Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It must have been a leftie since the statue is leaning very hard to the left and falling down. Maybe he tried to tell us all something with that direction.
Wow... reaching much for this? guess if you approach the statue from the other side it will lean right so it must have been the Repugs that realize reagan doesn't represent them any more...
maybe it was a teaparty member because they know he tripled the debt of the nation.
maybe it was a militant group with AIDS, because it took him 6 years to even say AIDS and think it was worth taking care of (when his fellow actor died from it)
hmmm maybe you are just reading too much into a simple vandalism?
Go on to your next complaint about the left... what could it be? when facing South the sun comes up on the left and causes people to need sun glasses.... maybe they want us to cover our eyes so we will miss something... those darn lefties.... a sneaky bunch they are...
Wow... reaching much for this? guess if you approach the statue from the other side it will lean right so it must have been the Repugs that realize reagan doesn't represent them any more...
maybe it was a teaparty member because they know he tripled the debt of the nation.
Once again, the (Democrat-controlled) Congress spent, on average, 2.8% more than Reagan asked for and 24.5% more over 8 years. Every balanced-budget Reagan presented to Congress was declared DOA by (Democrat) Tip O'Neill.
Quote:
maybe it was a militant group with AIDS, because it took him 6 years to even say AIDS and think it was worth taking care of (when his fellow actor died from it)
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982. By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan administration spend $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS
The average annual increase in HIV/AIDS funding over this period was 128.92%.
Quote:
hmmm maybe you are just reading too much into a simple vandalism?
Maybe you should start making more accurate posts?
Quote:
Go on to your next complaint about the left... what could it be? when facing South the sun comes up on the left and causes people to need sun glasses.... maybe they want us to cover our eyes so we will miss something... those darn lefties.... a sneaky bunch they are...
Don't know if libs are sneaky, but they sure are wrong a lot!
Once again, the (Democrat-controlled) Congress spent, on average, 2.8% more than Reagan asked for and 24.5% more over 8 years. Every balanced-budget Reagan presented to Congress was declared DOA by (Democrat) Tip O'Neill.
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982. By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan administration spend $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS
The average annual increase in HIV/AIDS funding over this period was 128.92%.
Maybe you should start making more accurate posts?
Don't know if libs are sneaky, but they sure are wrong a lot!
Nice Sean Hannity type math there. You don't add each years % difference up to get the % difference between the Reagan and Congressional budgets. You add up the Congressional budgets for each year, add up the Reagan budgets for each year, and then see what the % difference is over those eight years.
Nice Sean Hannity type math there. You don't add each years % difference up to get the % difference between the Reagan and Congressional budgets. You add up the Congressional budgets for each year, add up the Reagan budgets for each year, and then see what the % difference is over those eight years.
It was 24.8% cumulative over 8 years. Anyway, Congress did outspend Reagan and Congress passes the budget.
Wow... reaching much for this? guess if you approach the statue from the other side it will lean right so it must have been the Repugs that realize reagan doesn't represent them any more...
maybe it was a teaparty member because they know he tripled the debt of the nation.
maybe it was a militant group with AIDS, because it took him 6 years to even say AIDS and think it was worth taking care of (when his fellow actor died from it)
hmmm maybe you are just reading too much into a simple vandalism?
Go on to your next complaint about the left... what could it be? when facing South the sun comes up on the left and causes people to need sun glasses.... maybe they want us to cover our eyes so we will miss something... those darn lefties.... a sneaky bunch they are...
You should have read the link instead of just tearing into my words. It is ok because it happens all the time and I am used to it. The best part of this whole thing is that you bit on what I said and tried so hard to make it out to be something that makes you happy to think about the story.
Nice Sean Hannity type math there. You don't add each years % difference up to get the % difference between the Reagan and Congressional budgets. You add up the Congressional budgets for each year, add up the Reagan budgets for each year, and then see what the % difference is over those eight years.
Since you are the math expert here, self-declared, maybe you could do some of that addition, subtraction, etc in a liberal style.
According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $8 million in fiscal year 1982. By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $2.322 billion for HIV/AIDS. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan administration spend $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS
The average annual increase in HIV/AIDS funding over this period was 128.92%.
Maybe you should start making more accurate posts?*
Might want to ad another resource than Faux Entertainment when you start aiming for facts, as you have fallen far short on the numbers.
1981- Aids was observed, Beginning of Reagan term - $200,000 towards research.
1982 - 5,555,000 towards aids
1983 - 28,736,000
1984 - 61,460,000
1985 - 108,618,000
1986 - 233,793,000 ( This was the first year Reagan said the words AIDS in a public address)
1987 - 502,455,000
1988 - 962,018,000
1989 - 1,304,092,000 - the end of Reagan
Total - $3,206,927,000
When Legionaires disease had their first out break the government spent $9,000,000 far more of a response than they had with AIDS
What was Reagan's response to AIDS? -
"From June 1981 to June 1982, the period generally considered the first twelve months of the epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spent $1 million on AIDS, compared with $9 million in response to the much smaller problem of Legionnaires' disease. In late 1982, Congress allocated $2.6 million to be targeted for the CDC's AIDS research, but the Reagan administration claimed that the CDC did not need the money and opposed any congressional supplemental appropriations designed to fund federal governmental AIDS policy efforts. "
That administration looked at this as a "gay" disease and could have cared less...until it hit hemophiliacs, Haitians and the general population... That's when they started paying attention. This was the worse response and aspect of the Reagan presidency. Color it anyway you want but his response was inadequate!
For the deficit It was in the 900 Billions under Carter, When Reagan left office it was 3.4T ... That was reaganomics at its purest.
*Now who needs to check facts before they come to the party?
As to who damaged the statue? Maybe someone that realized reagan was just a bad president.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
