Reagan didn't win the Cold War, the Soviet Union lost it -- Same results . Different lessons, though.The spending surge of the 80's, making Afghanistan worse and being hawkish to the point of Soviets fearing we would attack during Able Archer 83 was not really necessary.
Not the statement you posted. Hindsight in this case pretty much agrees with Reagan's foresight on the future of the liberal Soviet Union.
today's DoD spending were and are mostly about "offense". -- Old sayings "If you want peace, prepare for war." The best defense is a good offence." One-liners don't qualify was evidence. Mine do. There are members of this Grate Site who have forgotten more about military history than I will know, but I do not know of a country that won a war by being on the defense.
Moreover, your one-liners don't help finding an optimum spending level. This is decided by the U.S. government, not you.
This is similar as with the tax cut nonsense; ideology that only recommends "less" or "more" is useless becuase it's wrong once you pass the optimum. You need an idea how to identify the optimum or at least rules to learn whether you#re above or below. The one-directionalism of Republican ideologies does not offer that. You cannot explain what you are stating as you do not know what you are saying.
And BTW, this is where you guys could actually criticize AOC; "100%" carbon-free energy is obvious nonsense, and she didn't identify an optimum or how to find the optimum. An economist could recommend a marginal rate of CO2 equivalent savings per 1,000 $ spent as the guidance.
...almost complete lack of battlefield air defence) -- In the U.S. it is called the United States Air Force and to a lesser degree the United States Navy. Yeah, and that's insufficient. There will be a rude awakening. F-22s don't intercept autonomous 50,000 $ 20 kg killer drones. I'm sure the U.S.A.F. is awaiting your scientific knowledge on this.
Now, back to the economic success of states like North Carolina, Tennessee and probably the greatest state ever -- Indiana, on reduce spending and tax cuts. And the coming moral and financial decline of the People's Republic of California.
Liberalism is not about success as it is a moral failure first and an economic failure second.
That's what you claim, but you don't prove it. Your statement of hyperpartisan belief is irrelevant. On top of that, you mis-use the well-defined political theory term "liberalism" where you meant "social democracy". Read prior posts. And no my Teutonic friend, in the U.S. it is accurately called liberalism. From the great American economist Thomas Sowell " Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."