The Big Dawg.

[Nickdfresh]

The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased to 35% and it was inherited deficit from President Jimmy Carter. It was $104 billion in 1980. His final deficit was $141 billion in 1989. The deficit went up to $236 billion in 1983.

The cause of all deficits is spending and under Obama spending is completely out-of-control. It doesn't matter what he inherited he didn't stop the spending.

Which simply means if he's against Bush deficit spending , hates what he inherited, and blames Bush for his deficit problems, why would he continue more of the same?

Where are you getting your horseshit numbers?

Fiscal consequences

The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65 % of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04 % of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year.[49]

[motherchicken]

Now our own pointless and illegal invasion has actually lasted longer than our pointless and illegal invasion of Vietnam did.

On 9 September 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by two Arab suicide attackers inside Afghanistan and two days later about 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 attacks in the United States. The US government identified Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the Al-Qaeda organization based in and allied to the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as the perpetrators of the attacks. From 1990 until this date over 400,000 Afghan civilians had already died in the wars in Afghanistan.[145] The Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden to US authorities and to disband al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. In October 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom was launched as a new phase of the war in Afghanistan in which teams of American and British special forces worked with ground forces of the United Front (Northern Alliance) to remove the Taliban from power and dispel Al-Qaeda.[146] At the same time the US-led forces were bombing Taliban and al-Qaida targets everywhere inside Afghanistan with cruise missiles. These actions led to the fall of Mazar-i-Sharif in the north followed by all the other cities, as the Taliban and al-Qaida fled over the porous Durand Line border into Pakistan. In December 2001, after the Taliban government was toppled and the new Afghan government under Hamid Karzai was formed, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established by the UN Security Council to help assist the Karzai administration and provide basic security to the Afghan people.[147][148]

Pointless? That's your opinion. In your mind the BCE is behind everything. Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and al-Qaida were simply tools of the BCE. And as far as your assesment that we've been there longer than we were in Viet Nam, what's that based on? We had advisors in Nam in the 50s and troops in the early 60s. We left in 75. Your timeline's a little off.

[motherchicken]

Find one post where I say that, retard...

I'm not gonna search every post to find it. I don't have access to older posts anyway. It's not an argument worth proving. I'll take that article as gospel but it proves nothing. They decide to release the hostages in exchange for the money right before Reagan takes office. And you won't even consider that Reagans stance on the issue had anything to do with it.

[motherchicken]

Did you ever see the movie "Rambo III"?

That's the one where the Afghan terrorists are the "good guys", and the dedication at the end of the film says, "This film is dedicated to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan".

Oddly enough, it doesn't get much airtime on US cable anymore. Unlike "First Blood" and "Rambo II", which are still on all the time. I'm guessing it's because of what those "brave Mujahadeen fighters" allegedly did in 2001.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that movie is a steaming pile.

[BigBadBrian]

I guess, Brian will call this nonsense and you a nazi...don't bother he won't understand it because he refuses to...

Unlike you, knuckleboner has common sense and knows how to debate logically. If you'd quit whining like a little girl, maybe I'd grant you a little respect. Until then, you have none and you're a nobody.

[BigBadBrian]

dude, the budget is NEVER signed by the president. it's actually a concurrent resolution, which means the president couldn't sign it even if he wanted to. that's because the "budget" is actually completely unnecessary and more or less a PR piece. the REAL budget is the appropriations bills. which congress has to pass and send to the president (where obama has NEVER failed to sign one.) but congress has certainly failed to pass some. in fact, it's probably been decades since congress has actually passed all 12 appropriations bills in the proper time.

No the budget is not treated like a regular bill, I'm quite aware of how the process works. The spending issue is still a give and take process with the Senate and Obama being the recent "obstructionists." Wait until Obama tries to shove through his intended defense cuts without backing down on entitlements. Then the fireworks and fun will really begin.

[DavidLeeNatra]

Unlike you, knuckleboner has common sense and knows how to debate logically. If you'd quit whining like a little girl, maybe I'd grant you a little respect. Until then, you have none and you're a nobody.

is that so?

[Nickdfresh]

I'm not gonna search every post to find it. I don't have access to older posts anyway. It's not an argument worth proving. I'll take that article as gospel but it proves nothing. They decide to release the hostages in exchange for the money right before Reagan takes office. And you won't even consider that Reagans stance on the issue had anything to do with it.

I'll take that as an admission that you're full of shit and just trolling....

[motherchicken]

I'll take that as an admission that you're full of shit and just trolling....

Always the cliches. The only admission I'm making is I can't say specifically you ever called wikipedia unreliable. I'll even offer an apology for that.
But just because my opinion isn't the same as some of the others around here doesn't make it invalid. Recollections of history are written by people. People have biases. If I choose to believe the hostages were released because the people holding them were scared of Reagan and weaseled the money out of Carter at the last minute then that's what I'm gonna believe. And if I feel like stating it here, I'l state it here.

[knuckleboner]

No the budget is not treated like a regular bill, I'm quite aware of how the process works. The spending issue is still a give and take process with the Senate and Obama being the recent "obstructionists." Wait until Obama tries to shove through his intended defense cuts without backing down on entitlements. Then the fireworks and fun will really begin.

obama's intended cuts? you know that these defense "cuts" came about because house republicans, for the first time ever, decided to tie the debt ceiling increase to further deficit cuts. 95% of the reason they couldn't get an agreement at that time was because house republicans would not agree to any new revenue.

then congress had a chance with the supercommittee to offer alternative cuts rather than the sequester, but they couldn't come to an agreement. more than half of the supercommittee agreed, but they needed a supermajority, and every house republican on the supercommittee voted against any plan that had new revenue, regardless of how much MORE cuts it had, it failed too.

there have been plenty of opportunities to avoid the defense cuts. but it takes compromise, and house republicans have absolutely been opposed. if these defense cuts go through, the blame is far more on the republicans. as even romney's acknowledged...