Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:01 pm » wrote: That depends on whether you're going to understand that you have yourself backed into a Keynesian corner, contard (needed the alliteration - sorry).

If you factor in that Reagan almost doubled the economy using 2 TRILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT, then "you" and "we" are better off for it, so long as "you" and "we" does not include the precious, precious unborn.

You guys want to have it both ways and then the third way. WHEN YOU PULL REAGAN'S TWO TRILLION BORROWED DOLLARS OUT OF THE ECONOMY, he added less than 400 billion in 8 years - LESS THAN INFLATION.

What does this psychotic moonbat fail to take into account?

1) That Reagan began with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. Those stats must be taken into account.

2) That liberal Dems and a few "moderate" Repubs were the driving force behind domestic spending, not Reagan. It's just plain dishonest to pin that on him.

3) That a one-time military buildup to defeat the Soviet Union was absolutely worth the debt incurred and in fact led to larger permanent cuts in military spending just a few years later.

And 3) that although there was debt accumulation, the GDP remained forever, meaning the prosperity remained.

Making his policies and success absolutely different than liberal-left Keynesians, who are left with massive debt and a horrific economy once the spending stops.