- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That link is laughable. They compare the Reagan years to the Bush / Clinton years and use that to argue that Reagan was better. Thats kind of stupid considering they stop in 1995 and throw Bush Sr. in with Clinton. How about we take the Clinton years and compare them to the Reagan years on their own, or compare them to the Reagan / Bush years being those actually to a degree go together unlike throwing two different presidents in that were in 2 different parties, and comparing them to Reagan.
Did Reagan cut, say the National Park budget? Sure. Was Ranger Rick's 30k a year the spending problem for government? No, and thats is fundamentally the problem with Reagan Conservatism. They bragged on spending cuts for programs that were small to begin with, yet grew the big stuff.
What is it exactly in the Cato analysis that is a lie?
I am still waiting for where you got your numbers for the budget and do you have a clue as to how much the budget was for the military? How about what is discretionary vs. non discretionary spending that you want to blame Reagan for increasing.
I am still waiting for exactly what Clinton proposed then signed which led to the strong economy you want to give him credit for?
Last edited: