• 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
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...

Now there is a standard of excellence.
 
upsideguy said:
Now there is a standard of excellence.
Click to expand...

Why do liberals have such a problem with Reagan. What exactly did Reagan do to you. I know what he did to liberals, he destroyed them by taking away victims. Putting the name Reagan out there is like putting a red cape in front of a bull.

Reagan's record is complete with good and bad just like all Presidents. The difference is the good in the Reagan record far outweighs the bad and that drives liberals crazy. Is there really anyone out there that wouldn't take the Reagan economy today vs. what we have? How about the Reagan Debt in 8 years? How about the Reagan economic growth? All liberals want to talk about is the debt which Obama will create in less than 2 years.
 
winston53660 said:
Why do conservatives have such a problem with Clinton?:2razz:
Click to expand...

Because the Reagan Record trumps the Clinton record by plenty. Put the two records side by side and get back to me. I can name the legislation that Reagan authorized and signed along with the initiatives implemented that led to the economic growth we had. With Clinton it was the Contract with American that Republicans put forth that Clinton signed after kicking and screaming. Reagan generated results whereas Clinton benefited from results.
 
Conservative said:
Why do liberals have such a problem with Reagan. What exactly did Reagan do to you. I know what he did to liberals, he destroyed them by taking away victims. Putting the name Reagan out there is like putting a red cape in front of a bull.

Reagan's record is complete with good and bad just like all Presidents. The difference is the good in the Reagan record far outweighs the bad and that drives liberals crazy. Is there really anyone out there that wouldn't take the Reagan economy today vs. what we have? How about the Reagan Debt in 8 years? How about the Reagan economic growth? All liberals want to talk about is the debt which Obama will create in less than 2 years.
Click to expand...

reagan was bat **** crazy when he finally exited the office. but no crazier than his wife, nancy, who was consulting psychics
he was a simpleton who was a pawn of the republican power brokers
it was cheaper to borrow money from the mafia than the 20% prime rate charged during his term. that wiped out those who were not wealthy and were unable to weather the economic storm ... but that elite was then able to acquire assets very cheaply in the liquidation aftermath
reagan implemented the neocon 'starve the beast' strategy to reduce programs for the social safety net by spending the money instead on unworkable crap such as his star wars effort
and he was a racist. Herbert says it best here:
... He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation. ...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html
why do liberal Americans have a problem with reagan you ask; in short, reagan was a putz
 
justabubba said:
reagan was bat **** crazy when he finally exited the office. but no crazier than his wife, nancy, who was consulting psychics
he was a simpleton who was a pawn of the republican power brokers
it was cheaper to borrow money from the mafia than the 20% prime rate charged during his term. that wiped out those who were not wealthy and were unable to weather the economic storm ... but that elite was then able to acquire assets very cheaply in the liquidation aftermath
reagan implemented the neocon 'starve the beast' strategy to reduce programs for the social safety net by spending the money instead on unworkable crap such as his star wars effort
and he was a racist. Herbert says it best here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html
why do liberal Americans have a problem with reagan you ask; in short, reagan was a putz
Click to expand...

I rest my case, what a bunch of BS. Facts trump your rhetoric and opinions. BEA.gov, BLS.gov give you the facts as do the results of Presidential rankings by historians.

I certainly understand why people like you need so called leadership like Obama's. It doesn't matter what one does in your world when that someone is spending us into oblivion.

Liberals always think with their hearts instead of their brain, always create victims, and always show intellectual dishonesty in their rhetoric.
 
Conservative said:
Because the Reagan Record trumps the Clinton record by plenty. Put the two records side by side and get back to me. I can name the legislation that Reagan authorized and signed along with the initiatives implemented that led to the economic growth we had. With Clinton it was the Contract with American that Republicans put forth that Clinton signed after kicking and screaming. Reagan generated results whereas Clinton benefited from results.
Click to expand...

Yes the results were so great that we turned into a debtor nation and Bush 41 had to raise taxes.
 
winston53660 said:
Yes the results were so great that we turned into a debtor nation and Bush 41 had to raise taxes.
Click to expand...

LOL, if we were a debtor nation then with a 2.6 trillion dollar debt, what are we now with a 13 trillion dollar debt with a President that added more debt in 2 years than Reagan did in 8?

Reagan took office with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion

Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and after less than 2 years it is almost 13 trillion.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Reagan took office with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion

Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and after less than 2 years it is almost 13 trillion.
Click to expand...

WOW so Reagan more than DOUBLED the debt. No wonder Bush 41 had to raise taxes and we turned into a debtor nation.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, if we were a debtor nation then with a 2.6 trillion dollar debt, what are we now with a 13 trillion dollar debt which a President that added more debt in 2 years than Reagan did in 8?

Reagan took office with a 900 billion debt and left it at 2.6 trillion

Obama took office with a 10.6 trillion debt and after less than 2 years it is almost 13 trillion.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT point
reagan tripled the size of the national debt (290%) while Obama increased it by 22% ... recognizing much of Obama's expenditure was spent stabilizing a broken exonomy left by his republican predecessor

i'm not laughing WITH you
 
winston53660 said:
WOW so Reagan more than DOUBLED the debt. No wonder Bush 41 had to raise taxes and we turned into a debtor nation.
Click to expand...

Wow? Yes, Reagan with the "HELP" of a Democrat Controlled House doubled the debt. Obama with the "HELP" of a Democrat Controlled CONGRESS created more debt in two years than Reagan did in 8.

Seems hard for someone like you to understand. Not surprising.
 
Conservative said:
Wow? Yes, Reagan with the "HELP" of a Democrat Controlled House doubled the debt. Obama with the "HELP" of a Democrat Controlled CONGRESS created more debt in two years than Reagan did in 8.

Seems hard for someone like you to understand. Not surprising.
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew it is always some one else's (the evil democrats) fault:roll:
 
justabubba said:
EXCELLENT point
reagan tripled the size of the national debt (290%) while Obama increased it by 22% ... recognizing much of Obama's expenditure was spent stabilizing a broken exonomy left by his republican predecessor

i'm not laughing WITH you
Click to expand...

You should be laughing at yourself, real dollars not percentage is what we pay debt service on. What was the debt service on the 2.6 trillion dollars vs. the debt service on the 13 trillion dollars. Sounds like a concept you have trouble understanding.

Broken economy? What exactly did the Democrat Congress do from January 2007 to the present to fix it?

You buy what you are told yet this President hasn't offered any accurate predictions or assessments yet. "never let a good crisis go to waste" is the motto of this President and sheep like you buy the rhetoric.

This economy wasn't broken nearly as bad as the economy when Reagan took over. we didn't have 20+% interest rates, we didn't have double digit inflation thus a terrible misery index. We also didn't have kids living in the past like we do today while always complaining about the past.

What I find amazing is kids today that weren't old enough to know what was going on in the 80's still claim to be experts on the 80's. All to divert from what is happening right now.

Putting the records side by side, Reagan vs. Obama is there any doubt which record the majority in this country would want? Wonder why it is that the Obama polls are plumeting with those incredible results you seem to think exist today?
 
winston53660 said:
Yeah I knew it is always some one else's (the evil democrats) fault:roll:
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have a clue how our govt. works. Please stop embarrassing yourself. we do not elect a king. The Reagan record is absolutely incredible since it is based upon an economic record generated with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives.

Notice that you continue to ignore the factual record of Reagan shown in BEA.gov. Not surprising as you play upon the ignorance of others just like you.
 
Conservative said:
You should be laughing at yourself, real dollars not percentage is what we pay debt service on. What was the debt service on the 2.6 trillion dollars vs. the debt service on the 13 trillion dollars. Sounds like a concept you have trouble understanding.
Click to expand...
i laugh at anyone who posts a 290% increase in spending being better than a 22% increase
must be your recollection of reaganomics speaking

Broken economy? What exactly did the Democrat Congress do from January 2007 to the present to fix it?
Click to expand...
i remember those on your side INSISTING that the fundamentals of the economy are sound
also recall that the republicans kept telling us that there was no "official" recession based on the data
all the while, unregulated banking was boiling the economy, and the republican solution was to bail out the very monied interests which caused the problem. your folks tranferred the taxes of the wage earner to replace the lost wealth of the rich
only fools and simpletons haven't figured that one out yet

You buy what you are told yet this President hasn't offered any accurate predictions or assessments yet. "never let a good crisis go to waste" is the motto of this President and sheep like you buy the rhetoric.
Click to expand...
and i see you have neglected to offer up an accurate prediction of the president's policies in his absence. that's right, your side prefers to monday morning quarterback. without no clue about cause and effect, you wait until you see something you hope you won't like and then grouse about it
'lack of substance' is the term that comes to mind when describing such pontificators

This economy wasn't broken nearly as bad as the economy when Reagan took over. we didn't have 20+% interest rates, we didn't have double digit inflation thus a terrible misery index. We also didn't have kids living in the past like we do today while always complaining about the past.
Click to expand...
you mean that economy that was broken by the oil cartel. the one which resulted because of the reagan deal with the iranians to keep our citizens hostage to assure the outcome of the national election. you do recall they were released as soon as he was elected. read up on iran contra and see how your ronnie raygun was behind drug dealing with the money obtained by selling weapons to the iranians
and the misery index was at its apex during the reagan era. if you are going to use a term, it's a good idea to understand what it means

What I find amazing is kids today that weren't old enough to know what was going on in the 80's still claim to be experts on the 80's. All to divert from what is happening right now.
Click to expand...
that is not my perspective. i was on the line trying to help small businesses survive the 20% prime rate during ronnie's reign of stupidity. reagan decided it was then a good time to pull the plug on direct SBA lending to the small business community ... when banks were offering floating rates of 20% prime plus 2.75%. misery index indeed

Putting the records side by side, Reagan vs. Obama is there any doubt which record the majority in this country would want? Wonder why it is that the Obama polls are plumeting with those incredible results you seem to think exist today?
Click to expand...
they only compared in one respect. both could be eloquent on stage. but Obama is looking to fix problems. reagan could not break **** fast enough. i was there. as a liquidator of federal business loans i dealt with the results of his decisions. which is why i find your posts on this matter so clueless
 
Conservative said:
You don't seem to have a clue how our govt. works. Please stop embarrassing yourself. we do not elect a king. The Reagan record is absolutely incredible since it is based upon an economic record generated with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives.

Notice that you continue to ignore the factual record of Reagan shown in BEA.gov. Not surprising as you play upon the ignorance of others just like you.
Click to expand...

YAWN okay what ever you say. But now your scripted diatribes are getting way to boring. plonk
 
justabubba;1058686824]i laugh at anyone who posts a 290% increase in spending being better than a 22% increase
must be your recollection of reaganomics speaking
Click to expand...

Look dealing with you is an example of Glenn Beck's book, Arguing with Idiots. Please stop making a fool out of yourself and understand the difference between percentage change and actual dollars. What would a 290% increase in the current debt be?


i remember those on your side INSISTING that the fundamentals of the economy are sound
also recall that the republicans kept telling us that there was no "official" recession based on the data
all the while, unregulated banking was boiling the economy, and the republican solution was to bail out the very monied interests which caused the problem. your folks tranferred the taxes of the wage earner to replace the lost wealth of the rich
only fools and simpletons haven't figured that one out yet
Click to expand...

And I remember Barney Franks claiming that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae being sound and a good investment long term.

I keep remembering when the recession began, December 2007 and who was in charge of the Congress thus the purse strings.

I remember during the Bush years when the stock market went over 14000 and the claims we were in a recession.

You have a selective memory that actually ignores results and what generated those results.

and i see you have neglected to offer up an accurate prediction of the president's policies in his absence. that's right, your side prefers to monday morning quarterback. without no clue about cause and effect, you wait until you see something you hope you won't like and then grouse about it
'lack of substance' is the term that comes to mind when describing such pontificators
Click to expand...

Obviously you don't read much, do a search on my posts and you will get accurate predictions on my part as to exactly who this President is and what he would do. I told anyone who would listen who we elected but as usual only rhetoric from Obama is believed in spite of the fact that all that rhetoric is lies.

you mean that economy that was broken by the oil cartel. the one which resulted because of the reagan deal with the iranians to keep our citizens hostage to assure the outcome of the national election. you do recall they were released as soon as he was elected. read up on iran contra and see how your ronnie raygun was behind drug dealing with the money obtained by selling weapons to the iranians
and the misery index was at its apex during the reagan era. if you are going to use a term, it's a good idea to understand what it means
Click to expand...

You sure have a hatred for Reagan and the question remains why? What is it that Reagan did that hurt you or your family. My bet is you are like so many here, someone too young to know what was going on in the 80's?

You seem to need that nanny state as well as a President to protect you from yourself and poor choices you make. Only a liberal would ignore the misery index and ignore the affects of Reaganomics. The people spoke in 1984, what were the results of that election?


that is not my perspective. i was on the line trying to help small businesses survive the 20% prime rate during ronnie's reign of stupidity. reagan decided it was then a good time to pull the plug on direct SBA lending to the small business community ... when banks were offering floating rates of 20% prime plus 2.75%. misery index indeed
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan didn't create 20% interest rates or double digit home mortgage rates, Carter economic policy did. Reagan took office in January 1981, implemented the tax cut policy in the fall of 1981 that went into effect 1982. The elections of 1984 show the results of those tax cuts. Ask your parents how the tax cuts affected them?

they only compared in one respect. both could be eloquent on stage. but Obama is looking to fix problems. reagan could not break **** fast enough. i was there. as a liquidator of federal business loans i dealt with the results of his decisions. which is why i find your posts on this matter so clueless
Click to expand...

Only in the liberal world would one believe Obama is solving problems. Obama is creating more victims to exploit. Only in the liberal world would someone believe that govt. is the answer to everyone else's problems when the reality is govt. doesn't solve individual problems, it creates them.

It looks to me like you are clueless. Name for me a prediction that Obama has made that is accurate?
 
prezspending.gif
 
jacksbrat said:
prezspending.gif
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this chart is supposed to show. I prefer BEA.gov information that shows the doubling of GDP, doubling of Govt. revenue and almost 20 million jobs created after taking over an economy with 20 plus interest rates, double digit inflation, and rising unemployment.
 
Conservative said:
I have no idea what this chart is supposed to show. I prefer BEA.gov information that shows the doubling of GDP, doubling of Govt. revenue and almost 20 million jobs created after taking over an economy with 20 plus interest rates, double digit inflation, and rising unemployment.
Click to expand...

no surprise there. anyone who thinks a 290% increase in debt is better than a 22% increase would certainly have a difficult time recognizing that the republican presidents in that graph are the ones who substantially spent more the government took in
 
justabubba said:
no surprise there. anyone who thinks a 290% increase in debt is better than a 22% increase would certainly have a difficult time recognizing that the republican presidents in that graph are the ones who substantially spent more the government took in
Click to expand...

Careful there bubba,you already have him yappen about Barney Franks...hard tellen what he will try as a diversionary tactic now.:rofl
 
justabubba said:
no surprise there. anyone who thinks a 290% increase in debt is better than a 22% increase would certainly have a difficult time recognizing that the republican presidents in that graph are the ones who substantially spent more the government took in
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you say it a 1.7 trillion increase in 8 years isn't as much as 3 trillion increase in 2 years. Reagan vs. Obama, the choice is clear.
 
donc said:
Careful there bubba,you already have him yappen about Barney Franks...hard tellen what he will try as a diversionary tactic now.:rofl
Click to expand...

Keep running, donc, every time your issues are refuted you run and are MIA for weeks. Please take a civics class and stop making a fool out of yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom