• 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
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

I get it quite well, Obama has a vision of making this country just like any European Socialist nation which has low economic growth, high unemployment, and high taxes

As for the so called mess that Bush left, I again state you haven't a clue how our govt. works. We have three equal branches of govt. except apparently when people like you want to place blame. Congress is every bit as much to blame if not more than Bush. Obama was in that Congress.

Don't you find it somewhat interesting that Obama was in the State legislature of Illinois as the state went bankrupt and is probably beyond saving. Then he was elected to Congress and has helped destroy the U.S. Economy. Now that his hope and change you can believe in.

If you are concerned about debt to GDP ratio was high during Reagan what is it now? Obama has proposed deficits of over 3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and 2011 on top of the joint deficit of 1.47 trillion in 2009. That is almost the entire Bush debt in 8 years.

Govt. revenue is NOT growing because there are over 15 million unemployed Americans. Reagan knew that employed people pay taxes and it was the focus on tax cuts that stimulated and grew the economy that created those jobs.

Based upon the debt that GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and now Obama created Reagan was a fiscal conservative.
 
I get it quite well, Obama has a vision of making this country just like any European Socialist nation which has low economic growth, high unemployment, and high taxes

As for the so called mess that Bush left, I again state you haven't a clue how our govt. works. We have three equal branches of govt. except apparently when people like you want to place blame. Congress is every bit as much to blame if not more than Bush. Obama was in that Congress.
Too bad you dont share that same attitude towards all administrations.
Don't you find it somewhat interesting that Obama was in the State legislature of Illinois as the state went bankrupt and is probably beyond saving. Then he was elected to Congress and has helped destroy the U.S. Economy. Now that his hope and change you can believe in.
Dont particularly care about Obama
If you are concerned about debt to GDP ratio was high during Reagan what is it now? Obama has proposed deficits of over 3 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and 2011 on top of the joint deficit of 1.47 trillion in 2009. That is almost the entire Bush debt in 8 years.
Yes and it is a horrible thing to be doing.
Govt. revenue is NOT growing because there are over 15 million unemployed Americans. Reagan knew that employed people pay taxes and it was the focus on tax cuts that stimulated and grew the economy that created those jobs.
There is no growth to be had untill people, companies and government pay down their debts to more reasonable level
Based upon the debt that GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and now Obama created Reagan was a fiscal conservative.

TAKE ANOTHER FREAKIN look at the charts in the link I provided

Under the CLINTON ADMIN, debt as a % of GDP declined. Something the Reagan admin cant even dream of

This will be the last time I respond to any of your posts unless you start responding with facts rather then ideological based faith based memories
 
Too bad you dont share that same attitude towards all administrations.
Dont particularly care about Obama Yes and it is a horrible thing to be doing.
There is no growth to be had untill people, companies and government pay down their debts to more reasonable level


TAKE ANOTHER FREAKIN look at the charts in the link I provided

Under the CLINTON ADMIN, debt as a % of GDP declined. Something the Reagan admin cant even dream of

This will be the last time I respond to any of your posts unless you start responding with facts rather then ideological based faith based memories

Why did the debt as a percent of GDP decline? What legislation did Clinton author and sign that led to that?

I don't give a damn about your charts but I do care about the information that goes into them and how it got there.

People cannot pay down debt if their taxes go up and Reagan knew that. I got out of debt during the Reagan years thanks to the tax cuts and some good investments with that money. I took advantage of the economic growth and thus need less govt. "help."

Whether you respond to my posts or not is irrelevant to me. I know what drives the American economy, I know what caused the Reagan debt, I know what caused the Clinton debt, I know what caused the Bush debt, and I know what Obama is doing that is going to cost this country our greatness.
 
Why did the debt as a percent of GDP decline? What legislation did Clinton author and sign that led to that?
The economy was growing, tax revenues were increasing and spending was restrained. And as tax revenues and the economy was growing faster then spending the debt decreased as % of GDP

As for why the economy was growing is another story entirely.
I don't give a damn about your charts but I do care about the information that goes into them and how it got there.

People cannot pay down debt if their taxes go up and Reagan knew that. I got out of debt during the Reagan years thanks to the tax cuts and some good investments with that money. I took advantage of the economic growth and thus need less govt. "help."
People can most certainly pay down debts if taxes go up. They just cut back more on spending.

I havent needed govenment help since I was in school ( ie state funded schools). I have never as an adult been on unemployement, welfare or any other government assistance. I took advantage of the opportunities around me and did not wait for the government to create them, be it Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama
Whether you respond to my posts or not is irrelevant to me. I know what drives the American economy, I know what caused the Reagan debt, I know what caused the Clinton debt, I know what caused the Bush debt, and I know what Obama is doing that is going to cost this country our greatness.

Obama is unfortunately following in the footsteps, of Nixon, Reagan, Clinton (to a lesser degree) and GWB. All supporters of government stimulus to make fake economic growth, that the future has to pay for. Unfortunately for Obama the jig is just about up.

The US is a member of the PIGS now, and just like the PIGS, it is not something that occurred over night, but something that evolved over decades of politicians seeking to appease voters instead of making the tough choices sooner rather then later
 
Yes but!

Reagan hod the help of the Fed in getting the economy under control but he spent a great deal in a bluff that helped take down the USSR.

Reagan's policy reducing Taxes ans limited spending is what caused the recovery of the economy.

It is impossible to completely stop spending and defeat and enemy. If you look at the economic growth that resulted from Reagan policies.
 
Yes but!

Reagan hod the help of the Fed in getting the economy under control but he spent a great deal in a bluff that helped take down the USSR.

Reagan's policy reducing Taxes ans limited spending is what caused the recovery of the economy.

It is impossible to completely stop spending and defeat and enemy. If you look at the economic growth that resulted from Reagan policies.

For the last time

HE DID NOT LIMIT SPENDING

After the first couple of years the Reagan admin DID NOT LIMIT SPENDING. It increased faster then revenues and increased faster then the economy grew. That is not limited spending. By anyones books that is spending like a drunken sailor.


You mean to increase the overall debt loads of the government and individuals in the US. Creating a debt fueled orgy of consumer spending that took the US from actually savin some money to having a negative savings rate by the end of the Bush admin. You mean by starting the hollowing out of the US manufacturing base to foreign low cost area's and focusing on creating service sector jobs where people trade a hair cut for cleaning their house as economic growth. By all means appluad that style of growth


Personally give me the economic growth of places like South Korea from the mid to late 80s' till now. True growth built on wealth creation not debt creation.

Growth built on debt creation is temporal, and will come crashing down hard. As seen in Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Greece ect. Growth built on wealth creation is sustainable, and will last until moronic policies promoting consumer(can include corporations) debt as the means for economic growth are promoted.


I think Americans in genera need to be reminded of this factiod


During the Reagan administration the US went from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation

For those that do not know that that means

A creditor nations is one who owns the debt of foreign nations (consumer, government, corporate). It will tend to collect more in interest payments then it will pay out. Interest of course is a free wealth transfer to the creditor.

A debtor nation is one that owe more to foreign nations then it is owed. It tends to send out interest payments to foreign nations at a level higher then it gets in return. During the Reagan admin the US moved from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation, and in fact surpassed Brazil as the largest debtor nation during the Reagan admin.

A debt fueled orgy of consumption, is sweet while it lasts. To bad the hangover is a real female dog
 
Last edited:
Yet conservative critics insist Bush is no Ronald Reagan--and they're right. Reagan was the leader of the conservative movement before he entered the White House. In his initial years as president, he cut taxes as boldly as Bush and curbed domestic spending. But Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ.

Big-Government Conservatism | The Weekly Standard
 
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.

I assume it was because that's what the country and the military expected him to do. Unlike you, he didn't have the luxury of hindsight.

Good thing Reagan wasn't a completely ignorant America of the 1980s.

So, Reagan had access to the facts and just ignored them? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying the President of the U.S. knew as much about Russia as the average American? Doubt that.

Reagan certainly knew more about Russia than you do, which is why his decision to increase military spending outweighs your hindsight.
 
No, because of his military involvement with Libya, his Christian rhetoric, etc etc. Much more of a neoconservative IMO.
 
He tripled the national debt while in office, thats not exactly "comparatively well".

Well, how much of the debt was due to military spending and how much of the debt was due to entitlement/social programs?

Since the military spending is unquestionably Constitutional and arguably essential (in light of the Cold War), you can hardly blame Reagan for that portion of the debt, which leaves social spending, and we all know who's responsible for the majority of that.

My earlier point was, if you want to fault Reagan for wasting too much money militarize-wise, then I would say he did comparatively well given the nature of the conflict.


Could you cite some of the relevant figures and provide the page number? That's quite a large PDF.

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

I guess I do. I've been fooled by far too many liberal talking points to assume that this one is true.

I would need to hear a sound argument one way or the other before I made a decision. If you don't want to convince me of your argument, that's fine.
 
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 off, who on earth does not think that cutting taxes was a good thing when the top marginal rate was 70%. No one is disputing that.

However, discretionary spending growth averaged 11% year over year through the Reagan years. Thats not fiscal conservatism.

Year over year discretionary spending growth averaged 3% during the Clinton years. Once you figure in inflation and population growth, that amounts to a reduction in the fiscal size of government over in the Clinton era. Clinton certainly was not a fiscal conservative, but comes far closer to being one than Reagan ever did. Had Bush Sr. not raised taxes, discretionary spending not been curbed in the 90s, and taxes not raised again in 93, we would have been insolvent by 2000.

