• 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
Catawba said:

"Reagan ordered a massive buildup of the military...."
Presidency of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So you still claiming it was Congress that pushed for the massive military spending?
Click to expand...

Nope, never claimed that at all, Reagan built up the military as was his responsibility under the Constitution. He did not however ramp up domestic spending as Congress did that.

You seem to have a real problem understanding actual results as you continue to ignore them.

Reagan grew the military from 150 billion to 300 billion dollars in 8 years, hardly the massive build up some seem to claim especially since he grew Revenue to over 1.5 trillion during that period of time.

You really ought to check out the actual Reagan record not just the leftwing blogs or sites you frequent.
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

You did not even click on the link to make sure it was accurate. I appologize for saying you altered the text, but the source from which wiki pulls said something entirely different.

Understand my point?
 
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...

A lot of people like to forget Congress' part in steering the nation.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You did not even click on the link to make sure it was accurate. I appologize for saying you altered the text, but the source from which wiki pulls said something entirely different.

Understand my point?
Click to expand...

Thank you, I never alter text and never would. Now you can explain that to Donc.

Being a fiscal conservative doesn't always generate the defined results because we do not elect a King. Reagan did his best to reign in the size of Govt. and started the process by cutting taxes so people are less dependent on the govt. Congress rejected his tax cuts so he took his message right to the American people and public opinion forced Congress to pass the 25% tax cut over three years.

Reagan then proposed spending less than Congress wanted and tried to pass Gramm-Rudman to further reign in spending. All were commitments broken by Congress who saw the increase in revenue as an opportunity to make people more dependent. They became a kid in a candy store and tied much of the spending to military and tax bills that Reagan wanted that were needed to grow the economy and empower people.

The fact that Reagan proposed reductions but Congress rejected his efforts doesn't make him less of a fiscal conservative but it does make him responsible along with Congress for the results.
 
Does "Slowing" the growth of government make you a "small government guy"? I'd think he'd like to THINK he was, but really...did he downsize any of the Federal government? Though can you blame him for following up a President and Congress who's amazing legislation included the CRA?
 
The_Amazing_Troy said:
Does "Slowing" the growth of government make you a "small government guy"? I'd think he'd like to THINK he was, but really...did he downsize any of the Federal government? Though can you blame him for following up a President and Congress who's amazing legislation included the CRA?
Click to expand...

When you have an equal branch of Govt. in the Congress who is against any cuts the best you can hope for is slowing the growth of govt. The President alone can downsize very little but will always get the blame from those who do not understand the relationship between the President and Congress as defined by our Constitution.

The Community Reinvestment Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted and basically made home ownership an entitlement regardless of income levels. This is what led to the financial crisis we had in 2008 and one we are trying to dig out of now.
 
Conservative said:
When you have an equal branch of Govt. in the Congress who is against any cuts the best you can hope for is slowing the growth of govt. The President alone can downsize very little but will always get the blame from those who do not understand the relationship between the President and Congress as defined by our Constitution.

The Community Reinvestment Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted and basically made home ownership an entitlement regardless of income levels. This is what led to the financial crisis we had in 2008 and one we are trying to dig out of now.
Click to expand...

I think he could have thrown a little more weight around. He was an actor, that should have made him the BEST President ever. But he went politician on us.
 
Conservative said:
When you have an equal branch of Govt. in the Congress who is against any cuts the best you can hope for is slowing the growth of govt. The President alone can downsize very little but will always get the blame from those who do not understand the relationship between the President and Congress as defined by our Constitution.

The Community Reinvestment Act was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted and basically made home ownership an entitlement regardless of income levels. This is what led to the financial crisis we had in 2008 and one we are trying to dig out of now.
Click to expand...

CRA did NOT make home ownership anything approaching an entitlement

CRA said that federally guaranteed lenders were expected to make loans in the same communities from which they received deposits

that's it. there was nothing which required the lenders to water down their credit criteria in those communities. the lenders simply could not ignore legitimate loan requests which originated out of those economically disadvantaged communities

it had NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown on the shrub's watch
 
The_Amazing_Troy said:
I think he could have thrown a little more weight around. He was an actor, that should have made him the BEST President ever. But he went politician on us.
Click to expand...

Many say he was ONE of the best Presidents ever and his record isn't what some want to claim. Destroying the "Evil Empire" wasn't a small task and led to the peace dividend in the 90's. His tax cuts led to almost 20 million jobs created and that doubled tax revenue and put more people on the path to financial stability.

Reagan's efforts led to strong economic growth, job creation, and individual wealth creation. The fact that it is demonized today, over 20 years after he left office by a bunch of kids who weren't around during that period says a lot about the failure of our education system that seems to be more interested in promoting dependence on the Govt. to personal responsibility.
 
justabubba said:
CRA did NOT make home ownership anything approaching an entitlement

CRA said that federally guaranteed lenders were expected to make loans in the same communities from which they received deposits

that's it. there was nothing which required the lenders to water down their credit criteria in those communities. the lenders simply could not ignore legitimate loan requests which originated out of those economically disadvantaged communities

it had NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown on the shrub's watch
Click to expand...

Are you really this naive? Yes, CRA did put us on the path to an entitlement program and led to the growth of ACORN and loans to people who couldn't afford the houses they were lent money to buy.

Technically you are right but realistically wrong. It has evolved like most liberal programs into what Barney Franks calls the "inherent right of every American to own a home"

I sure wish people like you would grow up and instead of calling Bush "shrub" actually objectively look at his results instead of buying what you are being told. Guess too many today lack individual pride and have no problem being proven wrong.
 
Conservative said:
Are you really this naive? Yes, CRA did put us on the path to an entitlement program and led to the growth of ACORN and loans to people who couldn't afford the houses they were lent money to buy.
Click to expand...
you keep spouting a bunch of crap without any basis in fact
what drove the writing of mortgages to individuals without the capacity to pay was the desire of wall street to offer a high yield product - collateralized debt obligations - to the many buyers who sought high yield investments they wrongly believed were soundly secured

Technically you are right but realistically wrong.
Click to expand...
like i said, you keep spouting unsubstantiated crap such as that

It has evolved like most liberal programs into what Barney Franks calls the "inherent right of every American to own a home"
Click to expand...
barney did say that - or something to that effect. but his words did not spawn the processing of bad paper, sold on the secondary market to unwary investors
the desire for wall street to sell snake oil - over valued collateralized debt obligations and derivatives - the latter of which is still going on and remains unregulated because the finance industry does not want it regulated

I sure wish people like you would grow up and instead of calling Bush "shrub" actually objectively look at his results instead of buying what you are being told.
Click to expand...
dubya bin lyin was a pitiful excuse for a president. and he was skillfully handled by the man behind the throne - ole dead eye dick. but you are welcome to point out his "accomplishments" and i will respond in kind. i look forward to debating that topic with you. let's just do it in another thread so that we do not further derail this one

Guess too many today lack individual pride and have no problem being proven wrong.
Click to expand...
i will defer to your substantial experience regarding that point
 
justabubba;1058583136]you keep spouting a bunch of crap without any basis in fact
what drove the writing of mortgages to individuals without the capacity to pay was the desire of wall street to offer a high yield product - collateralized debt obligations - to the many buyers who sought high yield investments they wrongly believed were soundly secured


like i said, you keep spouting unsubstantiated crap such as that
Click to expand...

I guess you can never change the mind of an ideologue. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd disagree with you but I am sure you are right. There legislation didn't matter whereas yours did.

barney did say that - or something to that effect. but his words did not spawn the processing of bad paper, sold on the secondary market to unwary investors
the desire for wall street to sell snake oil - over valued collateralized debt obligations and derivatives - the latter of which is still going on and remains unregulated because the finance industry does not want it regulated
Click to expand...

Wall Street did nothing wrong and worked within the law. What the industry wants is irrelevant to what Frank and Congress wanted.

dubya bin lyin was a pitiful excuse for a president. and he was skillfully handled by the man behind the throne - ole dead eye dick. but you are welcome to point out his "accomplishments" and i will respond in kind. i look forward to debating that topic with you. let's just do it in another thread so that we do not further derail this one
Click to expand...

You are wasting too much valuable time spouting hate rhetoric over a President that did absolutely nothing to hurt you or your family. It is ignorance like this that gave us Obama.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It has a lot to do with libertarianism. If you basically believe the federal government should be given a blank check for anything they deem as defense - because no one can quantify the amount of money required to keep our country safe, then that is about as anti-libertarian of an argument as it gets.
Click to expand...

Okay then, Mr. Smarty-Pants, give me an exact dollar amount and why it is the best amount. Be sure to outline every program you feel is necessary and how much it will cost to implement each one.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
He simply was not fiscally conservative. Why does that bother you to the point of partisanship?
Click to expand...

It bothers us because you haven't made a solid argument in favor of your position; it has nothing to do with partisanship. And asserting things is not the same as proving them - so, you can repeat, "He simply was not fiscally conservative" until the cows come home, but until you offer a reasonable argument in favor of that position I will not accept it.

You've basically implied that Reagan should have raised taxes or cut defense spending in order to accommodate the rampant domestic spending of the Congress. That is patently absurd I will not agree with it. So, either change your argument so that it is no longer intellectually dishonest, or accept the fact that your assertions are nothing more than your opinion.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Ok. So is....... a balanced budget ;-) But we know that is not a "conservative" thing....
Click to expand...

You see. This is your entire argument and it is utterly lacking in intellectual honesty. You simplistically equate the deficit with fiscal irresponsibility on the part of Reagan without actually examining the circumstances which surrounded said deficit. If you wish to take such a myopic view of history that is your prerogative but do not suggest that someone is a partisan tool simply because they refuse to accept your overly simplistic narrative about balanced budgets.
 
Is it just because it is easier to complain about the President that we almost never see threads that specifically criticize Congress for the work they do?!!
 
Ethereal said:
It bothers us because you haven't made a solid argument in favor of your position; it has nothing to do with partisanship. And asserting things is not the same as proving them - so, you can repeat, "He simply was not fiscally conservative" until the cows come home, but until you offer a reasonable argument in favor of that position I will not accept it.

You've basically implied that Reagan should have raised taxes or cut defense spending in order to accommodate the rampant domestic spending of the Congress. That is patently absurd I will not agree with it. So, either change your argument so that it is no longer intellectually dishonest, or accept the fact that your assertions are nothing more than your opinion.
Click to expand...

Just give up, these people will stay convinced that they know better than the vast majority of Americans because they saw a big number (deficit) and decided that it says all they need to know, and there is no need to look into what made that number big.

Ironically, these are many of the same people who insist that Obama's deficits are different, and you have to really look deep into why those are high, and then smart people like them will realize that it's all Bush's fault. :roll:
 
Telecaster said:
Is it just because it is easier to complain about the President that we almost never see threads that specifically criticize Congress for the work they do?!!
Click to expand...

What some people don't seem to understand is that the Congress has exclusive authority to appropriate funds. The Executive branch cannot spend a dime without the Congress, but apparently the deficit is all Reagan's fault because he didn't veto every single bill that came to his desk. Not like it would have mattered, since Congress has the ultimate authority to override a Presidential veto. But let's not let that little fact get in the way of the chosen narrative: Reagan wasn't a fiscal conservative because he refused to raise taxes or decrease military spending!

:roll:
 
Dav said:
Just give up, these people will stay convinced that they know better than the vast majority of Americans because they saw a big number (deficit) and decided that it says all they need to know, and there is no need to look into what made that number big.
Click to expand...

It's a common tactic of the left. Just forcefully assert something over and over again and insult anyone who disagrees with you. Do this until your opponent gets tired of debating and then act like you've proven something.

Ironically, these are many of the same people who insist that Obama's deficits are different, and you have to really look deep into why those are high, and then smart people like them will realize that it's all Bush's fault. :roll:
Click to expand...

Bush's fault? No, you have to look back ever further, to zombie Reagan!!!
 
Conservative said:
define:fiscal conservative - Google Search
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.
Click to expand...

He then raised taxes on three different occasions - including the biggest raise of the payroll tax ever.

I've already provided the links to show that in this and other threads.

You're the one ignoring the facts.

I don't disagree with your assertion that money in the hands of the people is a good thing.

But while he decreased income taxes - he raised payroll taxes.

Indeed, there is evidence that for a good portion of the population, their overall (income + payroll) tax burden increased.

In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm NOT judging it. I'm just trying to present the fact that Reagan - while cutting some taxes - increased taxes for others.

He may be your idol - but you're idolizing for thing that aren't, in fact, true.

He increased spending; created new government departments; and as much as he cut taxes for some, he raised taxes for others.

You can argue all you like, but all the facts show that he expanded government, increased the deficit, and did raise some taxes.

To me, that's not the definition of a small-government conservative. He did conservative things, yes. But I don't see him as a small government conservative - because the facts prove otherwise. Again, earlier I provided a link from a conservative think tank that derided him for his liberal spending. The Democrats in the House were certainly a part of it; but in the end he signed and approved all of those budgets, so he was complicit in the deficits of his era.

For a lot of Americans things improved and he did expedite the downfall of the Soviet system. I give him credit for those things. But to do it, he spent a lot of money, increased deficits, and expanded government to a degree greater than Carter or Clinton. And yes, Dept. of Defense IS government.
 
Telecaster said:
Is it just because it is easier to complain about the President that we almost never see threads that specifically criticize Congress for the work they do?!!
Click to expand...

Well, yeah.

Presidents regardless of party take the brunt of the criticism; when really most of the blame would lie with Congress (and as Congress of 2000 - 2006 proved, also regardless of party).
 
FilmFestGuy said:
He then raised taxes on three different occasions - including the biggest raise of the payroll tax ever.

I've already provided the links to show that in this and other threads.

You're the one ignoring the facts.

I don't disagree with your assertion that money in the hands of the people is a good thing.

But while he decreased income taxes - he raised payroll taxes.

Indeed, there is evidence that for a good portion of the population, their overall (income + payroll) tax burden increased.



Once again, I'm NOT judging it. I'm just trying to present the fact that Reagan - while cutting some taxes - increased taxes for others.

He may be your idol - but you're idolizing for thing that aren't, in fact, true.

He increased spending; created new government departments; and as much as he cut taxes for some, he raised taxes for others.

You can argue all you like, but all the facts show that he expanded government, increased the deficit, and did raise some taxes.

To me, that's not the definition of a small-government conservative. He did conservative things, yes. But I don't see him as a small government conservative - because the facts prove otherwise. Again, earlier I provided a link from a conservative think tank that derided him for his liberal spending. The Democrats in the House were certainly a part of it; but in the end he signed and approved all of those budgets, so he was complicit in the deficits of his era.

For a lot of Americans things improved and he did expedite the downfall of the Soviet system. I give him credit for those things. But to do it, he spent a lot of money, increased deficits, and expanded government to a degree greater than Carter or Clinton. And yes, Dept. of Defense IS government.
Click to expand...

You have a good understanding of the numbers but a poor understanding of the government.

The Congress has exclusive authority over the appropriation of funds and the enactment of legislation; they are a co-equal branch within government. Trying to blame the Executive for something the Legislature has ultimate control over is like blaming Barack Obama for the latest SCOTUS decision.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
He then raised taxes on three different occasions - including the biggest raise of the payroll tax ever.

I've already provided the links to show that in this and other threads.

You're the one ignoring the facts.

I don't disagree with your assertion that money in the hands of the people is a good thing.

But while he decreased income taxes - he raised payroll taxes.

Indeed, there is evidence that for a good portion of the population, their overall (income + payroll) tax burden increased.



Once again, I'm NOT judging it. I'm just trying to present the fact that Reagan - while cutting some taxes - increased taxes for others.

He may be your idol - but you're idolizing for thing that aren't, in fact, true.

He increased spending; created new government departments; and as much as he cut taxes for some, he raised taxes for others.

You can argue all you like, but all the facts show that he expanded government, increased the deficit, and did raise some taxes.

To me, that's not the definition of a small-government conservative. He did conservative things, yes. But I don't see him as a small government conservative - because the facts prove otherwise. Again, earlier I provided a link from a conservative think tank that derided him for his liberal spending. The Democrats in the House were certainly a part of it; but in the end he signed and approved all of those budgets, so he was complicit in the deficits of his era.

For a lot of Americans things improved and he did expedite the downfall of the Soviet system. I give him credit for those things. But to do it, he spent a lot of money, increased deficits, and expanded government to a degree greater than Carter or Clinton. And yes, Dept. of Defense IS government.
Click to expand...

Film, first of all do you know what payroll taxes are and where the money goes? Any idea why Reagan raised payroll taxes?

Reagan and the Congress increased the debt by 1.7 trillion dollars. Most of that was due to domestic spending which Congress generated. Reagan set a veto record and still the deficit rose as did the GDP, Govt. tax revenue, and the number of jobs created.

The Dept. of Defense is the purpose of the Federal Govt. Carter basically gutted it, and Clinton had a peace dividend. You do have a one sided view of what actually went on during the Reagan years. It was the Dept. of Defense that helped destroy the Soviet Union.

As for the deficit. were you around on 9/11? How did that event affect the budget? How about Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ike, and Hurricane Floyd?

You seem to have a huge concern about the 1.7 trillion debt Reagan added. Do you have the same outrage or worse over the fact that Obama has exceeded the Reagan debt in less than 2 years? Does it bother you that Clinton added 1.2 trillion to the debt and he had a peace dividend?
 
As said above, Reagan did what he could with an uncooperative Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom