Thanks again, President Reagan

[GettnHuge 2]

the 40th

[Drizzay 742]

Cut him some slack. He is from MN, the land of Gov Ventura and Senator Stuart Smalley.

 

 

Yea but, our former governor could kick your former governor's ass.

 

 

 

Actual bumper sticker.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yea but, our former governor could kick your former governor's ass.

 

Actual bumper sticker.

 

Only if it was scripted that way in advance.

[shake_a_leg 0]

Too bad Obama is slashing funding for these programs.

 

 

Budget documents showed funding for the Aegis ballistic missile defense system built by Lockheed Martin Corp would increase to $1.86-billion in fiscal 2010, up from $1.17-billion in fiscal 2009.

 

Funding for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, also built by Lockheed, was slated to increase to $1.12-billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 from $882-million last year.

 

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/topics/news/st...html?id=1573231

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What were those programs slated to get in this budget? A helluva lot more than Obama included. These types of programs rely on long-term funding plans. Just because you found a few that are getting more this year than they did last year doesn't mean they are getting what they were going to. Obama is making major cuts in this area.

 

Deal with it.

 

On the legislative front, the administration has gutted $1.2 billion from missile-defense funding. This, even as its exorbitant $3.6 trillion fiscal year 2010 budget request cranks up spending for seemingly everything else.

 

Yesterday the wisdom of these cuts was debated on the House floor during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. I joined Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Pete Sessions, Rep. Paul Broun, and Rep. Peter Roskam to offer an amendment to restore full funding to missile defense, because we believe the president’s cuts will leave us more vulnerable in an ever-more-dangerous world. The amendment was defeated, largely along party lines.

 

Obama has also cut funding for the research and development of critical programs that could pay major national-security dividends down the road. Two particularly bad decisions, for example, were to eliminate funding for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and to reduce funding for the Airborne Laser program by 53 percent. KEI and ABL offer the potential to bring down an Iranian or North Korean missile in its earliest stages of flight.

 

 

Near-term defenses are not immune either. The administration will cut 89 percent of funding from the planned “Third Site” in Europe, which would host long-range interceptors to guard against missile attacks from Iran. Even the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program — which includes the interceptors in Alaska and California — will see a 35 percent reduction.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTczN...RkNTQxMjM=#more

[shake_a_leg 0]

Just because you found a few that are getting more this year than they did last year doesn't mean they are getting what they were going to.

 

I'm not denying cuts are being made. Your original ignorant post only spoke half the truth. The original post was regarding AEGIS funding:

 

The test, conducted by the Navy and the Department of Defense's Missile Defence Agency, marked the 23rd firing by ships equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system.

 

To which you said:

Too bad Obama is slashing funding for these programs.

 

Then not only did I within about 3 seconds find information completely debunking your statement, I post it...then you in typical Bushonian style, change the subject to something else. YOU, my friend, made a statement....all I did was point out YOU were wrong.

 

Deal with it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not denying cuts are being made. Your original ignorant post only spoke half the truth. The original post was regarding AEGIS funding:

To which you said:

Then not only did I within about 3 seconds find information completely debunking your statement, I post it...then you in typical Bushonian style, change the subject to something else. YOU, my friend, made a statement....all I did was point out YOU were wrong.

 

Deal with it.

 

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I clearly said "these programs". "These" is plural. Putting an "s" at the end of "program" means more than one. I clearly showed were Obama is making cuts to some of "these programs" and eliminating others.

 

Moron.

[shake_a_leg 0]

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I clearly said "these programs". "These" is plural. Putting an "s" at the end of "program" means more than one. I clearly showed were Obama is making cuts to some of "these programs" and eliminating others.

 

Moron.

 

Oh I see. So you quote an article on AEGIS, that Obama is NOT cutting. A program that clearly is doing good things toward the defense of our country, then you make a statement about "these programs" that Obama is cutting to promote your anti-Obama scare tactic to prove how smart you are.

 

Where do you republican azzhats learn these sidestep scare tactics?

[gocolts 300]

Oh I see. So you quote an article on AEGIS, that Obama is NOT cutting. A program that clearly is doing good things toward the defense of our country, then you make a statement about "these programs" that Obama is cutting to promote your anti-Obama scare tactic to prove how smart you are.

 

Where do you republican azzhats learn these sidestep scare tactics?

