tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[editec]

The Reaganite legend begins with the false proposition that the Reagan Administration stopped the march of “Big Government” and brought a new fiscal restraint to Washington.

Yet after the economy had rebounded and recession-bloated spendinghad subsidized during Reagan’s Second term, Federal outlays averaged 21.7 percent of gross domestic product/

This was obviously no imprivement at all on the 21.1 percent of GDP average during the alleged “big spending: Carter years. And compared quite miserably to the 19.3 percent of the GDP recording during Lundon Johnson’s final four years of “:guns and butter” extravagance.

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

 

[editec]

Interesting that nobody thinks this is worthy of discussion.

Its things like this that prove to me that there really aren't any conservatives on this board.

Trolls aplenty, but thinking conservatives?

Not a one.

 

[theHawk]

Raegan increased the military, which I don't really consider "the government" because they don't govern anybody.

I don't think anyone ever accused Bush of being a fiscal conservative, he could of done a lot more to cut welfare and other useless government agencies.

So I guess your arguement is that just because Raegan and Bush really weren't as fiscally conservative as we would of liked, the idea of being fiscally conservative is fallacious? Kind of a stupid premise isn't it?

But I suppose you'll explain to us how increasing the debt by trillions more is a better route than at least trying to cut the enormous spending our government is addicted to.

 

[oldfart]

Raegan increased the military, which I don't really consider "the government" because they don't govern anybody.

I don't think anyone ever accused Bush of being a fiscal conservative, he could of done a lot more to cut welfare and other useless government agencies.

So I guess your arguement is that just because Raegan and Bush really weren't as fiscally conservative as we would of liked, the idea of being fiscally conservative is fallacious? Kind of a stupid premise isn't it?

But I suppose you'll explain to us how increasing the debt by trillions more is a better route than at least trying to cut the enormous spending our government is addicted to.

The federal government has been aptly described as an insurance company with an army. You want to take the army part out of the discussion and that's OK. Let's take the insurance company part out too, as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are far more efficient than private companies providing similar services. What's left? And just what parts of it are "useless"?

Folks like you generally want to cut things like the FDA and, oh well, so what if a couple hundred thousand people die each year from tainted drugs made in China? But corporate welfare is peachy keen because you don't see it. You can see food inspectors and food stamp recipients, but where have you observed the domestic production deduction and the transfer pricing rules?

You're not dumb, you just go after what you can see and let your imagination run wild. It's the stuff you don't see that is the real waste and corruption.

 

[oldfart]

Interesting that nobody thinks this is worthy of discussion.

Its things like this that prove to me that there really aren't any conservatives on this board.

Trolls aplenty, but thinking conservatives?

Not a one.

"Thinking conservative" has become an oxymoron. There used to be fiscal conservatives with integrity, but they have been pretty much run out of town by business lobbyists who like the idea of government protecting and sheltering massive corporations and the wealthy. 98% of the Internal Revenue Code deals with issues that ordinary Americans don't even know exist, but I guarantee you that behind each dot and tittle stands an industry trade group with an agenda (and guess who benefits from that agenda?).

If you find a thinking conservative, please send them my way. I want a picture for my scrapbook as they are an endangered species.

 

[Rshermr]

Why think, when you can simply accept what you are told by the moneyed interests who can and do spend billions to tell you what to believe.

 

[usmcstinger]

Opinions are like ass holes. Every person has one.
Below is another opinion.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

I wonder how Stockman (We both were born in 1946) dodged the draft? I avoided the draft by enlisting in the USMC and served as an Infantry Fire Team Leader in Vietnam 67/68.

President Reagan appointed Stockman to the position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget 1981-1985. Without a sense of loyalty, he made derogatory statements about the President.
This Drafter Dodger wanted to reduce benefits and services to Veterans and Military Retirees.

 

[oldfart]

Opinions are like ass holes. Every person has one....

I wonder how Stockman (We both were born in 1946) dodged the draft? I avoided the draft by enlisting in the USMC and served as an Infantry Fire Team Leader in Vietnam 67/68.

President Reagan appointed Stockman to the position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget 1981-1985. Without a sense of loyalty, he made derogatory statements about the President.
This Drafter Dodger wanted to reduce benefits and services to Veterans and Military Retirees.

And on this basis you think Stockman is a good source for whose benefits to cut? If veterans and military are OK you don't see anything wrong with throwing grandma under the bus?

 

[whitehall]

Yeah right, the economy is still in the tank, the Mid-east is burning and there are a half a dozen scandals in the administration so...let's talk about Reagan.

 

[jasonnfree]

Opinions are like ass holes. Every person has one.
Below is another opinion.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

I wonder how Stockman (We both were born in 1946) dodged the draft? I avoided the draft by enlisting in the USMC and served as an Infantry Fire Team Leader in Vietnam 67/68.

President Reagan appointed Stockman to the position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget 1981-1985. Without a sense of loyalty, he made derogatory statements about the President.
This Drafter Dodger wanted to reduce benefits and services to Veterans and Military Retirees.

So Stockman should have not criticized Reagan because he was appointed by him. This is a major problem everywhere, kiss ups that will say anything to curry favor with the boss.

 

[eflatminor]

The Reaganite legend begins with the false proposition that the Reagan Administration stopped the march of “Big Government” and brought a new fiscal restraint to Washington.

Yet after the economy had rebounded and recession-bloated spendinghad subsidized during Reagan’s Second term, Federal outlays averaged 21.7 percent of gross domestic product/

This was obviously no imprivement at all on the 21.1 percent of GDP average during the alleged “big spending: Carter years. And compared quite miserably to the 19.3 percent of the GDP recording during Lundon Johnson’s final four years of “:guns and butter” extravagance.

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

 

[jasonnfree]

Yeah right, the economy is still in the tank, the Mid-east is burning and there are a half a dozen scandals in the administration so...let's talk about Reagan.

Obama's screwups don't reach the level of bush's by a country mile. Both in terms of hundreds of thousands of innocents murdered in Iraq and trillions wasted on the war bush and company lied this county into. You have no sense of proportion in comparing these two presidents.

 

[Rshermr]

The Reaganite legend begins with the false proposition that the Reagan Administration stopped the march of “Big Government” and brought a new fiscal restraint to Washington.

Yet after the economy had rebounded and recession-bloated spendinghad subsidized during Reagan’s Second term, Federal outlays averaged 21.7 percent of gross domestic product/

This was obviously no imprivement at all on the 21.1 percent of GDP average during the alleged “big spending: Carter years. And compared quite miserably to the 19.3 percent of the GDP recording during Lundon Johnson’s final four years of “:guns and butter” extravagance.

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

I would consider becoming a libertarian if I could just find a single case where a libertarian economy had worked. Becoming a libertarian without that single factor would prove whomever became one to be an idiot. Which you, with your post, have again proven.

 

[jasonnfree]

The Reaganite legend begins with the false proposition that the Reagan Administration stopped the march of “Big Government” and brought a new fiscal restraint to Washington.

Yet after the economy had rebounded and recession-bloated spendinghad subsidized during Reagan’s Second term, Federal outlays averaged 21.7 percent of gross domestic product/

This was obviously no imprivement at all on the 21.1 percent of GDP average during the alleged “big spending: Carter years. And compared quite miserably to the 19.3 percent of the GDP recording during Lundon Johnson’s final four years of “:guns and butter” extravagance.

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

Even if libertarianism is theoretically ideal, how could it be instituted in a country where politicians are able to grant favors?

 

[eflatminor]

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

I would consider becoming a libertarian if I could just find a single case where a libertarian economy had worked.

USA until about 1913. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in history.

Becoming a libertarian without that single factor would prove whomever became one to be an idiot. Which you, with your post, have again proven.

So instead we should jump on the central planner bandwagon. Yea, pass. You were saying something about being an idiot...

 

[eflatminor]

page 57 The Great Deformation -Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman


Jusdt in case any of you partisan Republicans are still clinging to the DELUSION that Reagan was NOT a STATIST or a KEYNESIAN?

And not to make too big a deal about it, this CONSERVATIVE author continues to prove that both Bush's were ALSO STATISTS who increased GOVERMENT .

Will any of you loayl GOP partisans actually read this book, or do you prefer to LIOE TO YOURSELVES because it is so forking painful to realize THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED, BY revisionist history?

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

Even if libertarianism is theoretically ideal, how could it be instituted in a country where politicians are able to grant favors?

By the people demanding those politicians restrict their meddling to a few specifically enumerated powers. Now if only that were the law of the land...

 

[Rshermr]

With your rant against statism and Keynesian economics, it sounds like you're embracing what us libertarians have said all along. Wonderful. Welcome to the light.

I would consider becoming a libertarian if I could just find a single case where a libertarian economy had worked.

USA until about 1913. More poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in history.

Becoming a libertarian without that single factor would prove whomever became one to be an idiot. Which you, with your post, have again proven.

So instead we should jump on the central planner bandwagon. Yea, pass. You were saying something about being an idiot...

Idiocy, me poor ignorant con tool, is when you are delusional. Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance. Or that you should believe in that ideal even though it has never worked.
Maybe you should see about finding yourself some room on that new home made island that those libertarians who have given up finding an existing one are trying to find. Here:

History is littered with failed libertarian utopias, but PayPal cofounder and billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel believes an artificial floating nation-state 200 miles off the coast of San Francisco could change that, according to a profile in Details magazine. And Thiel is putting his money where his mouth is, giving $1.25 million so far the Seasteading Institute, an organization dedicated to launching small countries on oil-rig–type platforms in international waters. Here, a guide to the "vivid, wild-eyed dream" of a Libertarian Island.
Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

See why the rational world sees you as a wild eyed dreamer??? Or alternately, a fool???

 

[eflatminor]

Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance.

As close as any has ever come. Phenomenally successful too.

Get thee a history book not written by a Progressive.

 

[Rshermr]

Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance.

As close as any has ever come. Phenomenally successful too.

Get thee a history book not written by a Progressive.

You are such a con. You believe that those who disagree with you, who basically includes everyone except other con tools, are progressives. I have read PLENTY of economic history. Never found an economist that was not on the payroll of the bat shit crazy con web sites that agree that the us was ever a libertarian economy. Perhaps you have one.
The main thing, me boy, is that libertarian economies have started, simply NEVER succeeded. That is what history would teach you, if you actually read it.
Second, you are desperate enough to try to suggest looking at the US in the past as libertarian. It was not. But more importantly, you can not name a current one. Which makes you, well, a desperate con tool.

 

[Oldstyle]

Believing that the US has ever been a libertarian economy, for instance.

As close as any has ever come. Phenomenally successful too.

Get thee a history book not written by a Progressive.

Rshermr doesn't read history books, Eflat...they confuse him.