• 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
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?

Let me get this straight...

Reagan tries to cut domestic spending but the Congress refuses. Still, Reagan increases military spending because it is necessary to national security, therefore, the deficit is Reagan's fault - :confused:

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If Reagan had his way, the deficits would have been much smaller or even non-existent.
 
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

Do you deny that Reagan tax cuts doubled Govt. revenue to the treasury? Military spending was indeed paid for and the buck passed to another generation was due to Congressional social spending that were attached to the Reagan defense bills.

If you don't think our military was weak then you ignored the Carter years and the failed rescue of our hostages taken in Iran. It was equipment failure do to an Administration that paid little attention to the military.
 
Let me get this straight...

Reagan tries to cut domestic spending but the Congress refuses. Still, Reagan increases military spending because it is necessary to national security, therefore, the deficit is Reagan's fault - :confused:

I can understand the need to decrease taxation when the economy is experiencing inflation, and the need to increase spending (in this case military Keynesianism) when unemployment is high. He allowed for deficits to remain even during economic recovery.

Whether or not his military spending boost was a matter of national security is another discussion.

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If Reagan had his way, the deficits would have been much smaller or even non-existent.

Prior to Reagans presidency, transfer payments made up about 41% of the total tax revenue (1978). In 1988, transfer payments made up about 44% of tax revenues. The fact remains that he did not have his way, and abandoned fiscal responsibility in the process.
 
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?

let's then look at what you would do away with because you don't believe they deserve funding:

■Executive Office of the President
■The President's Cabinet
■Department of Agriculture (USDA)
■Department of Commerce (DOC)
■Department of Education (ED)
■Department of Energy (DOE)
■Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
■Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
■Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
■Department of Justice (DOJ)
■Department of Labor (DOL)
■Department of State (DOS)
■Department of the Interior (DOI)
■Department of the Treasury
■Department of Transportation (DOT)
■Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
■Export-Import Bank of the United States
■Farm Credit Administration
■Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
■Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
■Federal Election Commission (FEC)
■Federal Housing Finance Board
■Federal Labor Relations Authority
■Federal Maritime Commission
■Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
■Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
■Federal Reserve System
■Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
■Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
■General Services Administration (GSA)
■Merit Systems Protection Board
■National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
■National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
■National Capital Planning Commission
■National Council on Disability
■National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
■National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
■National Mediation Board
■National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
■National Science Foundation (NSF)
■National Transportation Safety Board
■Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
■Office of Government Ethics
■Office of Personnel Management
■Office of Special Counsel
■Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
■Overseas Private Investment Corporation
■Peace Corps
■Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
■Postal Regulatory Commission
■Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
■Selective Service System
■Small Business Administration (SBA)
■Social Security Administration (SSA)
■Tennessee Valley Authority
■U.S. Trade and Development Agency
■United States Agency for International Development
■United States International Trade Commission
■United States Postal Service (USPS)

so, you think life would be ok if we just did away with all of that


don't think so
 
Do you deny that Reagan tax cuts doubled Govt. revenue to the treasury? Military spending was indeed paid for and the buck passed to another generation was due to Congressional social spending that were attached to the Reagan defense bills.

Tax cuts broke stagflation..... To claim they "doubled" revenue is dishonest.

If you don't think our military was weak then you ignored the Carter years and the failed rescue of our hostages taken in Iran. It was equipment failure do to an Administration that paid little attention to the military.

:doh
 
let's then look at what you would do away with because you don't believe they deserve funding:

■Executive Office of the President
■The President's Cabinet
■Department of Agriculture (USDA)
■Department of Commerce (DOC)
■Department of Education (ED)
■Department of Energy (DOE)
■Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
■Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
■Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
■Department of Justice (DOJ)
■Department of Labor (DOL)
■Department of State (DOS)
■Department of the Interior (DOI)
■Department of the Treasury
■Department of Transportation (DOT)
■Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
■Export-Import Bank of the United States
■Farm Credit Administration
■Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
■Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
■Federal Election Commission (FEC)
■Federal Housing Finance Board
■Federal Labor Relations Authority
■Federal Maritime Commission
■Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
■Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
■Federal Reserve System
■Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
■Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
■General Services Administration (GSA)
■Merit Systems Protection Board
■National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
■National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
■National Capital Planning Commission
■National Council on Disability
■National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
■National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
■National Mediation Board
■National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
■National Science Foundation (NSF)
■National Transportation Safety Board
■Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
■Office of Government Ethics
■Office of Personnel Management
■Office of Special Counsel
■Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
■Overseas Private Investment Corporation
■Peace Corps
■Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
■Postal Regulatory Commission
■Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
■Selective Service System
■Small Business Administration (SBA)
■Social Security Administration (SSA)
■Tennessee Valley Authority
■U.S. Trade and Development Agency
■United States Agency for International Development
■United States International Trade Commission
■United States Postal Service (USPS)

so, you think life would be ok if we just did away with all of that


don't think so

Yep, most of those are duplicated by the States, we need a vastly reduced size of the Federal Govt. but those aren't the line items in the Treasury Website. Our Founders got it right and we are so far from their intent because people like you buy the rhetoric that we need all this crap.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the need to decrease taxation when the economy is experiencing inflation, and the need to increase spending (in this case military Keynesianism) when unemployment is high. He allowed for deficits to remain even during economic recovery.

So, you blame Reagan for Congress's insistence upon sustained domestic spending? That's utterly nonsensical.

Whether or not his military spending boost was a matter of national security is another discussion.

No, it's not. His military advisors said it was necessary and Reagan listened to them; we won the Cold War. You don't get to ignore those facts because it suites your argument.

Prior to Reagans presidency, transfer payments made up about 41% of the total tax revenue (1978). In 1988, transfer payments made up about 44% of tax revenues. The fact remains that he did not have his way, and abandoned fiscal responsibility in the process.

Such BS. Reagan spent what was necessary to national security whereas Congress spent what was necessary to remain in power. The idea that Reagan should have decreased military spending to accommodate the Congress's love of pork is totally absurd.
 
Yep, most of those are duplicated by the States, we need a vastly reduced size of the Federal Govt. but those aren't the line items in the Treasury Website. Our Founders got it right and we are so far from their intent because people like you buy the rhetoric that we need all this crap.

i notice many of the third world nations are without 'all this crap' and then also recognize that the other industrialized nations do tend to have this governmental apparatus which is intended to aid society

maybe you need to relocate to a third world country where those crappy programs will not be found
 
Moderator's Warning:
Alright, tolerated this enough because it SEEMED like a point was going to be made but primarily its just serving to attempt to derail the thread. Take the "tell me what YOU would take out of the budget" talk to another thread. That's not the subject of this thread and its barely being used to tie itself in any way to the topic here, instead just becoming a pissing match. The line of conversation needs to end or move to another thread
 
So, you blame Reagan for Congress's insistence upon sustained domestic spending? That's utterly nonsensical.

I blame him for not dealing with reality in a fiscally conservative manner. Whether or not he "got his way" has nothing to do with it.

No, it's not. His military advisors said it was necessary and Reagan listened to them; we won the Cold War. You don't get to ignore those facts because it suites your argument.

We lose the cold war without increased military spending? (not that i was against it)

Such BS. Reagan spent what was necessary to national security whereas Congress spent what was necessary to remain in power. The idea that Reagan should have decreased military spending to accommodate the Congress's love of pork is totally absurd.

He did have another option that would have been "fiscally conservative". Increase government revenue. :shrug:
 
Folks to understand why Reagan was a true conservative, you have to understand how conservatism works in America today.

The Federal Budget for the National Endowment for the Arts fiscal 2010 is 161.3 Million dollars.

That according to modern conservative dogma is a huge waste of the taxpayers money and the poster child for big government. A true American Conservative would do away with the National Endowment for the Arts and thus save the American taxpayer that 161 Million dollars that does nothing in their eyes but fund sculptures depicting Karl Marx defecating on the sweet Baby Jesus.

However, to protect our liberty and counter the threats that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and all those evil Muslim Terrorists pose to our freedom (especially considering they believe we have one in the White House), our total security outlays are:

Total Federal Security Outlay's Fiscal year 2010: $1025 Billion dollars.

Of course thats before you get into the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, thats a lot of money, its more than the next 20 or so nations combined, but you got to look at the "threats" we face.

So let's start with looking at Russia's Defense Budget for 2010: $45 Billion Dollars.

China's Defense Budget: $70.1 Billion Dollars.

Iran's Defense Budget: $7.1 Billion Dollars.

Granted, Russia can't even afford to fuel its own Navy. China's defense spending is 10% of our military budget, and that is for a nation that is nearly 5 times our population. Iran, which unlike Russia or China is a nation that actually is an enemy of the United States has a defense budget that is 1/100th ours.

Just the same, that 1 trillion dollar plus security outlay for 2010 alone = Wise Investment.

The 160 million dollar outlay for the National Arts Endowment = Liberals raping the taxpayers so they can fund sculptures depicting Karl Marx defecating on the sweet Baby Jesus.

You see, to the modern American Conservative, a true American knows that having 1000 military bases around the world, including 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, 87 in South Korea, and other places scattered around the globe including sunny Aruba, as well as 224 Pentagon ran Golf Courses, and even a Ski Center in the Alps, are all absolutely essential to American security and to protect us from a world chock full of evil doers that hate our freedom.

Remember, even if that 1 trillion dollars a year in "security" outlays seems kind of big, as any true American Conservative will tell you, its temporary. It's not permanent, and thus it doesn't count as big government no matter how much money it is. Hey, they don't even think that is enough money for it. Which is why if a godless evil liberal or libertarian was even to suggest that we may not need all 224 Pentagon ran Golf Courses, well, they obviously hate America and want to turn us into another Soviet Union because any true American Conservative knows that there is no waste at all in our defense outlays, and any attempts to cut it is as communist as putting your to work in a commune harvesting rice with a number on your back. Just the same those massive security outlays are only temporary. As soon as the rapture comes all those true American Conservatives will be instantly raptured away, and the godless liberals and libertarians can slash it as much as they want then.

You see, once you understand how modern American Conservatism works, its easy to see that Reagan was a true modern American Conservative.
 
Oh, and I nominate that post for the best one of the year so far.
 
I blame him for not dealing with reality in a fiscally conservative manner. Whether or not he "got his way" has nothing to do with it.

You know what, blame was a harsh word. I do not blame him for it at all. I just cannot call him a fiscal conservative given the facts....
 
I blame him for not dealing with reality in a fiscally conservative manner. Whether or not he "got his way" has nothing to do with it.

Let's say a family has a budget of $100 and the head of the household needs to spend $75 dollars on necessities like food and water while the rest of the household wants to spend $50 on things like cigarettes and booze. The head of the household submits a budget: $75 on food and water, $25 on cigarettes and booze.

If the head of the household goes out an buys $75 dollars worth of food and water while the rest of the household goes out and puts $50 dollars worth of cigarettes and booze on their credit card - who are you going to blame for the $25 deficit? The person who bought the necessities or the idiots who refused to live within their means? I suspect you would blame the idiots, unless, of course, the head of the household's name was Ronald Reagan...

We lose the cold war without increased military spending? (not that i was against it)

It wasn't the only reason we won but it certainly cannot be discounted. The military told Reagan what it needed to win and he gave it to them. That's the responsibility of a Commander In Chief.

He did have another option that would have been "fiscally conservative". Increase government revenue. :shrug:

Ah yes, the old "increase taxes to accommodate Congress's love of pork" theory. How about, instead of increasing taxes, we just cut entitlement spending? Why do you always ignore that aspect of the budget?
 
Let's say a family has a budget of $100 and the head of the household needs to spend $75 dollars on necessities like food and water while the rest of the household wants to spend $50 on things like cigarettes and booze. The head of the household submits a budget: $75 on food and water, $25 on cigarettes and booze.

If the head of the household goes out an buys $75 dollars worth of food and water while the rest of the household goes out and puts $50 dollars worth of cigarettes and booze on their credit card - who are you going to blame for the $25 deficit? The person who bought the necessities or the idiots who refused to live within their means? I suspect you would blame the idiots, unless, of course, the head of the household's name was Ronald Reagan...

It is unwise to compare the federal budget (not to mention the manner in which you did) to a house hold budget; much less with unrealistic proportions. I cannot comment on it because it is..... nonsensical;)

It wasn't the only reason we won but it certainly cannot be discounted. The military told Reagan what it needed to win and he gave it to them. That's the responsibility of a Commander In Chief.

I'm not against the increased military spending. Not by a long shot. However, to claim he was a fiscal conservative is a far reach.

Ah yes, the old "increase taxes to accommodate Congress's love of pork" theory. How about, instead of increasing taxes, we just cut entitlement spending? Why do you always ignore that aspect of the budget?


I am not ignoring it.... But it did not materialize and would have been impossible. What you have implied is that you would rather see rising deficits than higher taxes...:( This is commonly referred to as passing the buck. Not a very conservative thing to do now is it?
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, the old "increase taxes to accommodate Congress's love of pork" theory. How about, instead of increasing taxes, we just cut entitlement spending? Why do you always ignore that aspect of the budget?

Ok, lets look at that in the context of the Reagan years.

After Social Security was reformed in 1983, there were huge surpluses with it and Medicare throughout the 1980s. These surpluses that resulted from payroll tax revenues far exceeding Medicare and Social Security outlays were then used to float deficits in general revenue. This is what the federal government would refer to as a unified budget. Basically, in many ways it constituted a wealth transfer from workers at the time to defense contractors.

Just the same, lets say Reagan got really bold and some how convinced congress to do away with Social Security and Medicare altogether. Now sure, that would have resulted in a reduction of federal outlays. The problem is that if you did away with Medicare and Social Security, you would also do away with the Payroll Tax. Since that tax was generating a large revenue surplus at the time, the net result would have been much greater budget deficits than what would have otherwise existed.
 
It is unwise to compare the federal budget (not to mention the manner in which you did) to a house hold budget; much less with unrealistic proportions. I cannot comment on it because it is..... nonsensical;)

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. Reagan's military spending was essential whereas Congress's entitlement spending was not. The idea that essential spending should be cut in order to accommodate entitlement spending is ridiculous.

I'm not against the increased military spending. Not by a long shot. However, to claim he was a fiscal conservative is a far reach.

He was a fiscal conservative. Just because Congress wouldn't cut their beloved entitlement programs does not make Reagan a hypocrite.

I am not ignoring it.... But it did not materialize and would have been impossible. What you have implied is that you would rather see rising deficits than higher taxes...:( This is commonly referred to as passing the buck. Not a very conservative thing to do now is it?

You're basically saying that Reagan should have let the Congress bully him into raising taxes or cutting defense spending. Good thing Reagan had a spine...
 
Last edited:
Ok, lets look at that in the context of the Reagan years.

After Social Security was reformed in 1983, there were huge surpluses with it and Medicare throughout the 1980s. These surpluses that resulted from payroll tax revenues far exceeding Medicare and Social Security outlays were then used to float deficits in general revenue. This is what the federal government would refer to as a unified budget. Basically, in many ways it constituted a wealth transfer from workers at the time to defense contractors.

Just the same, lets say Reagan got really bold and some how convinced congress to do away with Social Security and Medicare altogether. Now sure, that would have resulted in a reduction of federal outlays. The problem is that if you did away with Medicare and Social Security, you would also do away with the Payroll Tax. Since that tax was generating a large revenue surplus at the time, the net result would have been much greater budget deficits than what would have otherwise existed.

I'm not saying Reagan was Mr. Perfect but I think he was a pragmatic fiscal conservative. The only way he wasn't is if you view him in a purely ideological context.
 
Last edited:
It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. Reagan's military spending was essential whereas Congress's entitlement spending was not. The idea that essential spending should be cut to accommodate entitlement spending is ridiculous.

What you don't seem to get is that Reagan did not pay for what you are billing as "essential defense spending". There were huge deficits in general revenue at the time. However, those entitlements were paid for with the payroll tax, and that payroll tax generated large surpluses at the time which was then used to pay for true "fiscally conservative" ideas such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars".

Here is an artist depiction of Reagan's fantasy Sci/Fi Battle Satellites in a laser battle with some fantasy commie Satellites.

Ground-Space_based_hybrid_laser_weapon_concept_art.jpg


That project that went absolutely nowhere alone accounted for something like 100 billion in "essential spending".

You just can't make this stuff up. The Reagan Administration was the poster child for pissing away the taxpayers money.

Of course, lets not let reality get in the way of the Reagan circle jerk here. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Let's say a family has a budget of $100 and the head of the household needs to spend $75 dollars on necessities like food and water while the rest of the household wants to spend $50 on things like cigarettes and booze. The head of the household submits a budget: $75 on food and water, $25 on cigarettes and booze.

If the head of the household goes out an buys $75 dollars worth of food and water while the rest of the household goes out and puts $50 dollars worth of cigarettes and booze on their credit card - who are you going to blame for the $25 deficit? The person who bought the necessities or the idiots who refused to live within their means? I suspect you would blame the idiots, unless, of course, the head of the household's name was Ronald Reagan...

Can you tell us why Reagan saw it essential to increase defense spending given the then well known fact that the Soviet Union was already facing massive shortages of food by the early 1980s and their military was severely crippled by lack of funding?
 
It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. Reagan's military spending was essential whereas Congress's entitlement spending was not. The idea that essential spending should be cut in order to accommodate entitlement spending is ridiculous.

Not by a long shot.... First and foremost many entitlements provide food and water to many young children, something that is essential to them. So while you may despise any aspect of transfer payments, i cannot take your comparison seriously as it lacks objectivity. Secondly, i am not blaming anyone! Why have you not picked up on this?

He was a fiscal conservative. Just because Congress wouldn't cut their beloved entitlement programs does not make Reagan a hypocrite.

As a fiscal conservative, i pay my bills no matter how stupid some of them might seem in a later time. This conversation is not whether congress is "fiscally conservative". Reagan was the executive, and he allowed for a fiscal imbalance. No matter how you slice it, you cannot claim him to be something he was not.

You're basically saying that Reagan should have let the Congress bully him into raising taxes or cutting defense spending. Good thing Reagan had a spine...

Nope! I am saying deficits do matter and they will have to be paid for eventually. This utter fixation with congress is surprising.

Would you rather see increased deficits during an economic expansion rather than increased taxes?
 
What you don't seem to get is that Reagan did not pay for what you are billing as "essential defense spending".

If the military requests it in a time of war then it is probably as close to "essential" as you can get. Surely, you do not expect the President to micromanage every single military expenditure?

There were huge deficits in general revenue at the time. However, those entitlements were paid for with the payroll tax...

Some entitlements or all entitlements?

...and that payroll tax generated large surpluses at the time which was then used to pay for true "fiscally conservative" ideas such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars".

Here is an artist depiction of Reagan's fantasy Sci/Fi Battle Satellites in a laser battle with some fantasy commie Satellites.

Ground-Space_based_hybrid_laser_weapon_concept_art.jpg


That project that went absolutely nowhere alone accounted for something like 100 billion in "essential spending".

Of course, lets not let reality get in the way of the Reagan circle jerk here. :mrgreen:

I haven't done enough research on "Star Wars" to say one way or the other. I've heard that it was a complete waste of money and I've also heard that it caused the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion. Either way, Reagan could not predict the future, which makes your hindsight argument somewhat irrelevant.
 
Can you tell us why Reagan saw it essential to increase defense spending given the then well known fact that the Soviet Union was already facing massive shortages of food by the early 1980s and their military was severely crippled by lack of funding?

Hindsight is 20/20. You have that luxury. I doubt many Americans would have shared your sentiment at the time...
 
What you don't seem to get is that Reagan did not pay for what you are billing as "essential defense spending". There were huge deficits in general revenue at the time. However, those entitlements were paid for with the payroll tax, and that payroll tax generated large surpluses at the time which was then used to pay for true "fiscally conservative" ideas such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars".

Here is an artist depiction of Reagan's fantasy Sci/Fi Battle Satellites in a laser battle with some fantasy commie Satellites.

Ground-Space_based_hybrid_laser_weapon_concept_art.jpg


That project that went absolutely nowhere alone accounted for something like 100 billion in "essential spending".

You just can't make this stuff up. The Reagan Administration was the poster child for pissing away the taxpayers money.

Of course, lets not let reality get in the way of the Reagan circle jerk here. :mrgreen:

Here is a very good analysis of the Reagan years. Read the facts of what happened during that era then tell me whether or not his results qualify him as a success. I believe you will see why true Conservatives have nothing but respect for what he did

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
 
Back
Top Bottom