DiscussMormonism.com

From the other thread I decided to have a bit of fun with Loran, knowing how predictable and also how ignorant he really was of his own preferred experts. I was reading an article published by his favorite libertarian think tanks, mises.org and decided to quote portions of it as if I were the one making these claims:

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Reagan's 1982 tax increase was the largest tax increase in American history. Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

Why can't Loran Blood admit these facts?

To which Loran responded:

Graham is a not very educated but passionate pop Marxist animated with a particularly viscous streak of class envy. He doesn't appear to have a particularly well developed taste for the truth and sees little value in pursuing it. Hence, his posts.

The tax hike of 1982 (TEFRA) was a Democrat deception in which Democratic sponsors promised 3 dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. The spending cuts were never made (actually some were, at a drastically smaller percentage). Reagan rued the deal in his memoirs, and Ed Meese called it "the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration."

Graham, as is his wont, and in the style of his primary sources of knowledge, the Huffington Post, Media Matters, and the Workers World, only scans the surface of every issue for polemically useful material.

He has no use for diving beneath the surface, let alone going to the bottom.

ROFL!

Loran takes the bait...

I've been laughing so hard about this for the past few minutes, I had to catch my breath before closing the trap on poor Loran. Tha gag is on you Droops, as usual, since the source for my information is none other than your mises.org website, which you quote more than any person on the web. But when I do it, you accuse me of regurgitating leftist mantra! ROFL!!!!

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

As you can see, I essentially cut and pasted portions from the article just to get a rise out of you, and to your credit, you didn't disappoint. You responded just as I expected. By making a complete ass of yourself, as usual.

Bravo Loran, bravo.

I'll close with the summary from the article, published by your favorite "think Tank" that employs only the brightest minds and most credible experts!

ROFL!

Reagan's fans argue that he has changed the terms of public-policy debate, that no one today dares propose big spending programs. I contend that the alleged spending-shyness of politicians is not the result of an ideological sea-change, but rather of their constituents' fiscal fright brought about by $250 billion Reagan budget deficits. If the deficit ever shrinks, the demand for spending will resume.

This is the Reagan legacy. He was to be the man who would turn things around. But he didn't even try. As he so dramatically illustrated when he accepted the plant-closing bill, there has been no sea-change in thinking about the role of government.

Oh man this is hurting my stomach!

Loran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cthHdMDh92E&feature=related

I've already shown that Kevin, unbeknown, as usual, to himself, fell into the trap he set for me before I ever started down the trail.

Had he any real deep conceptual understanding of the philosophies he seeks to use as weapons against his mythical enemies, he wouldn't bother tripping over his own feet, as he frequently does, in an effort to mock and ridicule his interlocutors, but would engage in serious, civil discourse with other intellectually serious people who see things differently than he does.

He's shown himself, for years on end, utterly incapable or unwilling to do so.

You won't understand, and cannot possibly understand, that the laugh is, unfortunately on you.

Oh, but of course it is, Loran. Of course! You need nothing but mere assertion and like magic, it becomes true, right? Well, maybe you could get away with this over at MAD, but as I've said so many times before, you apologists are up against the stubborn fact that the primary audience at this forum consists of too many educated folks who know a hack when they see it.

You will not understand because you do not understand either conservatism or libertarianism, and you do not understand the intellectual differences and emphasis within them, and hence do not understand the intellectual differences between them.

Divert, bob, weave, rinse and repeat. Sigh, even if true Loran, this doesn't change the fact that you essentially accused me of regurgitating leftist mantra from Huffingtonpost, when in fact I was merely citing your own preferred authorities. And now here you are in an awkward position, trying to come out of this with your head still on your shoulders. Priceless.

Nor do you understand political history. And sometimes, the Austrians and other libertarians don't either, which is why I am not a libertarian but a conservative libertarian who combines elements of both.

Right Loran. Nobody understands the history except you and your "think tanks." But unfortunately, you've never been able to demonstrate superior knowledge of much of anything, and as I just showed, you weren't even knwoledgable enough about your favorite think tank to avoid falling down flat on your face in the trap I laid before you. Again, you did precisely as I expected. You're really that predictable.

Spending did rise dramatically under Reagan

Yes, that is what I have been saying, genius. And every time I said it all you ever did was accuse me of being an ignorant fool who relies on dailykos, and all sorts of web blogs I've never vistied before. Now you're forced to admit I was right, but you can't simply take teh hit and move on. No. You're the kinda guy who has to do everything in your power to come across as the voctor, no matter what teh situation. Hence, your hilaarious burst of rhetoric that ensues where you think you can avoid embarrassment by giving us a rant about irrelevant historical anecdotes. You seem to forget that the only person who loves to hear Loran bloviate, is Loran.

The reasons are clear for this, one being the utter control (save for one two year period in which the Republicans had a slight advantage in the House) the leftist Democrats held in the legislative branch during his presidency, and it is congress that spends money, not the President.

This is a popular fib that the Reaganpologists love to recant, but those who are familiar with actual history know better. So no, we shouldn't be surprised that you're quick to give in to the weak excuses handed to you by those silly campaign organizations you love to call "think tanks." Your claim is easily refuted by the fact that Reagan requested more money than Congress was willing to appropriate. Since we know you absolutely hate it when people draw you a picture, here you go:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-R ... ngress.png

Simply put, based on the government printing office, the Reagan administration requested more than a half trillion in spending each year, and Congress failed to approriate those funds most of the time. For example, between 1984 and 1987 Reagan requested $40 billion more than Congress was willing to appropriate.

Congress spent wildly in the eighties (similar, indeed to both the Bush and Obama years), and spent well beyond available tax revenues.

Again, there is the myth, which you offer without backing anything you say, and then there is reality, which of course I have to provide every time with unbiased sources. Seriously Loran, you should have just taken the hit and moved on, but the more you keep trying to wriggle your way out of this, the deeper you fall into your own quicksand. You have no case, aand spreading lies about the past only makes you look more foolish than you already do.
Reagan was the first President in US history to request a half trillion in government spending every year he was in office, and that amount increased every year going over $600 billion in 1987. It broke $700 billion under George Bush in 1990 . Trying to blame this on Congress, is despicable, and to suggest the Congress was controlled by Democrats, is just another testament to your abject ignorance.

Two thirds of this was on the welfare state, and some one quarter of federal spending, during those years, was spent on winning the Cold War, a necessary and critical initiative the bore fruit, and for which Reagan (and his close allies in this endeavor, Margarete Thacher, Pope John Paul, and Lech Walensia) will be remembered as one of the greatest benefactors of mankind in all history.

Irrelevant. The fact is you cannot blame a non-existent "Democratic" Congress on something that was entirely Reagan's fault. Here, let me quote you something from the website Zfact.com, which you will naturally avoid like the plague simply because you're allergic to facts:

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

Feeling stupid yet? Nevermind, I have to remind myself that I might as well be talking to a programmed robot. You refuse to admit being wrong at all costs, and whenever you go on one of your irrelevant long wided rants, it is the first sign that you're clearly up against the ropes. In the end, you back up nothing, and I substantiate everything I say with hard facts. You cannot reinvent history to save Reagan, but feel free to keep trying. It should be good for brief comic relief if nothing else.

Oh, wow. Well played, Kevin. If Droopy actually cared about the "serious, intellectual, substantive" issues, he would have stuck to the content of the quotes. So much for that!

Kudos, Kevin. This was a devastating demonstration of Droopy's inability to place reality before uninformed ideological fervor.

Droopy wrote:I've already shown that Kevin, unbeknown, as usual, to himself, fell into the trap he set for me before I ever started down the trail.

Had he any real deep conceptual understanding of the philosophies he seeks to use as weapons against his mythical enemies, he wouldn't bother tripping over his own feet, as he frequently does, in an effort to mock and ridicule his interlocutors, but would engage in serious, civil discourse with other intellectually serious people who see things differently than he does.

He's shown himself, for years on end, utterly incapable or unwilling to do so.

Translation: "I've got nothing so I'll write three paragraphs of filler."

As I already pointed out, Graham actually fell into his own trap here, and until he decides to take a few years off and do some serious reading and study in the area of political philosophy, economics, and various issues of the day, he is doomed to scan posts for polemical "gotcha" material and attempt to use it against his opponents while avoiding the serious discourse he has neither the patience nor the intellectual depth to negotiate. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have the intellectual background or temperament to crawl out of the baby pool and discuss/debate these issues in a serious manner, which is why, all things considered, he's so uncivil.

Empty suits usually are.

Droopy wrote:As I already pointed out, Graham actually fell into his own trap here, and until he decides to take a few years off and do some serious reading and study in the area of political philosophy, economics, and various issues of the day, he is doomed to scan posts for polemical "gotcha" material and attempt to use it against his opponents while avoiding the serious discourse he has neither the patience nor the intellectual depth to negotiate. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have the intellectual background or temperament to crawl out of the baby pool and discuss/debate these issues in a serious manner, which is why, all things considered, he's so uncivil.

Empty suits usually are.

Translation: "I've still got nothing so I'll write another paragraph of word salad."

Translation: "I've got nothing so I'll write three paragraphs of filler."

To recapitulate: Graham's use of Milton Friedman against me fails on two counts, the first being that conservatives and libertarians disagree amongst themselves and with each other on some issues, and some of those issues are quite contentious. The second is that Graham, as is his apparent wont, didn't actually read the interview he linked to, which made the points about tax cuts engendering economic growth and increasing government revenue quite nicely (one of several variables that increase revenue in tandem).

A third would be his adducing of the real reason for substantial tax cuts (defunding much of what government does that is irrational, immoral, and extra-constitutional) as if it was a deep, dark revelation that he had just discovered in the deep, dark recesses of the conservative mind.

Googling furiously, scanning the web and other people's posts for "gotcha" material isn't serious discussion or debate. That's the tactic of a demagogue with the mind of a political activist, not a political philosopher.