• 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
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is it exactly in the Cato analysis that is a lie?

I am still waiting for where you got your numbers for the budget and do you have a clue as to how much the budget was for the military? How about what is discretionary vs. non discretionary spending that you want to blame Reagan for increasing.

I am still waiting for exactly what Clinton proposed then signed which led to the strong economy you want to give him credit for?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Easy question. Yes or no. and Explain why.
Click to expand...

No, because he was the first president since 1950 to increase our debt as a percentage of the GDP.
 
Catawba said:
No, because he was the first president since 1950 to increase our debt as a percentage of the GDP.
Click to expand...

Does debt only matter to you when it occurs during a Republican Administration? Does Congress have any role in creating that debt?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Your libertarian????
Click to expand...

I cannot intelligently quantify the amount of money required to keep our country safe and neither can anyone else on this forum. I'm not sure what that has to do with libertarianism...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just because I refuse to accept your partisan narrative without question does not mean I'm a "typical Reagan Republican". I've been fooled by too many liberal talking points to start trusting them now. Virtually every time the left says something is manifestly obvious it turns out that it's not obvious at all and is in fact totally wrong. Their common tactic is to declare something true and repeat it as loudly as possible as many times as possible while insulting and labeling anyone who disagrees with them. Kind of like what you're doing right now...
 
Conservative said:
Does debt only matter to you when it occurs during a Republican Administration?
Click to expand...

Yes, when the OP is: "Was Reagan a fiscal/small government conservative?"
 
Nobody is arguing that Reagan was a horrible president, or blaming him for deficits. What i believe the "no" aspect of the spectrum is trying to point out (ad nauseam) is that deficits do matter if someone wants to be considered a fiscal conservative.
 
MHO is he did the best he could with what he had to deal with. The Democrats ruled in Congress.
 
Ethereal said:
I cannot intelligently quantify the amount of money required to keep our country safe and neither can anyone else on this forum. I'm not sure what that has to do with libertarianism...
Click to expand...

It has a lot to do with libertarianism. If you basically believe the federal government should be given a blank check for anything they deem as defense - because no one can quantify the amount of money required to keep our country safe, then that is about as anti-libertarian of an argument as it gets.
 
Reagan was a decent president in my opinion, but his rapid expansion of the drug war was anything but a small government principle. Sure as hell not what I would call a "fiscal conservative" principle either... Other than that and a few other things, decent president.
 
Catawba said:
Yes, when the OP is: "Was Reagan a fiscal/small government conservative?"
Click to expand...

It would help if you found out where there spending went during the Reagan years and who actually spent the money.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Nobody is arguing that Reagan was a horrible president, or blaming him for deficits. What i believe the "no" aspect of the spectrum is trying to point out (ad nauseam) is that deficits do matter if someone wants to be considered a fiscal conservative.
Click to expand...
Who is nobody, you?
 
Conservative said:
It would help if you found out where there spending went during the Reagan years and who actually spent the money.
Click to expand...

and that information would prove that regan was no fiscal conservative
it would confirm him to have been a social conservative
 
American said:
Who is nobody, you?
Click to expand...

Are you Odysseus?

All kidding aside, care to point out where i stated he was a bad president? Or is this just the typical drive by comment that lacks substance?
 
justabubba said:
and that information would prove that regan was no fiscal conservative
it would confirm him to have been a social conservative
Click to expand...

No, it would prove the that Democrats attached social spending bills to tax and military appropriations and without the line item veto Reagan signed them.
 
Conservative said:
No, it would prove the that Democrats attached social spending bills to tax and military appropriations and without the line item veto Reagan signed them.
Click to expand...

prove it
............
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Nobody is arguing that Reagan was a horrible president, or blaming him for deficits. What i believe the "no" aspect of the spectrum is trying to point out (ad nauseam) is that deficits do matter if someone wants to be considered a fiscal conservative.
Click to expand...

No one held a gun to his head and forced him to sign those budgets into law.

Let's not forget that the massive expansion of military spending was his idea. That was a large part of what caused the deficits. You can argue about its worth (did it expedite the end of the Soviet era? You decide.); but you can't argue the fact that he presided over the greatest growth in deficit-spending of any president up to that point (who wasn't involved in active conflict).

Let us not forget that along with his tax cuts; he also presided over many tax hikes.

He also made the Department of Veteran's Affairs a Cabinet Level Department of Government - which (again, regardless of your opinion of the VA) is an expansion of government.

I'm not the only one. According to this uber-conservative think tank - Reagan actually expanded government more than Carter did.

So, this isn't a criticism from my perspective. But Reagan was - in NO way - a small government conservative. He may have spoke that frequently; but his actions continually expanded government and spending.
 
Conservative said:
Why? If I proved it you would just ignore it. Doesn't matter what actually happened as you are going to believe what you think happened.
Click to expand...

This thread has an audience of one? Prove it!;)

I promise i won't ignore it.
 
Conservative said:
Read the Cato analysis I posted on this thread, read the history of the Reagan years and Reagan spending.
Click to expand...

I didn't make any claims that he was powerless to cut any spending he deemed necessary, and therefore the deficit was out of his control.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I didn't make any claims that he was powerless to cut any spending he deemed necessary, and therefore the deficit was out of his control.
Click to expand...

Here is another good analysis of the Reagan economy and states how Congress refused to work with him on Domestic spending. Had Congress cut domestic spending as Reagan wanted this article claims the budget would have balanced and there wouldn't have been the debt incurred.

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
 
Conservative said:
Here is another good analysis of the Reagan economy and states how Congress refused to work with him on Domestic spending. Had Congress cut domestic spending as Reagan wanted this article claims the budget would have balanced and there wouldn't have been the debt incurred.

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy
Click to expand...

Again, no one held a gun to his head and made him sign any of those budgets; no one MADE him expand government by creating a new cabinet-level department; no one made him expand military spending as much as he did.

Again, you can judge the outcomes; but he was NOT a small-government conservative. He expanded government even more than Carter did; definitely more than Clinton did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom