Posted by raucous on 4/29/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/29/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):

"So really in this country, we have a liberal party (Repugs)"


Is there an award for the most batshit crazy thing said by someone not named swamphawk or dougout? You might have just earned a nomination. Of course, with mikey claiming that having laws against murder don't have any effect on murder rates, you have no chance to win. But thanks for playing.

Spending money on social programs with money that you don't have is a liberal thing to do.  The Repug party from 1988-current has been doing just that.  At least the Dems, until Obama, wanted to raise taxes to fund it. 

Reagan and the GOP spent more money during his administration than all other administrations combined up until then.  Still not sure why the Tea Party claims him as a hero. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/29/2011 8:39:00 AM (view original):
Confirmed idiot.

I didn't even know you were Catholic.

Posted by creilmann on 4/29/2011 8:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by raucous on 4/29/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/29/2011 1:16:00 PM (view original):

"So really in this country, we have a liberal party (Repugs)"


Is there an award for the most batshit crazy thing said by someone not named swamphawk or dougout? You might have just earned a nomination. Of course, with mikey claiming that having laws against murder don't have any effect on murder rates, you have no chance to win. But thanks for playing.

Spending money on social programs with money that you don't have is a liberal thing to do.  The Repug party from 1988-current has been doing just that.  At least the Dems, until Obama, wanted to raise taxes to fund it. 

Reagan and the GOP spent more money during his administration than all other administrations combined up until then.  Still not sure why the Tea Party claims him as a hero. 

And most of the money he spent was entrenched Social Programs created by the left. This is the beggining of Roosevelts and Johnsons welefare societies asking to pay the piper.

swmp, do you even notice the enormous disconnect in your opinion of the Reagan presidency?

On the one hand, you give him full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing them to keep up with an arms race they couldn't afford. Then when someone points out how he vastly increased the deficit and the debt, you try to flip blame for that to the left "Oh, he was just paying the bills FDR and LBJ left behind."

You can't have it both ways.

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/30/2011 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/29/2011 8:39:00 AM (view original):
Confirmed idiot.

I didn't even know you were Catholic.

More on-topic drivel from you. 

Posted by antonsirius on 5/7/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
swmp, do you even notice the enormous disconnect in your opinion of the Reagan presidency?

On the one hand, you give him full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing them to keep up with an arms race they couldn't afford. Then when someone points out how he vastly increased the deficit and the debt, you try to flip blame for that to the left "Oh, he was just paying the bills FDR and LBJ left behind."

You can't have it both ways.

He didn't word it well IMO, but I'm sure you understand what he's trying to say, right?  Obviously given the choice of spending for the Cold War or not, it was a huge priority for him and a priority he was unwilling to compromise on.  Bottom line is that no one was willing to cut down on discretionary spending in other areas either - so even though he wanted them cut, it was too big of a risk NOT to push for the collapse - in his view. 

Spending was a problem then, as it is (even more so) now.  The deficit was increased because of all of the factors, not just because of an increased focus on defense.

It's obvious that the programs started in the 1930's under FDR, and added to in the 60's under LBJ put an enormous thumb on the scale.  That's only going to get worse as baby boomers (like me) start to retire.  Of course, I'm not planning to retire on time, and I'm definitely not counting on the government's ponzi-scheme promise to me for senior income.

Posted by antonsirius on 5/7/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
swmp, do you even notice the enormous disconnect in your opinion of the Reagan presidency?

On the one hand, you give him full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing them to keep up with an arms race they couldn't afford. Then when someone points out how he vastly increased the deficit and the debt, you try to flip blame for that to the left "Oh, he was just paying the bills FDR and LBJ left behind."

You can't have it both ways.

Actually it is you with the disconnect.

I say that the increase in Defense spending was a solution to a problem. The social spending was imbedded in the system.

If we fixed the SS and Medicare progams then we wouldnt have the problems today.

We would have been able to ride the "Peace Dividend" to another 50 years of American Economic Supremacy.

Posted by silentpadna on 5/7/2011 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 5/7/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
swmp, do you even notice the enormous disconnect in your opinion of the Reagan presidency?