When Reagan took office, federal public debt was 34% of GDP. When he left office it had exploded to 55% of GDP. In terms of economic growth, the 1980s lagged both the 1960s and the 1990s. So despite the exploding deficits, economic growth at the time was not that remarkable. Reagan's legacy is that he hastened the end of the Cold War. That will mark him down in the history books as having a successful presidency. However trying to portray him as a fiscal conservative is nothing but trying to polish a turd. Carter, Clinton, Bush Sr, Nixon, and Eisenhower all did a better job of curbing the growth of government than Reagan did.
 
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

Military spending in a time of war is not a 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)

The legislature has exclusive power to appropriate funds.
 
First off, who on earth does not think that cutting taxes was a good thing when the top marginal rate was 70%. No one is disputing that.

However, discretionary spending growth averaged 11% year over year through the Reagan years. Thats not fiscal conservatism.

Year over year discretionary spending growth averaged 3% during the Clinton years. Once you figure in inflation and population growth, that amounts to a reduction in the fiscal size of government over in the Clinton era. Clinton certainly was not a fiscal conservative, but comes far closer to being one than Reagan ever did. Had Bush Sr. not raised taxes, discretionary spending not been curbed in the 90s, and taxes not raised again in 93, we would have been insolvent by 2000.

When Reagan took office, federal public debt was 34% of GDP. When he left office it had exploded to 55% of GDP. In terms of economic growth, the 1980s lagged both the 1960s and the 1990s. So despite the exploding deficits, economic growth at the time was not that remarkable. Reagan's legacy is that he hastened the end of the Cold War. That will mark him down in the history books as having a successful presidency. However trying to portray him as a fiscal conservative is nothing but trying to polish a turd. Carter, Clinton, Bush Sr, Nixon, and Eisenhower all did a better job of curbing the growth of government than Reagan did.

How convenient, you ignore the recession that was building from the Carter years and hit this country hard in the early 80's, that is why the economic growth lagged behind other years. Take those first two years out and recalculate.

I posted a link to an analysis of the Reagan years, obviously you ignored it. You have a very distorted view of the Reagan years, probably generated by some textbook or leftwing professor that ignores actual reality.

I don't know where you get your information but to blame Reagan for the debt that occurred is a typical liberal ploy of placing blame in hopes that the ignorant believe you. We have three equal branches of govt. except when something bad happens then it is the President's fault if that President is in the opposite political party as the one making the claim. Fact is Congress spends the money, and the President cannot spend a dime without Congressional Approval. Any debt generated is just as much the fault of Congress as it is the President's

It is hard arguing with someone who really hasn't a clue as to how our govt. works and has a very poor understanding of civics. It is hard debating the information you offer without providing the source of that information.
 
Well, how much of the debt was due to military spending and how much of the debt was due to entitlement/social programs?

Since the military spending is unquestionably Constitutional and arguably essential (in light of the Cold War), you can hardly blame Reagan for that portion of the debt, which leaves social spending, and we all know who's responsible for the majority of that.

First off, this argument that the founders intended for us to spend more than the next 18 to 20 nations combined is absurd. Many of them were classical liberals. They did not even want the United States to have a standing army. Instead they wanted the government to depend up citizen militias to defend the nation. Their reasoning was that a government could never become totalitarian if it had to depend on its citizens to defend it.

So yes, rampant defense spending growth in the Reagan years and the corruption that lead to 700 dollar hammers and 1100 dollar toilet sets was entire the Reagan Administrations doing.

Secondly, payroll taxes pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are your big entitlements, and they had surpluses at the time. The problem was rampant growth in discretionary spending during the Reagan years.
 
First off, this argument that the founders intended for us to spend more than the next 18 to 20 nations combined is absurd. Many of them were classical liberals. They did not even want the United States to have a standing army. Instead they wanted the government to depend up citizen militias to defend the nation. Their reasoning was that a government could never become totalitarian if it had to depend on its citizens to defend it.

So yes, rampant defense spending growth in the Reagan years and the corruption that lead to 700 dollar hammers and 1100 dollar toilet sets was entire the Reagan Administrations doing.

Secondly, payroll taxes pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are your big entitlements, and they had surpluses at the time. The problem was rampant growth in discretionary spending during the Reagan years.

How much did Reagan increase the military budget in real dollars? get the facts and stop with the opinion. Why don't you define discretionary spending for us and how much of that budget is discretionary spending?
 
How convenient, you ignore the recession that was building from the Carter years and hit this country hard in the early 80's, that is why the economic growth lagged behind other years. Take those first two years out and recalculate.

The federal reserve deliberately brought about a deep recession in order to choke rampant inflation out the economy.

I posted a link to an analysis of the Reagan years, obviously you ignored it. You have a very distorted view of the Reagan years, probably generated by some textbook or leftwing professor that ignores actual reality.

It was not a professor that planted this view with me. It was me looking at the numbers.

I don't know where you get your information but to blame Reagan for the debt that occurred is a typical liberal ploy of placing blame in hopes that the ignorant believe you. We have three equal branches of govt. except when something bad happens then it is the President's fault if that President is in the opposite political party as the one making the claim. Fact is Congress spends the money, and the President cannot spend a dime without Congressional Approval. Any debt generated is just as much the fault of Congress as it is the President's

1. The senate was in Republican hands from 1982 to 1987.

2. Reagan's budget proposals most years were not that much lower than what congress actually passed.

3. Reagan could have vetoed any spending bills he wanted.

It is hard arguing with someone who really hasn't a clue as to how our govt. works and has a very poor understanding of civics. It is hard debating the information you offer without providing the source of that information.

Good God, you would thing I was attacking Jesus or something when I point out that the Republican Messiah was not really that much of a fiscal conservative.
 
Military spending in a time of war is not a problem.



The legislature has exclusive power to appropriate funds.

So you didnt mind then when the Bush 1 and Clinton admins cut military spending?

No cold war to fight the only thing close to a war the Reagan admin had Grenada excepted of course
 
=SouthernDemocrat;1058581662]The federal reserve deliberately brought about a deep recession in order to choke rampant inflation out the economy.

Yes, and that affected economic growth in 1981-1982, two years which you use to distort the Reagan record.



It was not a professor that planted this view with me. It was me looking at the numbers.


1. The senate was in Republican hands from 1982 to 1987.

2. Reagan's budget proposals most years were not that much lower than what congress actually passed.

3. Reagan could have vetoed any spending bills he wanted.

Where do you get your numbers? Mine come from Bea.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury sites.

Here are the facts regarding the Reagan record

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120


Good God, you would thing I was attacking Jesus or something when I point out that the Republican Messiah was not really that much of a fiscal conservative


You miss the point completely, Reagan's record is being distorted by whatever site you use or you don't understand what went into those numbers.
 
Last edited:
No, because of his military involvement with Libya, his Christian rhetoric, etc etc. Much more of a neoconservative IMO.
Pure rhetoric, you don't know what you're talking about. :roll:
 
It's quite obvious that the liberals around here don't know the difference between neocon, conservative and libertarian. Reagan attack Libya, so he's a neocon. How stupid is that? Only libertarians are noninterventionist peaceniks. Liberals think if they can paint Reagan as a neocon everyone will hate him. Well dream on libs, Reagan was loved by the American people and nothing you ever say will change that. They'll hate that peanut farmer, giggolo and socialist you people put in office before Reagan will every cross their minds.
 
First off, this argument that the founders intended for us to spend more than the next 18 to 20 nations combined is absurd.

The Founders didn't have to fight the Soviets, and they didn't place any restrictions on military spending in the Constitution.

Many of them were classical liberals. They did not even want the United States to have a standing army. Instead they wanted the government to depend up citizen militias to defend the nation.

This is philosophical difference, not an issue about spending.

Their reasoning was that a government could never become totalitarian if it had to depend on its citizens to defend it.

It still is.

So yes, rampant defense spending growth in the Reagan years and the corruption that lead to 700 dollar hammers and 1100 dollar toilet sets was entire the Reagan Administrations doing.

I'm sure there was plenty of waste and corruption; it is the government after all, but waste in military spending is more acceptable than waste in entitlement/social programs.

Secondly, payroll taxes pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those are your big entitlements, and they had surpluses at the time. The problem was rampant growth in discretionary spending during the Reagan years.

None of this changes the fact that said entitlement programs required massive amounts of revenue, revenue that could be spent on any number of things, including the military.
 
So you didnt mind then when the Bush 1 and Clinton admins cut military spending?

No cold war to fight the only thing close to a war the Reagan admin had Grenada excepted of course

Unlike the people on this forum, I don't presume to know how much military spending is required to keep our country safe.
 

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.
 
The Founders didn't have to fight the Soviets, and they didn't place any restrictions on military spending in the Constitution.



This is philosophical difference, not an issue about spending.



It still is.



I'm sure there was plenty of waste and corruption; it is the government after all, but waste in military spending is more acceptable than waste in entitlement/social programs.



None of this changes the fact that said entitlement programs required massive amounts of revenue, revenue that could be spent on any number of things, including the military.

You have forfeited your right to call yourself a libertarian. You sir are a typical "Reagan Republican". That is the same kind of absurd neo-conservative arguments those guys have been making for 30 years now.
 
Back
Top Bottom