Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[frigidweirdo]

you can't force people to make the choices you want them to make.

as I said everyone already understands how to choose healthier foods. everyone already understands how to lose weight

they understand these things and they still choose not to do them. no amount of money thrown at educating them will make them understand any better and they will still make the choices they want to make

In many instances it's not education, but heredity that's the main player. My sister fought with weight loss her entire life. She's a dietary technician and has been most of her adult life. She is a supervisor at a world renown hospital and does side work for various food companies.

She finally got it under control, but it was after some major surgeries and basic starvation. If you are a person who can drop ten pounds in two weeks, good for you, but not everybody's body works like yours. Some people could eat three meals a week and still gain weight.

There's a difference between those people who are unlucky and have a low metabolism, but the US is fat not because of too many people with low metabolisms, but because of the food and the lack of education based around the food.

While others would tell you it's lack of exercise. When we were kids we ate crap as well, but we didn't spend the day texting people and playing video games in front of the television. We walked to see our friends or rode our bikes. When we were kids, I bet we got mores exercise in one day than most kids today get in a week.

No dietary plan works for all people because each situation is unique.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, that's part of it too, and getting kids involved in sport is essential, again, part of educating kids into liking and understanding healthy food and also sport and exercise.

It's not about a one size fits all, it's about giving kids the motivation to keep themselves healthy, the knowledge so they can do it easily and perhaps a push with something like much higher taxes for bad food and no taxes for healthier food.

Nonsense. You can't make a kid eat what he doesn't want to eat. Moochelle tried to force kids to eat crap they didn't want and the only result was kids throwing their healthy lunches away at school. They waited until the first chance they got and went to the candy store or Burger King.

Our founders would be rolling in their graves if they could come back to see the US federal government micromanaging kids diets.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Are you insulting people again. Oh well, I actually had something to say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I for one never said that SOME government programs were not beneficial have I ?

the federal government has no authority over education. The founders left that to the states. The federal highway system was begun as a defense project but now the government uses highway, eduation, and a myriad of other funding as a way to strong arm states into submission

as I said we have government backwards in this country the federal government is supposed to take a back seat to state government

The federal govt doesn't need to have authority over education in order to have an impact. The way the federal govt should operate is by developing programs, in conjunction with the states, that they can then go to all the states and say "hey, look, we've done all this research, we've tested this out in a number of states and we think this will be beneficial for your state for these reasons, would you like to take on our program?"

Well, the Canadians decided that the state govts were above the Federal govt, the Founding Fathers didn't do this. Similar in Europe at the moment, the individual nation states are losing their grip on their own power.

that's not how government operates


government is a hammer so everything looks like a nail

It's not how govt operates, but then people have votes with which they can change the way govt operates. Sure, it's not going to happen because the people are zombies and the rich have the buttons needed to get the zombies to do what they like.

In politics it's vote D or R, with food it's buy McDonald's, Coca Cola or whatever. People are being advertised to death and this is fair game, but actually doing something RIGHT is wrong.

/---- it's none of anyone's business what others eat. Don't like McDonalds then don't buy their food. I don't.

that is such a hard concept for these people to grasp

they think it's better to tax people into submission so they do what these control freaks think they should do

after all it's for their own good right?

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then there are plenty of times when you have benefited from the govt deciding that it is the govt's responsibility to take care of something.

Education being high up there. Inoculations, research, infrastructure... absolutely your life has had a massive impact. If you had been born in Somalia on the other hand....

I for one never said that SOME government programs were not beneficial have I ?

the federal government has no authority over education. The founders left that to the states. The federal highway system was begun as a defense project but now the government uses highway, eduation, and a myriad of other funding as a way to strong arm states into submission

as I said we have government backwards in this country the federal government is supposed to take a back seat to state government

The federal govt doesn't need to have authority over education in order to have an impact. The way the federal govt should operate is by developing programs, in conjunction with the states, that they can then go to all the states and say "hey, look, we've done all this research, we've tested this out in a number of states and we think this will be beneficial for your state for these reasons, would you like to take on our program?"

Well, the Canadians decided that the state govts were above the Federal govt, the Founding Fathers didn't do this. Similar in Europe at the moment, the individual nation states are losing their grip on their own power.

that's not how government operates


government is a hammer so everything looks like a nail

It's not how govt operates, but then people have votes with which they can change the way govt operates. Sure, it's not going to happen because the people are zombies and the rich have the buttons needed to get the zombies to do what they like.

In politics it's vote D or R, with food it's buy McDonald's, Coca Cola or whatever. People are being advertised to death and this is fair game, but actually doing something RIGHT is wrong.

/---- it's none of anyone's business what others eat. Don't like McDonalds then don't buy their food. I don't.

That's not the issue here.

The issue is about educating people so they understand what things are, and also choosing how to tax companies better. Right now the large companies with crap food pay less tax and their products are therefore cheaper. So the govt is essentially telling people to eat badly. So it already happens. Why? Why should Coca Cola be paying less than someone who produces healthy food?

 

[JoeNormal]

Don't you live in Michigan or somesuch? If so, you get back more than you give. As a matter of fact, most of the people who complain most bitterly on this site get back more than they give.

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

 

[hunarcy]

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

 

[rightwinger]

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

The role of the federal government is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People

 

[thanatos144]

I dont have to. Read this and educate yourself.

Why Poverty Leads to Obesity and Life-Long Problems | Scholars Strategy Network

Poor families have limited food budgets and choices, and must often stretch supplies toward the end of the month, before another check or allocation of Food Stamps arrives. This leads to unhealthy behaviors in several ways:

• Families choose high-fat foods dense with energy – foods such as sugars, cereals, potatoes and processed meat products – because these foods are more affordable and last longer than fresh vegetables and fruits and lean meats and fish.
  
  
• Poor families often live in disadvantaged neighborhoods where healthy foods are hard to find. Instead of large supermarkets, poor neighborhoods have a disproportionate number of fast food chains and small food stores providing cheap, high-fat foods.
  
  
• Economic insecurity – such as trouble paying bills or rent – leads to stress, and people often cope by eating high-fat, sugary foods.

Options for regular physical activity can also be restricted for poor people:

• Families cannot usually afford to pay for organized children’s activities outside of school – and schools in impoverished areas are less likely to run sports or physical activity programs than schools with more resources.
  
  
• Due to inflexible work schedules, lack of transportation, or unmet needs for child care, poor parents, especially single mothers, may find it hard to support extra activities for their children. Leaving kids in front of the TV is often all stressed poor parents can manage.
  
  
• In many poor neighborhoods, parks, playgrounds, trails, and free public gyms are often not available or safe. Neighborhoods may be crime-ridden, and there may be no nearby indoor places for play or exercise. Ironically, parental efforts to keep kids safe and indoors may increase encourage sedentary behaviors such as watching TV and playing video games.

So you can't make a list of a healthy diet?
I don't need your bullshit socialist study, let's work with hard facts.

List the grocery items and lets go shopping and see what a healthy diet costs versus fast food .

You won't because you know you're full of shit.

I made a list. You want to play games so I sent you to educate yourself.

I can eat healthy for $60 a week.
Fast food is around $150 a week for cheap stuff.

So your entire theory is blown to hell of which it came from.

It is not just price. It is also time. In a house of two people working paying bills it is hard to find time to prepare a good meal or sometimes you are just to damn tired to do it. While it is true that food bad for you is not really cheaper it is not labor intensive. Think about it this way. Who the hell wants to debone a chicken after working 12 hours? Also I hate the fact that people ever care what I eat... I giant chunk of my pay check goes to food. ALL FOOD. none of it is really cheap any more. I am sure if I was on food stamps I could eat steak and shrimp but I am not on welfare I work for a living and cant afford those things. I also dont just feed myself. Two people work in my household of 4 . We pay our bills and buy food and sometimes we have something extra to buy for ourselves which isn't very often.

You want to know a expense I have??? My daughters school. She goes to public school and is a honor roll student. Yet there isnt a week that goes by that the school doesn't seem to have a hand in my pocket for something or another. 80 dollar calculator, Lap top, uniform for cheer leading or sports or what ever activity she is at that time.... Now I could say no you cant be in that activity and no I dont care if you work hard to get a scholarship to a university I know me of my wife cant afford. I am not a liberal I cant do that.

Keep voting for the pander to the rich, screw the nonrich New BS GOP then, dupe.
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!!

Who is the poor democrat in government? Please point him/her out. Even the commie Sanders OWNS three houses in rich areas. Hell Hillary was most funded buy GIANT RICH corporations and banks. So please take your hypocrisy and shove it.

 

[thanatos144]

It's all about the hate & greed. Most white Republican dudes have adopted a very hateful hostile approach to our poor. It's a '**** YOU, I GOT MINE' mentality. I know the mentality well, i used to consider myself a Republican. Their treatment of our poor is pretty evil.

It really is amazing they actually consider themselves 'Good Americans' and 'Good Christians.' 'Conservative Christians' should try actually reading Jesus' teachings sometime. Instead of always desperately trying to justify their hate & hostility towards our poor, they should start reading the Bible again. It might just save their rotting souls.