On the one hand, you give him full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing them to keep up with an arms race they couldn't afford. Then when someone points out how he vastly increased the deficit and the debt, you try to flip blame for that to the left "Oh, he was just paying the bills FDR and LBJ left behind."

You can't have it both ways.

He didn't word it well IMO, but I'm sure you understand what he's trying to say, right?  Obviously given the choice of spending for the Cold War or not, it was a huge priority for him and a priority he was unwilling to compromise on.  Bottom line is that no one was willing to cut down on discretionary spending in other areas either - so even though he wanted them cut, it was too big of a risk NOT to push for the collapse - in his view. 

Spending was a problem then, as it is (even more so) now.  The deficit was increased because of all of the factors, not just because of an increased focus on defense.

It's obvious that the programs started in the 1930's under FDR, and added to in the 60's under LBJ put an enormous thumb on the scale.  That's only going to get worse as baby boomers (like me) start to retire.  Of course, I'm not planning to retire on time, and I'm definitely not counting on the government's ponzi-scheme promise to me for senior income.

If you want to say that Reagan wouldn't prioritize between Cold War spending and social spending, I'm fine with that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2011 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 4/30/2011 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/29/2011 8:39:00 AM (view original):
Confirmed idiot.

I didn't even know you were Catholic.

More on-topic drivel from you. 

You can't have it both ways, confirmed idiot.

Posted by antonsirius on 5/7/2011 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/7/2011 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 5/7/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
swmp, do you even notice the enormous disconnect in your opinion of the Reagan presidency?

On the one hand, you give him full credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing them to keep up with an arms race they couldn't afford. Then when someone points out how he vastly increased the deficit and the debt, you try to flip blame for that to the left "Oh, he was just paying the bills FDR and LBJ left behind."

You can't have it both ways.

He didn't word it well IMO, but I'm sure you understand what he's trying to say, right?  Obviously given the choice of spending for the Cold War or not, it was a huge priority for him and a priority he was unwilling to compromise on.  Bottom line is that no one was willing to cut down on discretionary spending in other areas either - so even though he wanted them cut, it was too big of a risk NOT to push for the collapse - in his view. 

Spending was a problem then, as it is (even more so) now.  The deficit was increased because of all of the factors, not just because of an increased focus on defense.

It's obvious that the programs started in the 1930's under FDR, and added to in the 60's under LBJ put an enormous thumb on the scale.  That's only going to get worse as baby boomers (like me) start to retire.  Of course, I'm not planning to retire on time, and I'm definitely not counting on the government's ponzi-scheme promise to me for senior income.

If you want to say that Reagan wouldn't prioritize between Cold War spending and social spending, I'm fine with that.

swamp refuses to do so. Instead he credits Reagan for the Cold War "victory" without holding him responsible for the cost of that prioritization, and tries to throw the deficit entirely on the left.

As I said, he can't have it both ways.

My point is that the reason that the 80s created so much spending was not Defense related. The democrats had created a system where everyone kept getting more and more. SS, Medicare, General Welefare all were not issues we needed to keep voting on, they just kept expanding.

So when Reagan was faced with Defeating the Soviet Union he expanded Defense spending, like any President would.

We should have just made it up later, but all the Scoial Programs prevented us from recovering.

We need to address that now. SS and Medicare cannot exist as we have them. It isnt about feel good politics, it is an issue of mathematics.

Quit keeping people alive for so long.   If half the population died before turning 60, we wouldn't have problems with Medicare and Social Security.

Yes, I'm saying we have too many people getting old. 

My point is that the reason that the 80s created so much spending was not Defense related.
 

Your point is not only barely coherent and wrong, but you contradicted it two sentences later.

We should have just made it up later, but all the Scoial Programs prevented us from recovering.
 

Or we could have drastically cut back defense spending after the Cold War was over. Or we could have tackled both.

Basically put, the flaw in your argument is the same one you attribute to the Dems. You say the Dems consider 'social programs' as inviolate part of the baseline of federal spending, but then you consider defense spending as part of that same baseline. You want your own preferred spending to be a constant, and the spending you don't like to be a shrinking variable.

You can't have it both ways. If Reagan jacked up defense spending to "win" the Cold War, then he also jacked up the deficit doing it. QEMFD.