• 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
You mean, Congress were the model Keynesians.

Whatever you need to sleep at night. It should be noted that spending increases during times of economic recession is entirely Keynesian.
 
Whatever you need to sleep at night. It should be noted that spending increases during times of economic recession is entirely Keynesian.

Why should that matter, considering that most of the spending increases happened after the recession?
 
Why should that matter, considering that most of the spending increases happened after the recession?

So now it is a game of antics? Do yourself a favor before you reply. Research government spending as a percentage of GDP and figure out where it was at its highest (during Reagan's presidency). Meaning; was it higher prior to 1984 or after?
 
So now it is a game of antics? Do yourself a favor before you reply. Research government spending as a percentage of GDP and figure out where it was at its highest (during Reagan's presidency). Meaning; was it higher prior to 1984 or after?



It was highest 1982-83, but it didn't really change much, meaning that the spending didn't have to do with the recession. The vast majority of the spending still happened after the recession.
 


It was highest 1982-83, but it didn't really change much, meaning that the spending didn't have to do with the recession. The vast majority of the spending still happened after the recession.

Like i said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Keynesianism at is finest!
 
Like i said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Keynesianism at is finest!

Reagan was a supply-side economics President; he showed that Keynesian economics is a failure.

Ronald Reagan cut income taxes across the board and relaxed regulation, encouraging investments.

“…In 1983, the final year that the Reagan tax cuts went into effect, the U.S. economy commenced a 15-year period of economic growth. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989, and another 10 million since then. At a rate of 3.5%, the gross national product increased by a third during the rest of Reagan's term, and it has continued to expand at the slower but steady pace of 2.5% ever since then...”

“…Reagan's policies put the U.S. in a position to capitalize on the silicon revolution. It is easy to forget that when Reagan was first elected, very few Americans owned a computer. Videocassette recorders were a novelty. Hardly anyone had an answering machine. All of this changed during the 1980s. Cellular phones were only introduced in 1983, yet by 1989 more than 20 million Americans owned one. Computers ceased to be used primarily by businesses and became a regular feature of the American home…”

“…Reagan didn't create this revolution, but whence came the venture capital for the new industries of the 1980s? The number of venture capital partnerships surged from 25 in the mid-1970s to more than 200 in the early 1980s. The pool of venture capital nearly doubled, from $5.8 billion in 1981 to $11.5 billion in 1983…”

How Reagan reelected Clinton - Forbes.com
 
Reagan was a supply-side economics President; he showed that Keynesian economics is a failure.

Considering the country was experience a disband from the Phillips curve, your comment has no bearing.

Ronald Reagan cut income taxes across the board and relaxed regulation, encouraging investments.

In doing so, he created deficits instantaneously.

“…In 1983, the final year that the Reagan tax cuts went into effect, the U.S. economy commenced a 15-year period of economic growth. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989, and another 10 million since then. At a rate of 3.5%, the gross national product increased by a third during the rest of Reagan's term, and it has continued to expand at the slower but steady pace of 2.5% ever since then...”

You missed the part where he raised government spending to go along with tax breaks to help push prices down.

usgs_line.php


“…Reagan's policies put the U.S. in a position to capitalize on the silicon revolution. It is easy to forget that when Reagan was first elected, very few Americans owned a computer. Videocassette recorders were a novelty. Hardly anyone had an answering machine. All of this changed during the 1980s. Cellular phones were only introduced in 1983, yet by 1989 more than 20 million Americans owned one. Computers ceased to be used primarily by businesses and became a regular feature of the American home…”

Reagan was responsible for the tech revolution??? Hardly seems accurate. I do believe that those engineers @ IBM, Apple, Texas Instrument, Microsoft, Phillips, etc.... had far more to do with the tech revolution than did President Reagan. Don't get me wrong, i think he was a wonderful president, just not fiscally conservative.

Do you have anything to comment on your own behalf, or is this a copy paste fest intended to allow you peaceful sleep like the rest of the conservative lot that shuns fiscal responsibility at every turn?
 
"Supply side" economics is merely the discredited "trickle-down" by another name. Openly mocked as "voodoo economics" by Reagan's then rival for the candidacy GHW Bush, who shortly afterward went silent on the subject when he was offered the role of running-mate.
 
Which is what the stimulus did much moreso than Reagan's military spending. You are using a double-standard here.

Wrong. While both expanded the debt to huge portions, Reagan's ridiculous spending on military was not needed. People here generally have no understanding of the modern economy. I doubt you have little understanding of just how bad interbank lending was. The huge amounts that Obama (and Bush) spent on the financial market was necessary. When banks stop lending to each other to cover daily short falls in reserve requirements out of fear of losing their money, we are in a world of ****. But instead of realizing that, we have morons here mouthing off without a clue about anything.

Prior to Reagan, we had superiority over the Soviets. Only during the beginning of the Cold War were we really behind.

In other words, if you think it's necessary, then you can do it and still be a fiscal conservative, but if you personally don't deem it necessary, then no fiscal conservative can do it.

Explain to me why it is financially conservative to blow the bank on a military that is unnecessary to stop an enemy you already have the capacity to defeat.

Let's see you try.
 
You don't count spending like that, because then everyone spends more and no one expets them to spend less in nominal terms. We do have inflation, and we do have wage and cost increases. You must remember that taxes follow the GDP.

A $100 billion increase over a few years over a starting base of $300 billion is not exactly something to ignore.

My feeling is that Presidents don't have that much power, and therfore can't influence Congress that much.

To somewhat of a degree. But presidents can veto bills. I never understood how anyone thought Bush was a fiscal con when he refused to veto his own party's outrageous spending.

Still, remember that earmarks are less then 1% of the budget. If you actually want to cut spending, you hit the big targets. Medicare/aid, Social and the military. Everything else by comparison is small potatoes.
 
Wrong. While both expanded the debt to huge portions, Reagan's ridiculous spending on military was not needed.

You are missing the point. Whether or not you think it is needed is irrelevant to the fact that according to you, if someone thinks that something is needed, then they can pay for it and still be a fiscal conservative. If someone thinks that large military spending is needed, then, whether or not you personally think it is, according to you, that person has every right to increase military spending, and still be a fiscal conservative.


I think it's batsh*t crazy to say that the stimulus was absolutely necessary. But you think it's necessary, and because of that, you think that you can support it while still being a fiscal conservative. The same logic applies to something which you think is batsh*t crazy to think is necessary.


For someone who is so obsessed with hypocrisy, you sure have a lot of it.
 
A $100 billion increase over a few years over a starting base of $300 billion is not exactly something to ignore.

Still, you don't count spending like that. You don't count number of voters to show that the Democratic party is doing well, you use the percentage of voters. You don't use nominal GDP to present the economic performance of the US, you use the real GDP. In this case, you use government spending as a percentage of GDP. If the government spending goes down in percentage then you cut spending, if it increases then you increase spending.
 
You are missing the point.

No it's not.

Whether or not you think it is needed is irrelevant to the fact that according to you

According to me? I asked you to show me how breaking the bank to increase a military that could already stop the Soviets was fiscally conservative. I see you have utterly, 100%, with flying flags, FAILED TO DO SO.

if someone thinks that something is needed, then they can pay for it and still be a fiscal conservative.

Wrong again! By all measures other then numbers, we could have stopped the Soviets before Reagan got into office. I seriously doubt you even understand just how close we came to collapse and what was necessary to get us back from the cliff.

How is spending money on an unnecessary military the same as spending money to prevent the collapse of the banking sector.

Wait, You won't answer.

If someone thinks that large military spending is needed, then, whether or not you personally think it is, according to you, that person has every right to increase military spending, and still be a fiscal conservative.

So basically, you don't have an actual argument. Where my argument is actually based on facts and what actually existed, you just attempt to attack my person beliefs rather then what my argument actually relies on. Essentially, all you are doing is little more then a veiled personal attack. I've asked you direct questions about the facts and actual arguments where all you do is make veiled attacks on me.

I think it's batsh*t crazy to say that the stimulus was absolutely necessary. But you think it's necessary, and because of that, you think that you can support it while still being a fiscal conservative. The same logic applies to something which you think is batsh*t crazy to think is necessary.

Hanging out with Conservative I see, the love of lying is rubbing off on you. I never said that the stimulus was absolutely necessary. I said that a stimulus in theory was a good idea. In fact, I have repetitively stated that the Obama stimulus failed. You lying about what I said doesn't help your argument and in fact casts you as extremely dishonest. Do I think Obama is a fiscal con? No. Do I think Bush was? No.

For someone who is so obsessed with hypocrisy, you sure have a lot of it.

Well, if you didn't make up **** about what I said and actually read what I wrote, you'd think otherwise. But it's always easier to pretend what we want people to be rather then actually look to see what they are.

To be brutally honest, I have far more educated and smarter then most of you. Hell, I talk about money velocity and most of you are scratching your heads as if that's another language. And yet many of you morons attack the fed.

Look at me. I'm Dav. I lie about what other say because I can't address their points
 
Last edited:
Still, you don't count spending like that.

To a degree you do.

You don't count number of voters to show that the Democratic party is doing well, you use the percentage of voters.

Not quite. Both are useful measures. For instance, if you look at a small sample, you can get very distorted views purely relying upon percentages. Both should be looked at.

You don't use nominal GDP to present the economic performance of the US, you use the real GDP. In this case, you use government spending as a percentage of GDP. If the government spending goes down in percentage then you cut spending, if it increases then you increase spending.

True, but inflation was not 25%. But military spending went up by that much.
 
OC, I think you are very very confused about what my post was addressing. Look at it closer. If you still don't get it I give up.
 
OC, I think you are very very confused about what my post was addressing. Look at it closer. If you still don't get it I give up.

Perhaps if you stopped making up in your head what you think people believe and actually addressed arguments, you wouldn't be posting ridiculous crap.

Saying I think that the stimulus was absolutely necessary despite me saying many times it is a failure and immediately criticizing its various problems does not suggest you actually care what people write and that you have no problem making up fabrications to attack others on.

I'll leave you to argue with the person who made the arguments you are claiming are wrong: Yourself.

Money to prevent the collapse of the banking sector =/= money to bolster a military that can already stop our #1 enemy. I seriously doubt you understand just how close we came to financial ruin. Hence why you aren't dealing with the comparisons here. Just attacking my opinion. Do you even know what reserve requirements are? I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
To a degree you do.

Not quite. Both are useful measures. For instance, if you look at a small sample, you can get very distorted views purely relying upon percentages. Both should be looked at.

True, but inflation was not 25%. But military spending went up by that much.
For what? If spending for defence was greater than the inflation and the wage cost, then it will show in the government spending as a percentage of GDP, and it did. Spending went up from 6.2% in 1981 to 7.0% in 1983.

However you don't use nominal spending, because it's not adjusted for wage growth or inflation.

BTW: I didn't talk about a samle, when you talked about the elections. I was thinking about the actual election results. Then they don't judge the performance on the number of new voters you get, but they judge it by the percentage of voters you get.
 
I'm just saying that you're a fiscal conservative when it comes to spending, except for when it comes to spending that you think is needed. And yet you're saying that other people can't be fiscal conservatives if they spend on what they think is needed. Is that concept so hard to understand?


This has nothing to do with whether Reagan's military spending was warranted, or spending on the finanical crisis. That's not what I was arguing about.
 
For what? If spending for defence was greater than the inflation and the wage cost, then it will show in the government spending as a percentage of GDP, and it did. Spending went up from 6.2% in 1981 to 7.0% in 1983.

Okay..I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

However you don't use nominal spending, because it's not adjusted for wage growth or inflation.

True, but when a particularly nominal explodes compared to other nominals, that, assuming there's no specific inflation issue in that area, is cause for concern.

BTW: I didn't talk about a samle, when you talked about the elections. I was thinking about the actual election results. Then they don't judge the performance on the number of new voters you get, but they judge it by the percentage of voters you get.

That's not entirely true. Performance in elections does address new voters or voters switching sides. Ask Bush Sr. He lost because of it.
 
Dumbass that came up with the trickle down theory that does not work. No he wanted big gov. how else was all that money suppose to sprinkle down? :rofl
 
Dumbass that came up with the trickle down theory that does not work. No he wanted big gov. how else was all that money suppose to sprinkle down? :rofl

Well, the problem with Trickle down (and here's where I lose most of you, especially many on the right), is that it ignores the marginal propensity to save and spend. The rich tend to have lower MPS then the poor. Thus, increasing their discretionary spending when they save more of that money isn't going to boost spending. Take welfare checks. Those get spent exceedingly quickly where as a cut from 25% on capital gains to 15% doesn't cause the rich to go out spend the difference. The rich save because they can. The poor spend because they are force to. If you want money to reach the economy quickly, put it in the hands of those with high marginal propensity to spend. This is primarily the reason why Bush's and Obama's tax cuts failed. People, at the time, had high marginal propensity to save (as the recession was starting). Giving people cash who turn around and deposit it in banks is pretty much epic fail in trying to boost consumer spending. Trickle down fails because it does not address MPS.
 
In doing so, he created deficits instantaneously.

Cutting income taxes has proven to create more money for the government in the long run, since the private sector economy will expand, creating jobs and expanding businesses, so there will be more taxpayers and more wealth out there; and the simple fact that the private sector funds the government, so whatever is done to help it, helps the government...in the long run.

When Kennedy cut income taxes and when Reagan cut income taxes it grew the economy.


You missed the part where he raised government spending to go along with tax breaks to help push prices down.

He wanted to cut a lot of spending, but there is this thing about 3 branches of government and all, and the legislative branch did not want to play. And as far as the military spending increases, they were very warranted at the time.


Reagan was responsible for the tech revolution??? Hardly seems accurate. I do believe that those engineers @ IBM, Apple, Texas Instrument, Microsoft, Phillips, etc.... had far more to do with the tech revolution than did President Reagan. Don't get me wrong, i think he was a wonderful president, just not fiscally conservative.

You should re-read what it said; he helped free up money to facilitate such great innovations and economic expansion.
 
I do so love when liberals tell us what conservatism really is and what it really means, especially when some of those doing it are amongst the most hyper partsian "aquapub of the left" type of people.

Fiscal Conservatism is not anarchism nor a government that gives nothing, does nothing. It believes the government has a few primary functions of which money most definitely should be spend, and the rest should be kept to a minimum. While the meaning and application behind “The General Welfare” is oft argued in regards to intent, there is no ifs, and’s, or buts that the Federal Government was meant to support defense.

Some will deridingly say that “Fiscal Conservatism is just cutting spending in programs you don’t like”. It’s a childish simplification meant to insult and degrade rather than have any actual conversation. A more accurate attempt to still be belittling would be to say that Fiscal Conservatism is just cutting spending of parts of government you don’t believe is the purpose of government. THAT would be more accurate. Now, you can throw such an insult around if you want, but frankly it doesn’t bother me. I’ll flat out admit that’s what it is. Just because liberals are looking for a way to insult and tweak conservatives doesn’t mean I’m going to be insulted when they act like I should be embarrassed that my ideology is what it is, or when they attempt to exaggerate my ideology as if they’re some kind of expert on it, and they tend to do it laughably poor fashion.

While there is still argument over whether the Cold War was truly a war, Reagan believed it was. And, adhering to conservative philosophy, set out to defend this country. The military spending mixed with pressure that reduced oil prices tanked the Soviet Unions economy setting the stage for the potential for actual legitimate arms agreement and peace talks between Gorbachev and Reagan, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War.

Liberals on this forum can caterwaul all they wish, telling us all how smart they REALLY are and how much better they know what conservatism really is than us (Sure, they say “we’re just going off what you say” but that’s bull****, the majority of people in this thread are going off the stereotype and caricature they have in their head that they then paint over anything anyone they disagree with says). Spending on military during times of War, which Reagan clearly believed the Cold War was, is not diametrically opposed to traditional modern Conservative ideology.

One can also not discount the affects a congress has on a President. Civics 101 tells us all where spending is initiated, and its not on the desk of the President. Truman’s “The Buck Stops Here” is the most tired, over used, and lazy quote ever for people deciding to place blame squarely place blame on a President they don’t like (from either side) and take it off something else. One cannot look at Reagan, or Clinton, or even Bush’s spending without looking at the corresponding Congress and how it affected the situation.

Was Reagan the perfect conservative? No. No one is. Just as there is no perfect liberal, no perfect Christian or Muslim, no perfect libertarian, no perfect Hobbesian, no perfect Sacrotic man, etc. Philosophies and Ideals are generally extremely rarely embodied 100% by ANYONE in any way. This is the difference between humanity and free will and theoretical philosophy. Reagan did make some missteps from traditional conservatism, he did make some compromises in the name of pragmatism, and he did make some complete missteps. But the over arching attempt on the left to describe him as anything from a Neo-Conservative to a flat out non-conservative Republican is a gross misrepresentation of his legacy, his politics, his philosophies, and even his acts.

He was a solid conservative during a pseudo-war time, who was not a complete ideologue, was pragmatic at times in his approach, and occasional reached outside of the mold to do what he thought was right, all while trying to work with a Congress diametrically opposed to many of his views.
 
Back
Top Bottom