~>  BA> They *didn't* give him all he asked for.  He asked for tax
~>  BA> cuts *AND* spending cuts, congress (controlled by
~>  BA> Democrooks, BTW) cut taxes and *increased* spending.
 
~>  False on multiple points.
 
~>  His tax cuts he claimed would pay for themselves. In which case
~>  spending cuts were not necessary. So, regardless of anything
~>  else, not cutting spending was not the cause, or even a
~>  contributing factor, to Reagan's failyre.

In reality the tax cuts were proposed with the explicit expectation that
they would cause LOST revenue.  In hindsight they cost a lot LESS than
expected, because of the added revenue from economic growth.  That is all
old news, of course.

What is really hilarious is that this was the subject of a long, long
thread in fidonet several years ago.  Klahn started with the above
position, and then went through a series of twists and evasions when pushed
on it (Reagan didn't really say it but had others say it for him, he didn't
really say it but he implied it, he didn't really say it but he allowed
people to believe it, that sort of thing).  That was the first time I got
to see his lack of understanding and his inability to honestly carry a
thread forward.  And now he repeats it, having learned nothing.  Seeing a
flashback like this really brightened the day.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a