• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Reagan a fiscal/small government conservative?

Was Reagan a fiscal-small government conservative?


  • Total voters
    80
Here is a very good analysis of the Reagan years. Read the facts of what happened during that era then tell me whether or not his results qualify him as a success. I believe you will see why true Conservatives have nothing but respect for what he did

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

Nobody is denying success. He embraced Keynesianism and deficits as a means to achieve that success.

Supply side policy has its place, just like everything else.
 
If the military requests it in a time of war then it is probably as close to "essential" as you can get. Surely, you do not expect the President to micromanage every single military expenditure?

Do I expect the president himself to be accountable for every $700 dollar hammer and every $1100 toilet seat, no, I don't.

However, being that the pentagon is accountable to the president, ultimately the president's administration is accountable for waste and fraud in defense spending.

Some entitlements or all entitlements?

All entitlements of any size. Welfare is tiny compared to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.


I haven't done enough research on "Star Wars" to say one way or the other. I've heard that it was a complete waste of money

That would be the version called "reality"

and I've also heard that it caused the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion.

That would be the popular conservative mythology version.

Either way, Reagan could not predict the future, which makes your hindsight argument somewhat irrelevant.

So anytime a president pisses away the taxpayers money on the most absurd notion imaginable it's automatically excused by the no one can predict the future excuse?

I don't get it. Conservatives have a great example of a fiscally conservative president that was popular and pragmatic and that is Dwight Eisenhower, so why the Reagan worship?
 
Not by a long shot.... First and foremost many entitlements provide food and water to many young children, something that is essential to them.

And many entitlements do not provide food and water to children, which means they are hardly essential.

So while you may despise any aspect of transfer payments...

I never said that.

i cannot take your comparison seriously as it lacks objectivity. Secondly, i am not blaming anyone! Why have you not picked up on this?

So, you're not blaming Reagan for the deficit?

As a fiscal conservative, i pay my bills no matter how stupid some of them might seem in a later time. This conversation is not whether congress is "fiscally conservative". Reagan was the executive, and he allowed for a fiscal imbalance. No matter how you slice it, you cannot claim him to be something he was not.

He allowed for a fiscal imbalance because he needed to increase defense spending. He didn't have a choice, which means there is no reason to question his fiscal conservativism.

Nope! I am saying deficits do matter and they will have to be paid for eventually. This utter fixation with congress is surprising.

I'm fixating on Congress because they are the ones who refused to cut entitlement spending.

Would you rather see increased deficits during an economic expansion rather than increased taxes?

False dichotomy.
 
I am not in anyway saying that Ronald Reagan will not be judged by history as being a great president. He was likable. He was a great communicator. He made a lasting impression on American politics and government. He is not going to rank up with Jefferson, Lincoln or FDR, but even he would not have ranked himself on their level. Just the same, there is no doubt that history will judge him as a successful president.

That does not make him a fiscal conservative though.
 
Nobody is denying success. He embraced Keynesianism and deficits as a means to achieve that success.

Supply side policy has its place, just like everything else.

Actually what he embraced was the empowerment of the American people. By doing so his economy created almost 20 million jobs and those taxpayers helped grow govt. tax revenue.

Current tax receipts

1981 663.5
1982 659.5
1983 694.1
1984 762.5
1985 823.9
1986 868.8
1987 965.7
1988 1,018.9
 
Do I expect the president himself to be accountable for every $700 dollar hammer and every $1100 toilet seat, no, I don't.

However, being that the pentagon is accountable to the president, ultimately the president's administration is accountable for waste and fraud in defense spending.

Of course. I'm not trying to excuse such things, but if "Star Wars" is the only thing you can cite then I would say Reagan did comparatively well in that regard.

All entitlements of any size. Welfare is tiny compared to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Wait, so every single entitlement program was paid for by the revenue from the payroll tax? What about social programs? Do you have some figures I could look at?

That would be the version called "reality"

That would be the popular conservative mythology version.

Okay, I'm certainly willing to listen to your version of Star Wars. Explain why it was manifestly idiotic.

So anytime a president pisses away the taxpayers money on the most absurd notion imaginable it's automatically excused by the no one can predict the future excuse?

Like I said, I don't know enough about the program to say one way or the other. The only reason I'm hesitant to accept your version of Star Wars is because it's a classic liberal talking point.

I don't get it. Conservatives have a great example of a fiscally conservative president that was popular and pragmatic and that is Dwight Eisenhower, so why the Reagan worship?

I'm not worshiping Reagan. I'm just trying to give his Presidency an honest and non-partisan appraisal.
 
Last edited:
Actually what he embraced was the empowerment of the American people. By doing so his economy created almost 20 million jobs and those taxpayers helped grow govt. tax revenue.

Current tax receipts

1981 663.5
1982 659.5
1983 694.1
1984 762.5
1985 823.9
1986 868.8
1987 965.7
1988 1,018.9

Let's timeline that one.

Economic Recovery Act of 1981 - Large Tax cut.
1981 663.5
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Large Tax increase.
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - Tax increase.
1982 659.5
Social Security Amendments of 1983 - Tax increase.
Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983 - Small Tax cut.
1983 694.1
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 - Large Tax Increase.
1984 762.5
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - Small Tax increase.
1985 823.9
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Large Tax Increase.
1986 868.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 - Tax Increase.
1987 965.7
1988 1,018.9

So basically, we have a tax cut, followed by a series of tax increases. The decline in revenue correlates with the tax cut, the increases in revenue correlate with the tax increases and population (workforce) growth.

Imagine that.
 
Let's timeline that one.

Economic Recovery Act of 1981 - Large Tax cut.
1981 663.5
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Large Tax increase.
Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - Tax increase.
1982 659.5
Social Security Amendments of 1983 - Tax increase.
Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983 - Small Tax cut.
1983 694.1
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 - Large Tax Increase.
1984 762.5
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 - Small Tax increase.
1985 823.9
Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Large Tax Increase.
1986 868.8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 - Tax Increase.
1987 965.7
1988 1,018.9

So basically, we have a tax cut, followed by a series of tax increases. The decline in revenue correlates with the tax cut, the increases in revenue correlate with the tax increases and population (workforce) growth.

Imagine that.

:spin: Fact is the Reagan tax cuts didn't go into effect until October 1981, nice try

FICA tax increases had nothing to do with the tax revenue increase I posted, FICA is SS Revenue not Income tax revenue

There was no income tax increase only payroll tax increases which affected SS and Medicare.
 
Last edited:
What he embraced was astrology and other mumbo-jumbo such as trickle-down "supply side" economics.
 
What he embraced was astrology and other mumbo-jumbo such as trickle-down "supply side" economics.

Wow, another kid heard from, suggest you get the actual facts instead of what your leftwing professors tell you.
 
Hindsight is 20/20.

Did you read my post? Even in the early 1980s it was well known by anybody who was anybody in Washington that the Soviet Union was collapsing due to shortages, lack of funding, weak military etc etc. Why did Reagan then see it as essential to increase the funding the military? Was he ignorant of the facts? Doubt it.

You have that luxury. I doubt many Americans would have shared your sentiment at the time...

Good thing Reagan wasn't a completely ignorant America of the 1980s. Or are you saying the President of the U.S. knew as much about Russia as the average American? Doubt that.
 
Of course. I'm not trying to excuse such things, but if "Star Wars" is the only thing you can cite then I would say Reagan did comparatively well in that regard.

He tripled the national debt while in office, thats not exactly "comparatively well".


Wait, so every single entitlement program was paid for by the revenue from the payroll tax? What about social programs? Do you have some figures I could look at?

Here are the historical numbers http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf


Okay, I'm certainly willing to listen to your version of Star Wars. Explain why it was manifestly idiotic.

Do you really need an explanation of why spending billions in an attempt to build 1980s laser armed space robots is idiotic?
 
:spin: Fact is the Reagan tax cuts didn't go into effect until October 1981, nice try

FICA tax increases had nothing to do with the tax revenue increase I posted, FICA is SS Revenue not Income tax revenue

There was no income tax increase only payroll tax increases which affected SS and Medicare.

You are telling me that the Tax Reform Act of 1984 was not an income tax increase?

Tax Reform Act of 1984: Definition from Answers.com

The 1986 huge expansion of the AMT was not an income tax increase?
 
He tripled the national debt while in office, thats not exactly "comparatively well".




Here are the historical numbers http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf




Do you really need an explanation of why spending billions in an attempt to build 1980s laser armed space robots is idiotic?

Did you even look at the numbers you posted? Defense spending in 1981 was 157 billion and in 1989 it was 303.6 billion so he doubled defense spending but also generated 1.5 trillion in revenue, more than enough to cover the defense increase
 
SouthernDemocrat;1058581138]He tripled the national debt while in office, thats not exactly "comparatively well".

Ronald Reagan's request to lower taxes was initially rejected by the Democrat Congress. He took his message to the people and in August 1981 the Congress passed his 25% tax rate cut and implemented that over the next three years.

The results are quite staggering as indicated by your website below in terms of revenue to the govt. That revenue growth came from job creation which according to the numbes approached 20 million new jobs created.

Here are the historical numbers http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

Now the question has to be asked, why do liberals fear the American people keeping more of their own money? Could it be that dependence on the govt. is reduced?

In light of the revenue increase that is the only reason I can think of.
 
First, let me make this clear. Unlike some of the more radical libertarians on this board I live in a world that is not black and white. One is not Fiscal Conservative or not based on a single check box and if its ticked or not determines if they are fiscal conservative or not fiscal conservative, as if "0%" and "100% is the only measurements present.

Second, lets play with your premise. You're seemingly suggesting then that the entire definition of what modern conservatism is changed, or morphed, or perhaps we can say evolved with the introduction of Reagan onto the national stage. Lets take that premise....

If that's the case, then what is the point of this thread? It seems to be aimed at trying to proclaim Reagan as something other than conservative, based on what people today claim conservatism is. That people are "reinventing" Reagan's legacy to fit into the moderm definition of conservatism. If what you say is true, that what is defined by the majority of conservatives in the modern day is essentially "Reagan Conservativism", then arguing that he is not a fiscal or governmental conservative by the modern definition seems completely asanine and is still incorrect.

Not to mention that both ideologies today have significant variations of where they were 30 years ago, which had significant variations from where they were 30 years prior to that, and onwards.

This all goes beyond the fact that I still think from your posts here and elsewhere that you take an extremely libertarian view of fiscal conservatism, ie an extreme take on it, and is much akin to the Religion Right telling people that someone isn't "social conservative" simply because they don't live up to the extreme that their version of the ideology holds for Social Conservatism.

I'm an not in any way trying to suggest that Reagan was necessarily a great fiscal conservative by any definition, nor that he was a good one based on the classical definition. However I think it is a ridiculous notion to flat out state, unequivicolly, that he is not fiscally conservative in either the classical or the modern sense. A weak one? Perhaps? Maybe a moderate one. But to whole sale say he was not one just does not add up in any of the ways I can read it save for looking at it in a purely black and white world view, of which I think is a highly unrealistic and flawed way to view such things.

Though thank you for the well thought out response and good discussion. I know that's a lot of ask for some on here.


Ronald Reagan was by no means a fiscal conservative.

No fiscal conservative would run expanding deficits during good economic times, but would restrain spending to ensure that deficits would be decreasing on a dollar level. To be considered a moderate fiscal conservative decreasing the deficit on a GDP % would have to be achieved

But deficits did not decrease on a dollar level during the Reagan admin, and the US went from being a creditor nation during his admin to being the worlds largest debtor nation. Reagan was a good salesman, a pitchman that has moved into popular culture of being a small government conservative, because of a few thing done early in his presidency, while all the later actions are forgetten.

If one wants to see a fiscal conservative ( while not a small governent conservative) look at Paul Martin former PM of Canada.
 
Ronald Reagan was by no means a fiscal conservative.

No fiscal conservative would run expanding deficits during good economic times, but would restrain spending to ensure that deficits would be decreasing on a dollar level. To be considered a moderate fiscal conservative decreasing the deficit on a GDP % would have to be achieved

But deficits did not decrease on a dollar level during the Reagan admin, and the US went from being a creditor nation during his admin to being the worlds largest debtor nation. Reagan was a good salesman, a pitchman that has moved into popular culture of being a small government conservative, because of a few thing done early in his presidency, while all the later actions are forgetten.

If one wants to see a fiscal conservative ( while not a small governent conservative) look at Paul Martin former PM of Canada.

How old were you during the Reagan years? Anyone that calls those good economic times is out of touch with reality. It became good economic times about three years into the first term and his tax cuts almost doubled Govt. revenue.

I am not sure you understand how our govt. works and who actually spends the money here. It is obvious to me that you have never done any research on Reagan nor do you understand what caused the debt you want to blame him for. Don't you think you should find out first?
 
How old were you during the Reagan years? Anyone that calls those good economic times is out of touch with reality. It became good economic times about three years into the first term and his tax cuts almost doubled Govt. revenue.

I am not sure you understand how our govt. works and who actually spends the money here. It is obvious to me that you have never done any research on Reagan nor do you understand what caused the debt you want to blame him for. Don't you think you should find out first?

He had the power of the VETO

VETO's can help control spending

Deficits increased in all years of the Reagan Admin, not just the first 3

Never said the Reagan Admin had a revenue problem, just a spending problem

It INCREASED SPENDING faster then the INCREASE in REVENUE.

Now if you want to praise Reagan for the economy and increasing government revenue you also has to assign him the responsibility for government spending (ie bugdets and taxes)

And the Reagan admin had a spending problem,

Like a teenager with a credit card paid for by mommy and daddy. (or more correctly the teenagers childern)
 
[quote
=Lord Tammerlain;1058581270]He had the power of the VETO

VETO's can help control spending

Ronald Reagan set a record for vetoes

Deficits increased in all years of the Reagan Admin, not just the first 3

Never said the Reagan Admin had a revenue problem, just a spending problem

It INCREASED SPENDING faster then the INCREASE in REVENUE.

In our govt. the Congress spends the money, not the President. Reagan generated the revenue and Congress spent it. There is a website for OMB given in one of these posts on this tread. Learn where the spending occurred.

Now if you want to praise Reagan for the economy and increasing government revenue you also has to assign him the responsibility for government spending (ie bugdets and taxes)

And the Reagan admin had a spending problem,

Like a teenager with a credit card paid for by mommy and daddy. (or more correctly the teenagers childern)

I praise Reagan for empowering the American people and creating an economy that generated almost 20 million jobs. Based upon the deficits of Carter, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and now Obama, Reagan was a fiscal conservative.
 
[quote

Ronald Reagan set a record for vetoes



In our govt. the Congress spends the money, not the President. Reagan generated the revenue and Congress spent it. There is a website for OMB given in one of these posts on this tread. Learn where the spending occurred.



I praise Reagan for empowering the American people and creating an economy that generated almost 20 million jobs. Based upon the deficits of Carter, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and now Obama, Reagan was a fiscal conservative.

So you give Reagan credit for tax cuts that have to be approved by Congress, and dont give congress any of that credit

But for spending you blame congress despite almost all spending has to be approved by Reagan (unless veto proof)

Sound logic you have
 
So you give Reagan credit for tax cuts that have to be approved by Congress, and dont give congress any of that credit

But for spending you blame congress despite almost all spending has to be approved by Reagan (unless veto proof)

Sound logic you have

Congress rejected the tax cuts until Reagan took his case to the American people. It was the American people that changed Congress, not the Representatives there.

You still didn't tell me how old you are and what makes you an expert on Reagan or what he did. I posted a link to an analysis of the Reagan years. Suggest you read it

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
 
Congress rejected the tax cuts until Reagan took his case to the American people. It was the American people that changed Congress, not the Representatives there.

You still didn't tell me how old you are and what makes you an expert on Reagan or what he did. I posted a link to an analysis of the Reagan years. Suggest you read it

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

It doesnt matter how old I am. I could be 70 or I could be 20

I am not an expert on Reagan, but I have a very good understanding of economics, something I have followed since the Reagan admin. In fact during the Reagan Admin I thought his economic policies were pretty good.

Then I got an understanding of finance and economic and how they both interact.

For instance take a look at the following charts (which you have seen before)

File:USDebt.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For this discussion the second one is important as it takes into account the growth in the economy.

Notice how federal government debt as % of GDP is generally flat or decreasing for the couple of decades preceding the Reagan years. That means the debt burden of the federal government did not increase all that much in relation to the economy. Overall during that time government spending was not all that stimulative to the economy. Now take a look at what happens at about 1982 on the chart. The debt as a % of GDP starts to expand from around 25% (poorly designed charts) to around 40%. This is an increase in the debt load of the federal government. Meaning the deficit as % of GDP was bigger then the GDP growth rate.

Overall the Reagan admin was following Keynsian economics throughout its entire time in office. Government spending was being used to stimulate economic growth. That is a plan fact. Any government using borrowed money to stimulate the economy is not fiscally conservative, especially if it is doing it during good economic times ( last 5 years of the Reagan admin)

The GWB admin followed pretty much the same economic policies with an even worse eventual outcome for the country. The RE bubble dwarfed the S&L crisis.

Overall I got a far better understanding of economics, and did not let hero worship get in the way of a rational understanding what actually went on
 
It doesnt matter how old I am. I could be 70 or I could be 20

I am not an expert on Reagan, but I have a very good understanding of economics, something I have followed since the Reagan admin. In fact during the Reagan Admin I thought his economic policies were pretty good.

Then I got an understanding of finance and economic and how they both interact.

For instance take a look at the following charts (which you have seen before)

File:USDebt.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For this discussion the second one is important as it takes into account the growth in the economy.

Notice how federal government debt as % of GDP is generally flat or decreasing for the couple of decades preceding the Reagan years. That means the debt burden of the federal government did not increase all that much in relation to the economy. Overall during that time government spending was not all that stimulative to the economy. Now take a look at what happens at about 1982 on the chart. The debt as a % of GDP starts to expand from around 25% (poorly designed charts) to around 40%. This is an increase in the debt load of the federal government. Meaning the deficit as % of GDP was bigger then the GDP growth rate.

Overall the Reagan admin was following Keynsian economics throughout its entire time in office. Government spending was being used to stimulate economic growth. That is a plan fact. Any government using borrowed money to stimulate the economy is not fiscally conservative, especially if it is doing it during good economic times ( last 5 years of the Reagan admin)

The GWB admin followed pretty much the same economic policies with an even worse eventual outcome for the country. The RE bubble dwarfed the S&L crisis.

Overall I got a far better understanding of economics, and did not let hero worship get in the way of a rational understanding what actually went on

it isn't hero worship, never has and never will be, but the reality is it was all about empowering people. You still haven't a clue as to how our govt. works in this country. Congress spends the money and although Reagan wanted the line item veto he wasn't given that line item veto. Congress attached spending bills to major pieces of legislation that Reagan needed to get the country out of the Carter induced malaise and economic disaster.

This country had 20+% interest rates, double digit inflation and rising unemployment. It is easy to blame Reagan while ignoring what he actually inherited.

What you want to ignore is the doubling of GDP, the doubling of Govt. revenue, and the creation of 20 million jobs. The increase in the debt at the time was a small price to pay for the empowerment of the American people and getting this country out of the Carter economic mess.
 
it isn't hero worship, never has and never will be, but the reality is it was all about empowering people. You still haven't a clue as to how our govt. works in this country. Congress spends the money and although Reagan wanted the line item veto he wasn't given that line item veto. Congress attached spending bills to major pieces of legislation that Reagan needed to get the country out of the Carter induced malaise and economic disaster.

This country had 20+% interest rates, double digit inflation and rising unemployment. It is easy to blame Reagan while ignoring what he actually inherited.

What you want to ignore is the doubling of GDP, the doubling of Govt. revenue, and the creation of 20 million jobs. The increase in the debt at the time was a small price to pay for the empowerment of the American people and getting this country out of the Carter economic mess.

The 20% interest rates were brought in by Volker to take control over the inflation rate and did infact cause a severe recession early in the Reagan admin

You just dont get it

Your bull over empowering people can be used by Obama taking on debt saying it's justified to get the US out of the economic mess left by Bush.

The Debt as a % of GDP accounts for the the doubling of the GDP It is the ratio of debt to the GDP which is why I used that reference rather then just federal government debt.

As for government revenue you could triple it, or quintuple it, but if you increase spending even more you are increasing the debt. And in the case of most government leaving it for future generations to pay off.

The Reagan admin was not fiscally conservative, it was Keynsian
 
Back
Top Bottom