• 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
Goldenboy219 said:
Don't get me wrong, i think he was a wonderful president, just not fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

You realize that:

1. The world is not black and white
2. The libertarian view of fiscal conservatism is the equivilent to the religion right's view on social conservative; it is generally on the more extreme scale of the conservative balance.

Reagan was a fiscal conservative. He was not an extreme one, nor one that upheld every tennet of it, and not someone I would say should be a shining example for the pillar of Fiscal Conservatism as a pure philosophy. He was also essentially inbroiled in a war, which is where traditional modern conservative philosophy and modern libertarian conservative philosophy differ due to the libertarian view on War. He also was dealing with an extremely liberal congress, mind you the branch that initiates spending.

However his tax policy, his decrease in non-defense spending, and other such things are conservative in principle. While this does not dismiss the portions where he broke with the philosophy, it is enough to say that calling him completely and utterly not a fiscal conservative is a bit ridiculous unless you live in a complete and utter black and white universe.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well your defense of Reagan is emotional. Now if we could just get back to the facts.
 
Zyphlin said:
You realize that:

1. The world is not black and white
2. The libertarian view of fiscal conservatism is the equivilent to the religion right's view on social conservative; it is generally on the more extreme scale of the conservative balance.
Click to expand...

Fiscal conservatism is about living within ones means. I really believe the true notion has been forgotten.

Reagan was a fiscal conservative. He was not an extreme one, nor one that upheld every tennet of it, and not someone I would say should be a shining example for the pillar of Fiscal Conservatism as a pure philosophy. He was also essentially inbroiled in a war, which is where traditional modern conservative philosophy and modern libertarian conservative philosophy differ due to the libertarian view on War.
Click to expand...

Since Reagan, the conservative view of "war" has changed inversely. Republicans have traditionally been the anti-war party. Reagan embraced what is known as "military Keynesianism" in which his increases in military spending (given the US is highly dependent on Department of Defense R&D) necessarily boosted demand in that particular sector. It created a multiplier effect and had an indirect subsidy on various aspects of innovation (primarily communication technology).

Do i believe he did anything wrong? Not at all! But you cannot call such notions conservative unless you are willing to re-invent the term to mean something else.

He also was dealing with an extremely liberal congress, mind you the branch that initiates spending.
Click to expand...

But entitlements were cut (along with a hike in FICA), which is where the deception arises. Following the Reagan administration, the view of conservatism morphed into "cutting taxes and embracing evangelical values). The entire expenditure side has been forgotten because deficits apparently do not matter. Unless of course they do not coincide with ones particular political beliefs.

However his tax policy, his decrease in non-defense spending, and other such things are conservative in principle. While this does not dismiss the portions where he broke with the philosophy, it is enough to say that calling him completely and utterly not a fiscal conservative is a bit ridiculous unless you live in a complete and utter black and white universe.
Click to expand...

Let's make this very clear.... You cannot call yourself a fiscal conservative when you embrace a fiscal imbalance even during times of economic expansion. Following the recession, Reagan had the chance to embrace fiscal conservatism and blew it. It worked for Truman :shrug:

Now was the man a social conservative? Most definitely.
 
Hatuey said:
Well your defense of Reagan is emotional. Now if we could just get back to the facts.
Click to expand...
Emotionalism should suit you just fine, since that is what liberalism is (e.g., fairness, "for the children", "tax the rich", "baby killers"). I think the message was quite on target.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Let's make this very clear.... You cannot call yourself a fiscal conservative when you embrace a fiscal imbalance even during times of economic expansion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hatuey said:
Easy question. Yes or no. and Explain why.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan was a fiscal/small govt. conservative as he empowered people and not govt. to solve personal problems and issues. Even though his record is being distorted his 25% across the board tax cuts over 3 years empowered people to take control of their own lives. That economic policy led to a huge increase in the Gross Domestic Product, 20 million new jobs most in the private sector, and unleashed the American Entreprenuer spirit which exploded the American economy.
 
Conservative said:
Ronald Reagan was a fiscal/small govt. conservative as he empowered people and not govt. to solve personal problems and issues. Even though his record is being distorted his 25% across the board tax cuts over 3 years empowered people to take control of their own lives. That economic policy led to a huge increase in the Gross Domestic Product, 20 million new jobs most in the private sector, and unleashed the American Entreprenuer spirit which exploded the American economy.
Click to expand...
Why this matters to a 100% liberal, Take-100%-of-your-pay-cause-the-govt-knows-more-than you, leftwinger is beyond me. What could he possibly care, Reagan didn't fit his politics on any measure whatsoever.
 
Of course he was not.

He was a borrow and spend right wing conservative, nothing more nothing less.

He increased US debt almost 3 times by the end of his administration and expanded government big time.

He can in no way but in the most partisan brainwashed minds, be called a fiscal small government conservative.
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...





This.........
 
PeteEU said:
Of course he was not.

He was a borrow and spend right wing conservative, nothing more nothing less.

He increased US debt almost 3 times by the end of his administration and expanded government big time.

He can in no way but in the most partisan brainwashed minds, be called a fiscal small government conservative.
Click to expand...

Pete, take a civics course and understand the three equal branches of govt. Reagan alone did not increase the debt and in fact empowered people to be the best they could be and to take control of their own lives. I know how that drives liberals crazy.

Reagan tax cuts doubled govt. revenue by creating 20 million jobs most in the private sector. You can continue to focus on the debt but I will take the 1.7 trillion added to the debt in 8 years by Reagan vs. Obama spending and adding that amount in less than 2 years.

Reagan's economic plan was empowering people whereas Obama empowers the govt. Sorry you don't see the difference.
 
PeteEU said:
Of course he was not.

He was a borrow and spend right wing conservative, nothing more nothing less.

He increased US debt almost 3 times by the end of his administration and expanded government big time.

He can in no way but in the most partisan brainwashed minds, be called a fiscal small government conservative.
Click to expand...
That would be true of anyone that believes you're a centrist. :lol:
 
American said:
That would be true of anyone that believes you're a centrist. :lol:
Click to expand...

Given the choice between empowering people and empowering govt. I will take the Reagan approach any day!

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Ronald Reagan (1986)

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

Ronald Reagan
 
Conservative said:
Given the choice between empowering people and empowering govt. I will take the Reagan approach any day!

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Ronald Reagan (1986)

The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

tell us exactly what should be cut from the government's budget and how much that would save

this should be rich
 
justabubba said:
tell us exactly what should be cut from the government's budget and how much that would save

this should be rich
Click to expand...

I have posted that many times on many different threads. Our current budget is 3.8 trillion dollars of which 60% is entitlement spending meaning that 2.2 trillion is "untouchable"

Out of the 1.6 trillion left the Govt. needs to fund Defense, the VA, and the interest on the Debt and could cut most of the rest thus a 600 billion reduction there alone. Most of the budget can be eliminated is it is duplicated at the state level.

Then attack entitlement spending by freezing SS payments and retirees to those currently retired and within 5 years of retirement then increase the retirement age to 67 eliminating the 62 early retirement option.
 
Conservative said:
I have posted that many times on many different threads. Our current budget is 3.8 trillion dollars of which 60% is entitlement spending meaning that 2.2 trillion is "untouchable"

Out of the 1.6 trillion left the Govt. needs to fund Defense, the VA, and the interest on the Debt and could cut most of the rest thus a 600 billion reduction there alone. Most of the budget can be eliminated is it is duplicated at the state level.

Then attack entitlement spending by freezing SS payments and retirees to those currently retired and within 5 years of retirement then increase the retirement age to 67 eliminating the 62 early retirement option.
Click to expand...

so you have proven you are unable to identify specific cuts which need to be made to effect the savings you insist can be found

the politicians can do no better
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course the world is not black or white, and i do not pull myself in that regard. However, we have to clearly define the term in question: fiscal conservatism.

What is it? When i think of the term, i automatically conjure the term Fiscal policy; or government spending and its net effect (be it on the economy, taxation, etc....). Going back to the topic; can we use dichotomy to infer there is a difference between a liberal fiscal policy and a conservative fiscal policy? I certainly hope so even though (as you pointed out) there can be variations of the two.

What can be considered a conservative fiscal policy? There are some here that view such a notion to pertain to lower taxes. Doing so leaves out a critical aspect of any fiscal situation: taxation only pertains to the revenue aspect and therefore we are leaving out 50% of the act known as expenditure (spending). Does spending play a role in fiscal policy? If so, to what length? Even though it is popular on the right to support military spending, it is openly dishonest to claim one is fiscally conservative on the basis of tax cuts alone. Yes Reagan did have a hand in slicing entitlements, however the net effect was a negative one as total government spending did increase every year under his watch.

How can this be considered fiscally conservative? Adding debt will surely cause increased spending down the line (somewhere). Is it fiscally conservative to actively pass the buck?

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?
Click to expand...

Let us consider the modern conservative voter: Typically is an older American (55+), higher income/wealth, christian, and white.

If you were of that demographic, would you truly care about deficits (medicare/cost of Iraq war)? I know you would want lower taxes, and be appalled at various rights given to those who live outside of the christian value system.

It seems to me that the republicans - those who were the party of traditional conservative values - abandoned fiscal conservatism in a last ditch effort to stay relevant. The modern republican philosophy since Reagan has been high government spending, low taxes, and a general embrace of military Keynesianism. Of course the social aspects have accompanied them to maintain the christian right; but (IMHO) fiscal conservatism is gone. The last executive to embrace such a policy was?????? By my definition, it would be the president who under their term we witnessed the deficit to GDP ratio stay constant (even though a more pure form would involve lower taxation and lower spending).