Are you suggesting that Obama is not cutting/gutting our military??

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Oh I see. So you quote an article on AEGIS, that Obama is NOT cutting. A program that clearly is doing good things toward the defense of our country, then you make a statement about "these programs" that Obama is cutting to promote your anti-Obama scare tactic to prove how smart you are.

 

Where do you republican azzhats learn these sidestep scare tactics?

 

Sidestep scare tactics? Huh?

 

I didn't sidestep anything. Obama cut the overall missile defense budget. AEGIS is part of that budget. I guess it's will be up to the military how much each gets cut, but 'THESE PROGRAMS" are being cut by Obama.

 

Geez, what a fukking moron.

 

 

On April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the Obama Administration's fiscal year (FY) 2010 broader defense budget would reduce the ballistic-missile budget by $1.4 billion.[1] This reduction was applied against an undisclosed baseline. The defense budget itself was released on May 7, 2009.[2] The budget reveals that overall missile defense spending in FY 2010, including for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) andthe Army, will be reduced to $9.3 billion from $10.92 billion in FY 2009.[3] This $1.62 billion total reduction represents an almost 15 percent decline in U.S. military spending.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2292.cfm

[shake_a_leg 0]

Geez, what a fukking moron.

 

 

OK since I'm the big moron, let me see if I got this straight:

 

1. You make a post praising President Reagans missile defense program, AEGIS.

2. In that post, you make a comment saying President Obama is cutting funding to "these programs".

3. I respond with a link stating that while cuts are being made, AEGIS and THAAD are actually being given an increase in funding.

4. You call me a moron.

5. I clarify my link again, by realizing that you follow the typical Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh standard by quoting a fact that the defense budget is being cut, then follow it with a false statement about how those cuts will affect AEGIS. All the while basing your story around how AEGIS is a President Reagan savior and shouldn't be cut during these times of crisis with North Korea.

6. I call you out on this typical lame manuever that all the talking heads on FoxNews give us every night.

 

Once again, I don't deny there are cuts being made. Now since apparently you're a senior official in the United States military, have clearance to view the defense budget and how it's allocated....and since apparently you only read your own links:

 

I link again:

http://www.nationalpost.com/topics/news/st...html?id=1573231

 

Pentagon documents said the program would be restructured to focus on rogue state and theater missile threats.

 

The Pentagon said it would eliminate an increase in ground-based interceptors in Alaska but called for more research and development funding to improve defense against long-range rogue threats.

 

The lion's share of the cuts, which need congressional approval, would come from general missile defense activities. That includes the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system built by Boeing Co, including interceptors that had been planned for Alaska.

 

The Pentagon said it planned to cut funding in that area to $9.3-billion from $10.92-billion a year earlier.

 

Funding for the Patriot PAC-3 missile program, a program involving Raytheon Co and Lockheed, was slated to drop sharply to $404.4-million from $1.04-billion a year earlier.

 

Budget documents showed funding for the Aegis ballistic missile defense system built by Lockheed Martin Corp would increase to $1.86-billion in fiscal 2010, up from $1.17-billion in fiscal 2009.

 

Funding for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, also built by Lockheed, was slated to increase to $1.12-billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 from $882-million last year.

 

Now please note where it says directly that the program would be restructured to focus on rogue state and missile threats, i.e. Taliban and North Korea.

 

Also be sure to note where it says AEGIS is being INCREASED under the new budget.

 

Now since you're the moron that originally tried to connect defense budget cuts with AEGIS cuts, please point out where AEGIS....any missile threat...any rogue state threat....is being cut?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The overall budget for Missile Defense is being cut by Obama at a time when they are proving to be just what we need.

 

I'm sorry if you are still confused by my "These programs" comment, I tried my best to bring it down to your level. I have no idea how to dumb it down any further for you, so I am obviously spinning my wheels with you, Moron.

 

See ya.

[shake_a_leg 0]

I am obviously spinning my wheels with you, Moron.

 

 

I completely agree. I don't see how someone can be so clearly arrogant and ignorant at the same time.

 

 

I always know I'm winning an argument when the person gives up and starts making personal attacks because they know they're beaten. You made a blanket statement about defense cuts with a link to AEGIS. I'm telling you that AEGIS isn't being cut, all the while admitting that yes, indeed...there are defense cuts being made. All I'm doing, kind sir...is pointing out that you......are wrong.

 

[shake_a_leg 0]

The overall budget for Missile Defense is being cut by Obama at a time when they are proving to be just what we need.

 

 

The Pentagon said it would eliminate an increase in ground-based interceptors in Alaska but called for more research and development funding to improve defense against long-range rogue threats.

 

Yeah...those pesky Siberians. We better keep funding up there and not direct it toward more modern concerns.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

REAGAN WAS A VISIONARY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Shake a Leg has problems with first grade Engrish. Once you get your Plurals down we will move on to more difficult topics like verbs.

[shake_a_leg 0]

REAGAN WAS A VISIONARY!

 

 

That's the best ya got? You quote a link from another country and pass it off as a credible source?

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's the best ya got? You quote a link from another country and pass it off as a credible source?

 

Um, that is a quote from me.....not from some link from another country?

 

Dude, if that response took you 4 hours you should log off and try back in about 4 years.

[shake_a_leg 0]

Um, that is a quote from me.....not from some link from another country?

 

Dude, if that response took you 4 hours you should log off and try back in about 4 years.

 

 

No you focking moron. I said you quoted a link from another country. Learn to read. I realize it had nothing to do with the post I replied to, but that's kind of like saying Obama is slashing funding on "these programs" while quoting an article about a program that is getting an increase in funding.

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No you focking moron. I said you quoted a link from another country.

 

Wow! Holy crap!

 

Let's ignore the fact you responded to a post where I said "Reagan was a visionary" with no fukking link and use your lame-ass crawfish that you were talking about my OP.

 

So foreign news agencies are full of sh!t?

 

Howsabout you take a gander back to post #50 where I linked to a "domestic" source saying the same fukking thing. My god man, you should not only log off the innerwebs, you should burn your computer and never return.

[shake_a_leg 0]

Wow! Holy crap!

 

Let's ignore the fact you responded to a post where I said "Reagan was a visionary" with no fukking link and use your lame-ass crawfish that you were talking about my OP.

 

So foreign news agencies are full of sh!t?

 

Howsabout you take a gander back to post #50 where I linked to a "domestic" source saying the same fukking thing. My god man, you should not only log off the innerwebs, you should burn your computer and never return.

 

You mean that link from June? Old news, man!

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You mean that link from June? Old news, man!

 

 

Yep, that one. You know, one written after Obama released his budget.

 

I think we are done here.

[SaintsInDome2006 599]

Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade

++++++
 

My fellow Americans:

Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week. It's an important visit, because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda.

As perhaps you've heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan's inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors. Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment I'll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I've often said: Our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So, next week I'll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this, because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring.

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada's leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first, when someone says, ``Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,'' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works -- but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now, it hasn't always been easy. There are those in this Congress, just as there were back in the thirties, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America's prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than 5 million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports. Well, I've never forgotten those jobs. And on trade issues, by and large, we've done well. In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we've taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products, but we've still maintained our basic, long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.

So, with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it's terribly important not to restrict a President's options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I'll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation, because it's just another form of protectionism and I may need your help to stop it. Remember, America's jobs and growth are at stake.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 12:06 p.m. from Camp David, MD.

++++++++

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

Reagan focked this country almost more than any other president ever has 

[SaintsInDome2006 599]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Reagan focked this country almost more than any other president ever has 

Raiders, somehow I didn’t figure you for a Carter-Mondale guy.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Raiders, somehow I didn’t figure you for a Carter-Mondale guy.

oh I am a neither

but Reagan single handedly ruined California with his amnesty garbage, I will never be for illegal immigration

I was 6-14 when Reagan was president, so everything I know about him is from reading

 

[SaintsInDome2006 599]

9 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

oh I am a neither

but Reagan single handedly ruined California with his amnesty garbage, I will never be for illegal immigration

I was 6-14 when Reagan was president, so everything I know about him is from reading

Reagan restored pride in this country, dug us out of massive inflation & simultaneously high unemployment. He stood up to the USSR & pushed them back & eventually into disintegration. Opening up trade was part of all that.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Reagan restored pride in this country, dug us out of massive inflation & simultaneously high unemployment. He stood up to the USSR & pushed them back & eventually into disintegration. Opening up trade was part of all that.

I agree with all of this and he was a net benefit back then obviously. But the long term effects of his amnesty is why California is ruined. 

