December 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Why??? Why would you defend them when they’re equally responsible?

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 1:50 PM

There’s a huge difference between “both bear some responsibility” and “both are equally responsible.”

It’s not the Republicans who are doing their dead level best to force tax increases. So the “equally responsible” is nonsense.

In case none of you right wingers noticed…WE LOST by a landslide

And polls indicate today voters despise Republicans and love Democrats

Obama’s approval is at an all time high

And don’t say ‘I don’t believe polls’…you saw where that got us last month.

Rat-eared wonder is my standard to, as you say, keep the pace.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Purple lipped POS is one of my favorites.

If you’re going to play with the trolls, you’ve got to remember that Dante is an idiot. One of his favorite riffs is that there hasn’t ever been any difference between any of the DC crowd (except for Ron Paul). They are all equally culpable for the nation’s problems becuse the did not practice non-intervention abroad and outlawed pot or something.

Happy Nomad on December 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Dante is an avowed anarchist – so he hates everyone.
He says anarcho-capitalist – but that’s really nothing more than anarchist.

Just a few suggestions to keep the peace here at Hot Air. :-)

UltimateBob on December 13, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Rat-eared wonder is my standard to, as you say, keep the pace.

LET IT BURN

Everyone here knows damn well Obama wouldn’t hesitate for one second to p-ss on the Constitution and ignore it by executive fiat because of a “crisis”.

Doughboy on December 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM

If you’re going to play with the trolls, you’ve got to remember that Dante is an idiot. One of his favorite riffs is that there hasn’t ever been any difference between any of the DC crowd (except for Ron Paul). They are all equally culpable for the nation’s problems becuse the did not practice non-intervention abroad and outlawed pot or something.

Oh, my. Seriously? Do you know how we’ve gotten to this point? Every president over the past 60 years or so, including Reagan, has grown government, has increased spending, has increased the debt, has increased the deficit. The day the Republican Party wants cuts in spending is the day hell freezes over.

Dante on December 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM

For once, I am in agreement with you.

Republicans have all but admitted that the only thing acceptable to them is slowing the rate of growth of spending or giving in and letting spending increase while trying to limit how much it is going to increase.

If Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats actually wanted to cut spending, they would have actually cut spending.

The Republican Party has essentially taken the position of being ankle weights on the legs of the Democrat party when it comes to spending. Dems can’t run as fast, but they are still moving forward with more spending. We need anchors, not ankle weights.

More responsible than Democrats, but still far from responsible.

I’ll be paying someone to do my taxes for the first time in my life, just to be sure the government doesn’t get a penny more of my money than absolutely necessary.

dentarthurdent on December 13, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Not even a penny is necessary.

Because the vision of Obama having majorities in both the House and Senate after 2014 is not a good one.

a capella on December 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Who cares? The end result is going to be the same.

How are they equally responsible? They want cuts in spending…

Oh, my. Seriously? Do you know how we’ve gotten to this point? Every president over the past 60 years or so, including Reagan, has grown government, has increased spending, has increased the debt, has increased the deficit. The day the Republican Party wants cuts in spending is the day hell freezes over.

They want cuts in spending,

Doughboy on December 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM

*rimshot

Barky is just emulating the environment of his childhood, being an Indonesian Dog-Eating Retard.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I was admonished recently on another thread for using the word retard when speaking of 0bama. And frankly, it is unfair to people with learning disabilities to compare them to 0bama.

So, in the interest of keeping everyone happy, maybe we should just call Barky the Indonesian dog-eating imbecile. Or the Indonesian dog-eating pinhead. Or the Indonesian dog-eating punk whose daddy never loved him.

Just a few suggestions to keep the peace here at Hot Air. :-)