Its more than a **** you, I got mine attitude

They actively go after the poor, try to turn the voters against them, blame the poor for the shape of the economy

The poor are an easy target. They dont own newspapers or tv stations and have to carry right wing guilt around like a ******* big lead weight.

Republicans have a choice..

Blame the rich who are assuming more and more of our nations wealth
Blame the poor who cannot stand up for themselves

It's a Nazi-like bully mentality. They know the poor can't stand up for themselves. They're easy to abuse. I seriously believe some greedy Republicans on this thread, would support passing laws making being poor a 'crime.' They would have no problem imprisoning them all. They would gladly 'disappear' them.

They have been playing that card for decades

As the middle class struggles and wonders why their standard of living is diminishing....Rather than point out the rich who have seen their personal wealth increase significantly....it is easier for Republicans to point to some poor person who has a cell phone




.

they shouldn't have trusted democrats who sold them down the river for vacations homes and jets

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, just when will the sky fall, Chicken Little? All the people who told me that medicare would fail when I first started my insurance career have been dead for decades.

What do you consider failure?

Is an unfunded liability of $28 TRILLION a roaring success?

Poor Markle. Waiting for Armageddon, decade after decade, and it never comes. Looking for deliverance by the Tea Party. To which I reply :
"...Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you..You-hoo-hoo, What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson, "Joltin' Joe has left and gone away." Hey, hey hey--- hey hey hey".

One thing is for sure. We would never tolerate all these old people sucking off of the public teat just to stay alive, back in the old days!

Nice to see it is impossible

I asked a simple question, which merits an honest simple question. I'll ask it again, maybe you'll catch on this time. You commented what a grand success Medicare was and I asked what you consider a failure. Try again!

What do you consider failure?

Is an unfunded liability of $28 TRILLION a roaring success?

Markle, in the last 51 years, I am sure that I have heard hundreds of RW reactionaries declare that Medicare is failing. Other that your debt clock above (which has also been around for over 50 years), is there something special about you that warrants a serious answer from me? I already know the answer to that, so I will move on and ask you a question. What would you do about health insurance for the elderly who can no longer work to pay for insurance? If you are sure that Medicare is failing, presumably you also know what you would do about that. My best guess is that your only plan would be to let them die. That being the case, you have now mastered the secret password to run for office for the GOP!

 

[hunarcy]

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

Yes rightwinger, I know you can't defend your position, so you have to surrender using the laughing man.

 

[hunarcy]

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

Yes rightwinger, I know you can't defend your position, so you have to surrender using the laughing man.

Just sad.

 

[hunarcy]

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

The role of the federal government is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People

If it wasn't for Article I, you might have actually had a point. But, you don't.

 

[jc456]

No but there's a Dunkins on every corner and they sell those ridiculously expensive coffee drinks too

and there is no way that 10% of earners earn more in total than 90% of all earners

yet they still pay more in income tax than 90% of people combined

you want to talk "fair" share well it ain't what we got now

a truly fair share would be a flat percentage of everyone's income period

Show me a flat tax where the rich don't end up paying less and the poor end up paying more

why do the so called poor not have to pay income tax?

If you have an income then you should pay income tax

If you want "fair" shares then a flat tax is the only way to go that way everyone pays a share that's determined to be fair for everyone

dear, the poor and Mr. Trump, pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

don't complain; be Patriotic.

well I believe that argument comes from the common complaint from the left of 'fair share'. so if what you say is true, then why does the left constantly make that statement?

we don't. that is right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

it's all that's ever barked out. the rich don't pay their fair share. you liar.

 

[jc456]

The federal govt doesn't need to have authority over education in order to have an impact. The way the federal govt should operate is by developing programs, in conjunction with the states, that they can then go to all the states and say "hey, look, we've done all this research, we've tested this out in a number of states and we think this will be beneficial for your state for these reasons, would you like to take on our program?"

Well, the Canadians decided that the state govts were above the Federal govt, the Founding Fathers didn't do this. Similar in Europe at the moment, the individual nation states are losing their grip on their own power.

that's not how government operates


government is a hammer so everything looks like a nail

It's not how govt operates, but then people have votes with which they can change the way govt operates. Sure, it's not going to happen because the people are zombies and the rich have the buttons needed to get the zombies to do what they like.

In politics it's vote D or R, with food it's buy McDonald's, Coca Cola or whatever. People are being advertised to death and this is fair game, but actually doing something RIGHT is wrong.

/---- it's none of anyone's business what others eat. Don't like McDonalds then don't buy their food. I don't.

that is such a hard concept for these people to grasp

they think it's better to tax people into submission so they do what these control freaks think they should do

after all it's for their own good right?

Well after all they hand out massive tax rebates to large corporate companies with food that is slammed full of sugar. And that's alright. It's basically lowering the cost of their products to make them more competitive than healthy food which doesn't get such subsidies.

But you have a problem if it works the other way.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/

"Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent."

And that doesn't even mean they paid this much, they probably paid half this or less. Making them very competitive, and overly competitive against healthy food. But that's okay, right? That's capitalism, that's great. If it's done for the wrong reason, hell yeah.

it is amazing to me how you on the left hate the corporations who give millions of jobs to citizens. just fkin amazes me.

 

[jc456]

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

The role of the federal government is to do what needs doing as determined by We the People

and we the people empowered trump and the GOP to do our governing. So why is it you feel the dems should have some stronghold because of their gigantic losses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And now you're going to explain and prove that assertion, right?

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

You DO realize that you just identified the point of sovereign states versus centralized government, right? And then told us what a great thing it was that we did away with that whole "freedom of choice" thing in favor of a blanket imposition on everyone of YOUR personal preferences, with no place left for those who prefer otherwise to go.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here you go. States that are greater than 1.00 are the takers.

View attachment 119177

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

so most of them

isn't it about time we stopped this shit?

Seems like a third-world solution. With the rapid pace of change in the world today, some people will be able to keep up better than others. I like that there's at least some sort of safety net although I wouldn't mind seeing workfare rather than welfare.

so you really think that most states federal money?

If the federal government didn't take as much from the people the money could stay in their own states and wouldn't come with all kinds of strings attached

I'm speaking from the perspective of the fucked up theocracy I live in (Utah). State government would fund what they consider their base (huge families and the LDS church) and leave everybody else out in the cold. At least with some federal government involvement, you have a broader base that receives the assistance.

It's not the role of the federal government to provide such assistance. The things that government is supposed to provide is listed in Article I and taxes are to be collected to pay for THOSE things.

A voice of sanity, crying in the wilderness.

 

[Dschrute3]

And the next step would of course be 'Extermination.' Y'all do sound like Nazis. Sorry, but you do.

How do you live with yourself with so much hate and bitterness in your heart?

Speaking of Nazi's and your love for Socialism, you must fully embrace this truth.

Hey, i just observe and report. And most of you greedy Republicans do sound like Nazis. I really do believe y'all would fully support passing laws making being poor a crime. If you could, you'd lock em all away in prison forever. Y'all really do need to do some serious soul-searching. Your mentality towards the least fortunate among us is pretty evil.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the next step would of course be 'Extermination.' Y'all do sound like Nazis. Sorry, but you do.

How do you live with yourself with so much hate and bitterness in your heart?

Speaking of Nazi's and your love for Socialism, you must fully embrace this truth.

Hey, i just observe and report. And most of you greedy Republicans do sound like Nazis. I really do believe y'all would fully support passing laws making being poor a crime. If you could, you'd lock em all away in prison forever. Y'all really do need to do some serious soul-searching. Your mentality towards the least fortunate among us is pretty evil.

I realize you could never have learned this from the mainstream media in this country, but "observe and report" does NOT consist of spewing inflammatory insults with no basis in fact, but based solely on your belief that no insult is too extreme for someone who DARES to take the "eevil" position of disagreeing with you.

I'll search my soul when you engage your brain. Oh, wait, no I won't, because I have no interest whatsoever in the "morality" of the likes of you. The fact that you're incoherently and uselessly screaming, "Nazi! Hitler!" as a synonym for "person I don't like!" at me constitutes, in my eyes, proof that I'm doing everything exactly right. Except, perhaps, that I might want to do it twice as hard, just to enrage you even further.

 

[hadit]

Actually Reagan was for limited govt. Since Reagan govt has gotten 4 times bigger. See what happens when you drop out of HS?

no he wasn't

Reagan expanded the size scope and cost of government as much as anyone every republican president in my lifetime has done the same

You have confused what happened when Reagan was president with Reaganism. Franco dropped out and does not know that Reagan favored limited government.

That's why he tripled the debt and grew gov't more than anyone in history, dupiscimus...

Reagan grew the debt? At what point was the Constitution amended to give the President the power of the purse instead of Congress having it, and where was I when this happened?

As commander in chief, he was able to raise military spending to ridiculous levels.

He couldn't do that unilaterally. He could propose increases, but Congress had to pass spending bills for him to sign.