[SaintsInDome2006 599]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I agree with all of this and he was a net benefit back then obviously. But the long term effects of his amnesty is why California is ruined. 

Isn’t California by itself like the 5th biggest economy in the world? Try Louisiana, our life expectancy is like Bangladesh’s.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,524]

6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Isn’t California by itself like the 5th biggest economy in the world? Try Louisiana, our life expectancy is like Bangladesh’s.

That’s simply cause of volume and size. Doesn’t change the fact of mismanagement idiotic climate BS scams over taxation 

With all that “economy” California is broke, has horrible schools and infrastructure. Not to mention the homeless and drug capitol of the US

life expectancy in Louisiana is probably due to fried foods and obesity 

[SaintsInDome2006 599]

My fellow Americans:

It's sometimes said that if you put three economists together in a room and ask them a question, you're liable to get more than three answers. It's true, economists don't often agree. But there is one issue on which almost all responsible economists, whatever their political persuasion, are unanimous. They agree that free and fair trade brings growth and opportunity and creates jobs. And they all warn that high trade barriers, what is often called protectionism, undermines economic growth and destroys jobs. I don't call it protectionism; I call it destructionism.

That's why our motto is: free and fair trade with free and fair traders. Now, we've seen that governments sometimes don't play by the rules. They keep exports out of subsidy -- or subsidize, I should say, industries, giving them an unfair advantage. Well, our patience with unfair trade isn't endless, and we're taking action to bring other nations back in line to ensure that free trade remains fair trade. We're aggressively using existing trade laws to pry open foreign markets and force others to play by the rules. This week, for instance, we signed a breakthrough trade agreement that'll open up Japanese markets to U.S. semiconductors and prevent the Japanese from dumping semiconductors in our markets. And last month, after intensive negotiations in response to a deadline I set, the European Community agreed to keep its market open to U.S. farm exports.

These agreements are examples of positive, result-oriented trade action. Instead of closing markets at home, we've opened markets to U.S. products abroad, thus helping to create more American jobs. Instead of erecting destructionist import barriers, we're tearing down foreign barriers to make trade freer and fairer for all. Because, believe me, when Americans are competing on a level playing field, they can outproduce and outsell anyone, anywhere in the world. We've been tough with those nations who've been unfair in their trading practices, and that toughness has produced results. And with hard-pressed industries like textiles and apparel that have gone through difficult times, we've taken strong action to help. We renegotiated agreements with Taiwan and Hong Kong over a year early to expand product coverage and tighten controls of imports from those countries. We are pursuing negotiations with Korea to tighten restraints on their exports to us and improve opportunities for our producers in their market. And just this week we completed a tough, new multifiber arrangement with our trading partners that will include products not previously covered and which gives us tools to prevent damaging import surges. This is result-oriented action.

What doesn't bring results is the sort of destructionist legislation now before the House of Representatives. Next week the House will vote on whether to override my veto of a textile trade bill, and I'm hopeful this won't happen. My Council of Economic Advisers estimates this bill would cost you, the consumer, $44 billion over the next 5 years: $70,000 for every job saved, jobs that pay about $13,000 on average. Even worse, these temporarily protected jobs would be more than offset by the loss of thousands of other jobs -- jobs in retail, marketing, and finance and jobs directly related to importing, such as dockworkers and transportation workers. And then there are all those who would be thrown out of work as we began to feel the effects of foreign retaliation, and you can bet there would be retaliation. I'm thinking, especially, of our struggling agricultural sector and its many connected industries. At a time when we're trying to increase agricultural exports, let's remember that some of the first victims of retaliation would be our farmers -- kicking them when they're already down.

So, our trade policy remains a positive one that will not play off one region against another or one American worker against another, doing grievous damage to the industries involved. In trying to help workers in ailing industries, we must be careful that the cure is not worse than the disease, like the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. The best way to help is with the progrowth policies of free and fair trade that have created more than 10 million new jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years. In the last 7 months 1,650,000 people have found jobs in the United States. There's more than Europe and Japancombined in the last 10 years. And by the way, recently released figures show the leading economic indicators are up and unemployment has dropped to 6.8 percent. You know, the Europeans talk about the American miracle of economic growth and job creation. Well, I'm going to do everything I can to keep that miracle of hope alive, creating jobs and opportunities for all Americans.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 12:06 p.m. from Camp David, MD.

President Ronald Reagan