Look, on Reagan's deficit spending, if you slow down and read my post I was very specific - deficit spending for the sake of "stimulating the economy" out of a recession/depression is what I contend is an abject failure. This is not what Reagan engaged in. He deficit spent for the purposes of national security, to wage and win the Cold War. Now I was very specific about that. I didn't state that at no time is deficit spending needed (clearly it was in WWII, for example), what I stated was it is not a sound economic policy when used in for the purpose of "stimulating" an economy out of a recession or depression.
As to gay marriage ... look, I layed out very specific reasoning as to why I thought your argument on "regulating morality" is inherently flawed via inconsistency and used plural marriage & your own support of mandates "not specifically delineated in the Constitution" in other ares to make the point ... and you did not address it. I also asked a series of sincere questions at the end of my post, so as to further the discussion and again make my point about the inconsistency in the "feds regulating morality" argument ... you didn't address those either.
I can not take the time to wage these discussions if you are to simply ignore the heart of my posts each time.
You claim that the government has the right to regulate but not "define" marriage - I find that completely irreconcilable. By regulation of plural marriage they have defined it as "between 2 people." The "regulation" of marriage inherently "defines" it. And the government, with the consent of the governed, has defined it between 2 consenting adults because that definition/regulation is seen as a benefit to society. You support that definition/regulation. Not for morality reasons (although I assume that's part of it) but because it supports a healthy, functioning society. By that same logic I would argue that marriage should be defined/regulated as between opposing genders. Not for morality (although that is my personal opinion), but to support a healthy, functioning society. Thus I would support the government, with my consent as the governed, Amending the Constitution to define it as such. My point about your inconsistency is that my argument against the legality of same-gender marriage is exactly the same as your argument against plural marriage (an argument I 100% agree with - I thought it necessary to inject that being a Mormon). In other words why is it okay for the government to regulate/define marriage as exclusively between 2 consenting adults, versus 3 or 10 consenting adults whom aren't hurting anybody, but not okay for the government to define it as between 2 opposing genders?
So until you are prepared to address this and the questions/points I made in my last post, we are at an impasse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dude, Reagan NEVER went into a budget vote holding his proposals saying, "Guys! We're winning the Cold War with this one! Give me a 239% peacetime increase in defense spending to beat those commie bastards!" He RAN on "Reaganomics," which involved massive tax cuts to the top percentile of income earners and signed those monster blank checks. People in his own PARTY (George Sr. first and foremost) criticized this plan heavily. In the end, it worked in both situations.
But to say Reagan spent solely to beat the Russians is not accurate or true.
I wasn't implying that he spent "solely" on defense. I was making the point that Reagan's deficit spending was not (as FDR's was) to "stimulate" the economy. Rather it was for things such as defense. But while we're at it I'd wager that he DID in fact, within closed door meetings on budget votes, advocate inreased spendings for the purposes of countering the Soviet threat.
I mean if we're going to "guess" at what was said and wasn't by the 40th president I think mine is as, if not more, plausible than yours. He might have even said so publicly, but I'm not prepared to review every peice of footage from the 80's.
Post a Comment