• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,290
Reaction score
26,910
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Easy question. Yes or no. and Explain why.
 
Last edited:
Yes. He did all he could to slow the expansion of government in the face of a hostile Congress. He cut domestic discretionary spending more than any other president, even though he only got half of the cuts that he wanted. He wasn't perfect, but he's as small-government a president we've had at least since Coolidge.
 
Yes. He did all he could to slow the expansion of government in the face of a hostile Congress. He cut domestic discretionary spending more than any other president, even though he only got half of the cuts that he wanted. He wasn't perfect, but he's as small-government a president we've had at least since Coolidge.

Since when was the military not part of the government? :2wave:

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

According to this:

AEI - Papers

Reagan's net cuts are chump change compared to other presidents.
 
Since when was the military not part of the government? :2wave:

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

According to this:

AEI - Papers

Reagan's net cuts are chump change compared to other presidents.

The main difference is that his military spending was intended to be temporary, while welfare spending never is. By cutting domestic spending to a reasonable level, and contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union, which permitted cutting military spending a huge amount, Reagan's budget allowed for the surpluses of the 90's even though no president after him cut domestic spending.

That's not to mention that, as I already said, he only got half of the cuts he wanted.
 
Last edited:
By cutting domestic spending to a reasonable level, which permitted cutting military spending a huge amount, Reagan's budget allowed for the surpluses of the 90's even though no president after him cut domestic spending.

Reagan didn't cut domestic spending. It actually went up under him.

The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

Volume VI said:
In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
 
Reagan didn't cut domestic spending. It actually went up under him.

The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

True. Actually, the best fical conservative was Bill Clinton. I don't know what so hard with reduce spending. It's not like there isn't places to cut.

However, the worst have been the last 2 years, and the next 4. The deficit is going down, but that isn't because of reduced spending. It's because of increased taxes and still the deficit will be huge. Actually, federal spending is estimated to be aroung 43% of GDP in 2014, up from 35% in 2007. That's European level. You can look at spending here.
Government Spending Chart in United States 1940-2014 - Federal State Local
 
Last edited:
True. Actually, the best fical conservative was Bill Clinton. I don't know what so hard with reduce spending. It's not like there isn't places to cut.

Yes I heard a guy describing the importance of the Laffer curve on BBC World Service desrcie how the best supply sider in government had been Clinton. he was quite caustic as to Clinton the person but clear that Clinton the conservative was a good thing to a right wing economist.

Reagan talked the talk but didn't walk it. Ultimately he was a big government guy who hated social dependency and confused the two issues. Thatcher was the same.
 
Interesting topic. There are two different questions here, however. A fiscal conservative isn't necessarily a small government conservative. The two are linked but not synonymous.

Two (and certainly more if we spend time thinking about it ) aspects of government aren't necessarily dependent on adjustments to departmental budgets:
  1. Government involvement in the imposition of particular moral and ethical standards on the individual citizen
  2. Political interference in the professional decisions of workers not involved in the governmental process
Small government advocates would see it as indispensible that government promotes the freedom of the individual to make their own personal and professional decisions free from political coercion where those decisions do not impinge upon the ability of other individuals to exercise the same right.

I'm not American and did not visit the US until long after Reagan left office, so I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether he can be seen as a small government advocate on these terms. I do think that, in answering the OP question, issues beyond who spent more, who cut more budgets should be considered.
 
Last edited:
no and yes
he was unwilling to seek efficiencies within the DoD segment of government
but his was the regime when the 'starve the beast' strategy was implemented
by spending enormous revenues on defense while effecting tax cuts, ronnie raygun was forcing cuts in federal programs ... the social safety net:
... During the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan endorsed the Kemp-Roth tax cut, but he also insisted that he would sharply cut government spending. Upon taking office in 1981, he followed through on this promise and asked Congress for spending cuts as well as tax cuts (White House 1981). However, Reagan was unwilling to hold his tax cuts hostage to congressional inaction on spending. In explaining why tax cuts should precede spending cuts, he said that the former would pave the way for the latter, as the starve-the-beast theory posited. In a national television address on February 5, 1981, Reagan explained: “Over the past decades we’ve talked of curtailing government spending so that we can then lower the tax burden. Sometimes we’ve even taken a run at doing that. But there were always those who told us that taxes couldn’t be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you know, we can lecture our children about extravagance until we run out of voice and breath. Or we can cure their extravagance by simply reducing their allowance” ...
an early example of 'compassionate' conservatism from uncle ronnie

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf
 
Yes I heard a guy describing the importance of the Laffer curve on BBC World Service desrcie how the best supply sider in government had been Clinton. he was quite caustic as to Clinton the person but clear that Clinton the conservative was a good thing to a right wing economist.

Reagan talked the talk but didn't walk it. Ultimately he was a big government guy who hated social dependency and confused the two issues. Thatcher was the same.

You're right, but not about Thatcher. In my opinion she was probably the best Prime minister UK has ever had. She first got a broken economy, so she had to increase spending somewhat. I mean the unemployment rate was around 12-14%. However, it was nothing like Obama who increased it with 7-8%. She only increased it with 1-2%. In the years thereafter she decreased spending from 46% to 35% of GDP. She destroyed the unions who crippled the economy. She gave people the possibility to decide how many hours they wanted to work. She let people get their wage decided by their merits instead of by union officals and after that the UK economy has had high growth rates compared to France and Germany who was in better shape than UK in 1979.

You must remember that UK was hit really badly by unions. If she didn't take office, then I'm guessing UK would end up like New Zealand. New Zealand went from beeing at Australia's level to a much poorer country and guess what. They got fed up with the labour unions as well, and did even more market reforms than the UK.

I'm moving to New Zealand in five days, so I know a little about them as well.
 
Last edited:
No.

Borrow and spend.
 
Reagan didn't cut domestic spending. It actually went up under him.

The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

No. He temporarily increased defense spending by a lot as part of his cold war strategy, but he cut domestic spending more than any other president; in fact, he's the only one to do so in the last 45 years.



20040609_Table3.gif
 
No. He temporarily increased

So then he moved money around to suit his needs. That is still part of the budget whether your write it in the invisible ink of defence spending or not. If instead of paying 600$ for your rent you spend $530 and then use $90 dollars to pay for cable, you're not actually spending less.
 
So then he moved money around to suit his needs. That is still part of the budget whether your write it in the invisible ink of defence spending or not. If instead of paying 600$ for your rent you spend $530 and then use $90 dollars to pay for cable, you're not actually spending less.

You said he didn't cut domestic spending though. I was just correcting you.
 
There has never been a fiscal/small government conservative or Democrat in my lifetime. There have been many "selective" fiscal conservatives and Reagan is a perfect example.

Reagan did exactly what every President tries to do; cut spending on the programs he doesn't like, while increasing spending on the ones he does. Reagan also had to deal with a Democratic congress. So all spending (and cuts) have to go through them. Poor ol Reagan shouldn't get all of the blame or the credit for anything.
 
You said he didn't cut domestic spending though. I was just correcting you.

So then you don't consider national defence to be domestic spending.
 
So then you don't consider national defence to be domestic spending.

By most definitions, it isn't. If it makes you feel better, though, just replace "domestic" with "non-defense".
 
By most definitions, it isn't. If it makes you feel better, though, just replace "domestic" with "non-defense".

So then it's just a feel good name for spending you don't want to consider when making the final budget? For example. Say your monthly rent and phone bill are together $900. However this month you only pay $820 because you have to pay a $190 parking ticket. Can you say you've lowered your "domestic spending" and thus have become fiscally conservative?
 
Last edited:
His policies where great short term ones. They only worked if you never even planned on there being a future though. You can only spend so much with out replacing the money you are spending for so long. Once the money runs out and no one will give you a lone you have a big problem on your hands.
 
Last edited:
So then it's just a feel good name for spending you don't want to consider when making the final budget? For example. Say your monthly rent and phone bill are together $900. However this month you only pay $820 because you have to pay a $190 parking ticket. Can you say you've lowered your "domestic spending" and thus have become fiscally conservative?

Dav and I have been round and round on this. My opinion is that saying that you cut spending, except for the spending you like, and overall increased spending, and massively increased the deficit, then you are not a fiscal conservative. This whole idea that you can count only the spending that supports your claim, while ignoring the rest is a copout to my mind.
 
Dav and I have been round and round on this. My opinion is that saying that you cut spending, except for the spending you like, and overall increased spending, and massively increased the deficit, then you are not a fiscal conservative. This whole idea that you can count only the spending that supports your claim, while ignoring the rest is a copout to my mind.

Well we all know that it's not really spending if it is only temporary spending.
 
The main difference is that his military spending was intended to be temporary, while welfare spending never is.

So you change your statement. Government by your definition didn't go up because it's temporary, never mind that government did actually increase under Reagan. Removing your cop out, you are wrong.

By cutting domestic spending to a reasonable level

Reasonable? Seriously? Military spending is still domestic in how the dollars flow. And Reagan's military spending was massive.

and contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union, which permitted cutting military spending a huge amount, Reagan's budget allowed for the surpluses of the 90's even though no president after him cut domestic spending.

You posted the charts I posted....and yet you say that.

That makes little sense. Total discretionary dropped under Bush and Clinton proving you again wrong. How can you claim no other president did that when you posted charts showing other presidents after him did that?

That's not to mention that, as I already said, he only got half of the cuts he wanted.

I smell a cult of Reagan follower here.
 
Back
Top Bottom