It seems to be aimed at trying to proclaim Reagan as something other than conservative, based on what people today claim conservatism is.
Click to expand...

Not at all, i am just interested in the fiscal aspect. The social equivalence is of zero interest to me or the question being polled.

That people are "reinventing" Reagan's legacy to fit into the modern 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 asinine and is still incorrect.
Click to expand...

But that is not my point or intention. If anything i am arguing the exact opposite. Fiscal conservatism was abandoned by Reagan, and those who identify themselves as "modern conservatives" (could we consider the term neo-con?) take little interest in he fiscal aspect; just as long as taxes are lowered.

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.
Click to expand...

I am only interested in the slice pertaining to the term fiscal.

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.
Click to expand...

I really do not believe you can consider my "take" as extreme. IMHO, a fiscally conservative president does not increase taxes during a recession, and does not allow for deficits during a major economic expansion. If you call that extreme, by all means do explain.

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, unequivocally, 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.
Click to expand...

We may argue opinions but i think we should give some weight to the data: Under the Reagan administration both the deficit and government spending as a % of GDP had increased by the time he left office.

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

And I than you as well. In these rare occurrences does this site truly offer members something to look forward to.
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
so you have proven you are unable to identify specific cuts which need to be made to effect the savings you insist can be found

the politicians can do no better
Click to expand...

Yep, typical that you want me to do the work for you. It is obvious to me that you have never gone to the U.S. Treasury site to get the line items. If I told you what to keep doesn't it logically make sense that you would cut everything else?
 
Conservative said:
Yep, typical that you want me to do the work for you. It is obvious to me that you have never gone to the U.S. Treasury site to get the line items. If I told you what to keep doesn't it logically make sense that you would cut everything else?
Click to expand...

i've illustrated my point by flushing out your inability to identify those specific government expenditures which you would tell us deserve to be cut

but you can't identify them with any specificity - and they then remain nameless

which is not unlike those politicians on the right who insist there are savings to be attained but who can't identify exactly what they are

thanks again for proving my point
 
justabubba said:
i've illustrated my point by flushing out your inability to identify those specific government expenditures which you would tell us deserve to be cut

but you can't identify them with any specificity - and they then remain nameless

which is not unlike those politicians on the right who insist there are savings to be attained but who can't identify exactly what they are

thanks again for proving my point
Click to expand...

What part of eliminating all the line items of the budget other than Defense, the VA, and interest on the Debt do you not understand?
 
Is this supposed to be some sort of indictment on President Reagan? Because all it shows is that given our system of government, no President can successfully run an ideologically driven administration.

The system creates moderation. The more an administration strives to lead from the extremes, the more it will fail.
 
Telecaster said:
Is this supposed to be some sort of indictment on President Reagan? Because all it shows is that given our system of government, no President can successfully run an ideologically driven administration.

The system creates moderation. The more an administration strives to lead from the extremes, the more it will fail.
Click to expand...

Reagan only failed in the eyes of those that demand more dependence on the Federal Govt. Reagan tax cuts empowered people and unleased an entreprenuerial spirit that made personal wealth creation fathomable again. Reagan also unleashed the American spirit again and it reignited the passion of Americans again after the Carter malaise.

Personally I never did better during my 35 years in the business world than I did during the Reagan years and I slept well at night knowing this country was secure.
 
Wow, this thread is a bunch of crap.

Reagan spent a bunch on the military because we were in the Cold War. The only reason there were deficits is because the Congress would not accommodate Reagan's budget requests. Yea, so blame Reagan for doing what was necessary to defend the country...:roll:
 
Ethereal said:
What nonsense. No one associates small government conservatism with a weak military.
Click to expand...

Does a fiscal conservative pay for their spending? Or do they simply pass the buck to another generation and force them to make decisions based on the actions of a previous generation?

I do not believe we had a weak military prior to Reagan. Of course this is just my opinion you have to be careful, as people are touchy about it
 
Ethereal said:
Wow, this thread is a bunch of crap.

Reagan spent a bunch on the military because we were in the Cold War. The only reason there were deficits is because the Congress would not accommodate Reagan's budget requests. Yea, so blame Reagan for doing what was necessary to defend the country...:roll:
Click to expand...

That is what liberals do, place blame and never accept responsibility. A true liberal lives for today and ignores the consequences of not being proactive. We had a peace dividend because of Reagan and we had 9/11 because Clinton wasn't proactive against terrorism.

Reagan drives liberals crazy as evidenced by the reality that we are over 20 years after he left office and most of those demonizing Reagan weren't around during his term or weren't old enough to know what the economy and world conditions were like during that period.

Like most liberals they truly blame this country for every ill and hated Reagan based upon what they read in textbooks or leftwing websites but ignore all the good that he did. It is easier placing blame vs. actually getting the facts and doing research as to the results Reagan generated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom