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

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

Ok, read the article.... Heritage huh?

How does this prove he was powerless to avoid a deficit? You cannot prove that he wanted fiscal responsibility more so than his political agenda or you would have done so already without running to neo-con/republican think tanks.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Again, no one held a gun to his head and made him sign any of those budgets; no one MADE him expand government by creating a new cabinet-level department; no one made him expand military spending as much as he did.

Again, you can judge the outcomes; but he was NOT a small-government conservative. He expanded government even more than Carter did; definitely more than Clinton did.
Click to expand...

What you and others are ignoring is that when Reagan won the Cold War he created a peace dividend for GHW Bush and Clinton which Clinton used to cut the size of the military and that is where the cuts in govt. came from.

You are right, no one forced him to sign the legislation but as the article states it was Congress that refused to cut domestic spending and Reagan needed the increase in military spending, which by the way went from 150 billion to 300 billion compared to the 700 billion today that Obama just submitted, to force the Soviet Union to succumb and thus eventually destroyed.

The lessons from Reagan have been lost over time just like those trying to re-write the history of the 80's. He got it right and understood what it meant to empower people and not the govt. What he did however was provide an economic plan that generated more money to the govt, which Congress by its nature and desire to remain in power spent.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Ok, read the article.... Heritage huh?

How does this prove he was powerless to avoid a deficit? You cannot prove that he wanted fiscal responsibility more so than his political agenda or you would have done so already without running to neo-con/republican think tanks.
Click to expand...

Again, does it matter who the author is? It is the message that matters.

Did you bother to study the history of the Reagan years? Gramm-Rudman was an attempt to cut spending that was violated by the Democrat Controlled House. All agreements Reagan had with Congress were broken by Congress. Reagan tried to get the line item veto which was denied by Congress.

Reagan saw the problem but fought the battles he could win, and that was tax cuts for the American people and those tax cuts empowered the people more than the govt. and that bothers liberals?

Why is it that you have a problem with Reaganomics that put more money into the hands of the people?
 
Conservative said:
Again, does it matter who the author is? It is the message that matters.

Did you bother to study the history of the Reagan years? Gramm-Rudman was an attempt to cut spending that was violated by the Democrat Controlled House. All agreements Reagan had with Congress were broken by Congress. Reagan tried to get the line item veto which was denied by Congress.

Reagan saw the problem but fought the battles he could win, and that was tax cuts for the American people and those tax cuts empowered the people more than the govt. and that bothers liberals?

Why is it that you have a problem with Reaganomics that put more money into the hands of the people?
Click to expand...

I applaud him for the job he had done while President. I think he was a class act!

He simply was not fiscally conservative. Why does that bother you to the point of partisanship?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I applaud him for the job he had done while President. I think he was a class act!

He simply was not fiscally conservative. Why does that bother you to the point of partisanship?
Click to expand...

The definition of fiscal conservative

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. ...

Reagan advocated a reduction in overall spending and was rebuked by the kids in the candy store and in order to pass his tax cuts and military build up that destroyed the Soviet Union he signed the legislation.

Do you or anyone else that has a problem with Reagan's military spending have any idea how much it would cost today in military spending had the Soviet Union remained a threat to this country? Any idea why Clinton was able to cut the size of the military as much as he did although those cuts came at a price after 9/11.

Too bad that many have an inability to think proactively and only react to the negatives.
 
Conservative said:
The definition of fiscal conservative

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. ...
Click to expand...

You are such a partisan tool. That is why you fail....

wikipedia said:
Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other Classical Liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism[/ame]

Do you or anyone else that has a problem with Reagan's military spending have any idea how much it would cost today in military spending had the Soviet Union remained a threat to this country? Any idea why Clinton was able to cut the size of the military as much as he did although those cuts came at a price after 9/11.
Click to expand...

The Soviets crumbled due to an economic collapse. It was going to happen with or without military super spending (hindsight of course).

Too bad that many have an inability to think proactively and only react to the negatives.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are just hyper-partisan and view someone not being fiscally conservative as a negative. Therefore you re-invent meaning to suit your particular ideology.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You are such a partisan tool.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism



The Soviets crumbled due to an economic collapse. It was going to happen with or without military super spending (hindsight of course).



Nope. You are just hyper-partisan and view someone not being fiscally conservative as a negative. Therefore you re-invent meaning to suit your particular ideology.
Click to expand...

Yep, I am a Conservative and proud of it. It is the only economic ideology that makes any sense.

As for the Soviets crumbling regardless of the military spending, Gorbachev disagrees with you.

I have no use for many in the Republican Party today but it sure beats the alternative.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, I am a Conservative and proud of it. It is the only economic ideology that makes any sense.

As for the Soviets crumbling regardless of the military spending, Gorbachev disagrees with you.

I have no use for many in the Republican Party today but it sure beats the alternative.
Click to expand...

Care to address why you purposefully changed the wikipedia definition to suit your argument?

Ill wait.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, I am a Conservative and proud of it. It is the only economic ideology that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is not an economic policy..... You need to lay off the kool aid.
 
American said:
Small govt is part of an economic policy.
Click to expand...

Ok. So is....... a balanced budget ;-) But we know that is not a "conservative" thing....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Conservatism is not an economic policy..... You need to lay off the kool aid.
Click to expand...

LOL, Conservativism is an economic ideology, my error. I am proud to have that ideology. It is the only ideology that makes any sense.
 
Conservative said:
NO, copied and pasted it just as it was listed
Click to expand...

Bull****! Why do you feel the need to lie and make things up? Click the link: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism"]here[/ame]

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other Classical Liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...

Here is the **** you posted and claimed it was "copy pasted":

conservative said:
The definition of fiscal conservative

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. ...
Click to expand...

You are a partisan hack who now has zero credibility. Nobody has any use for someone who purposefully lies and makes things up in the midst of discussions.

I'd leave the thread if i were you. Unless you have no pride :shrug:
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you should actually read serious studies and statistics about the years instead of copy pasting partisan right wing CATO institute crap.

The only good thing Reagan did was to stand up against the Soviets and make American's believe in themselves again after the previous decade of decline and defeat in war.
 
=Goldenboy219;1058582448]Bull****! Why do you feel the need to lie and make things up? Click the link: here



Here is the **** you posted and claimed it was "copy pasted":
Click to expand...

Look, I copied and pasted the first part of the definition. I changed nothing.


You are a partisan hack who now has zero credibility. Nobody has any use for someone who purposefully lies and makes things up in the midst of discussions.
Click to expand...

Great, personal attack when you cannot defend your position. I made nothing up, I lived during the period of time, worked during that period, and saw Reagan for who he was. I coped exactly what was listed as the definition for fiscal conservatism. What is your experience with the 80's?

I'd leave the thread if i were you. Unless you have no pride :shrug
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice but my passion for free enterprise and capitalism along with my support of what Reagan did trumps your personal opinions and lack of intellectual honesty.
 
Conservative said:
What you and others are ignoring is that when Reagan won the Cold War he created a peace dividend for GHW Bush and Clinton which Clinton used to cut the size of the military and that is where the cuts in govt. came from.

You are right, no one forced him to sign the legislation but as the article states it was Congress that refused to cut domestic spending and Reagan needed the increase in military spending, which by the way went from 150 billion to 300 billion compared to the 700 billion today that Obama just submitted, to force the Soviet Union to succumb and thus eventually destroyed.

The lessons from Reagan have been lost over time just like those trying to re-write the history of the 80's. He got it right and understood what it meant to empower people and not the govt. What he did however was provide an economic plan that generated more money to the govt, which Congress by its nature and desire to remain in power spent.
Click to expand...

I wasn't judging the outcomes. You are.

My point was this - regardless of outcomes, Reagan expanded government and did so more than many Democrats have while in office (also working with Democratic congresses, by the way).

So - outcomes aside - Reagan was not a small-government conservative. He expanded government by a large measure.

The only ones altering history are Hertiage and CATO - and they do so because they have a right-wing agenda to pursue; thus, they paint over Reagan's actual record and pretend he was a small-government when all evidence says he was not.

He claimed government was the problem; but he expanded it and used it many times to create solutions.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I wasn't judging the outcomes. You are.

My point was this - regardless of outcomes, Reagan expanded government and did so more than many Democrats have while in office (also working with Democratic congresses, by the way).

So - outcomes aside - Reagan was not a small-government conservative. He expanded government by a large measure.

The only ones altering history are Hertiage and CATO - and they do so because they have a right-wing agenda to pursue; thus, they paint over Reagan's actual record and pretend he was a small-government when all evidence says he was not.

He claimed government was the problem; but he expanded it and used it many times to create solutions.
Click to expand...

Again, you ignore what Reagan did to pointto what happened. Did Reagan propose an increase in the size of Govt. outside the military? Did the Reagan tax cuts create enough funding to handle the size of the military?

Everyone wants to blame the President when things go badly. Reagan entered office as a fiscal conservative trying to reduce the size of govt. His tax cuts to the people were an attempt to make the people less dependent on the govt. His support of Gramm-Rudman was another attempt to reign in spending.

What Reagan found out and proved was that Congress is more interested in keeping their jobs than they are in doing their jobs. The results of the Reagan ignore the efforts of Reagan just like the results of the Bush term ignore the efforts of Bush. I still contend that Reagan was a fiscal conservative and although the results generated do not show that those results also ignore the effort and what Reagan actually proposed.
 
Conservative said:
Look, I copied and pasted the first part of the definition. I changed nothing.
Click to expand...

Where did you get it? The sentence structure looks identical to that of the wikipedia article summary i posted, although there was a change in words at the end of the first sentence.

Here is the actual wiki article of which i gave a link to the source: click it and tell me with honesty that you did not change anything. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism[/ame]

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other Classical Liberal policies are also often affiliated with fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...

This is what you posted:

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. ...
Click to expand...

Now i have to ask you where did you get that from? Please provide a link. If you cannot provide one, at least have the integrity to admit you changed the last part of sentence one from the wiki article.

Great, personal attack when you cannot defend your position. I made nothing up, I lived during the period of time, worked during that period, and saw Reagan for who he was. I coped exactly what was listed as the definition for fiscal conservatism. What is your experience with the 80's?
Click to expand...

Nope! You did not.... Which is why you have no credibility. Please provide me with the link:2wave:

Thanks for the advice but my passion for free enterprise and capitalism along with my support of what Reagan did trumps your personal opinions and lack of intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...

Did i post an edited wiki article to strengthen my argument? No, that was you. You have a passion for partisanship, and can care less if capitalism and free enterprise is upheld unless of course it is advocated by your GOP idols.
 
Goldenboy219;1058582700]Where did you get it? The sentence structure looks identical to that of the wikipedia article summary i posted, although there was a change in words at the end of the first sentence.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=def&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS362US362&q=define%3afiscal+conservative]define:fiscal conservative - Google Search[/ame]

Here is the actual wiki article of which i gave a link to the source: click it and tell me with honesty that you did not change anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Click to expand...

I changed nothing


Did i post an edited wiki article to strengthen my argument? No, that was you. You have a passion for partisanship, and can care less if capitalism and free enterprise is upheld unless of course it is advocated by your GOP idols
Click to expand...

My GOP Idol gave a tax cut to all American taxpayers. Sorry you think that the govt. needs the money more than the taxpayer however as proven tax cuts increased the number of taxpayers and thus govt. tax revenue.

You sound like another brainwashed liberal who simply cannot understand our basic economy built on consumerism. People with more of their money stimulates and grows the economy.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Where did you get it? The sentence structure looks identical to that of the wikipedia article summary i posted, although there was a change in words at the end of the first sentence.

Here is the actual wiki article of which i gave a link to the source: click it and tell me with honesty that you did not change anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism



This is what you posted:



Now i have to ask you where did you get that from? Please provide a link. If you cannot provide one, at least have the integrity to admit you changed the last part of sentence one from the wiki article.



Nope! You did not.... Which is why you have no credibility. Please provide me with the link:2wave:



Did i post an edited wiki article to strengthen my argument? No, that was you. You have a passion for partisanship, and can care less if capitalism and free enterprise is upheld unless of course it is advocated by your GOP idols.
Click to expand...


Just another prime example of the dishonesty that conservative has been doing since he landed on the shores of DP.

More are now seeing what he is and he is just about relegating himself to the background noise of a few others that specialize in drive by.:rofl
 
donc said:
Just another prime example of the dishonesty that conservative has been doing since he landed on the shores of DP.

More are now seeing what he is and he is just about relegating himself to the background noise of a few others that specialize in drive by.:rofl
Click to expand...

Look, I couldn't care less what you think, but when I put in the Google box define fiscal conservative I copied what came up. I changed nothing but as is usual with most liberals you want to divert from the actual Reagan record and what he proposed. Here is what I copied

Web
Related p
hrases: reformer and fiscal conservative


Definitions of fiscal conservative on the Web:

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a reduction in overall government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservative

Like all liberals you have a serious ego problem that requires you to be right on every issue when the facts refute your rhetoric.

Reagan did his best to lower the size of Govt. but did the next best thing, giving people a tax cut that was designed to make them less dependent on the govt. That should have led to a smaller govt. but no, liberals are more interested in creating dependence than allowing the individual to become less dependent.

So, you can divert and distort but you cannot run from reality.
 
Last edited:
donc said:
Just another prime example of the dishonesty that conservative has been doing since he landed on the shores of DP.

More are now seeing what he is and he is just about relegating himself to the background noise of a few others that specialize in drive by.:rofl
Click to expand...

There is nothing Centrist about you. You are just another cheerleader for a failed ideologist who hasn't a clue what went on during the 80's so you have to personally attack me. Don't worry, I can take it and don't worry I will continue to point out the fallacy of your argument and how individuals keeping more of their money stimulates and grows the economy and makes individuals less dependent on the govt.
 
Conservative said:
It would help if you found out where there spending went during the Reagan years and who actually spent the money.
Click to expand...


"Reagan ordered a massive buildup of the military...."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan]Presidency of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


So you still claiming it was Congress that pushed for the massive military spending?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom