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.pngSimply 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.
