• 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
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.

Is that adjusted for inflation?
 
:rofl

:rofl, some inflation that would make 1.7 trillion in EIGHT years is more than 3 trillion in TWO!!

Don't hurt yourself laughing. I didn't say that.

I was just trying to ascertain whether this was an intellectually honest representation of the numbers.
 
The main difference is that his military spending was intended to be temporary, while welfare spending never is. By cutting domestic spending to a reasonable level, and contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union, which permitted cutting military spending a huge amount, Reagan's budget allowed for the surpluses of the 90's even though no president after him cut domestic spending.

That's not to mention that, as I already said, he only got half of the cuts he wanted.
Well at least you admit "contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union," instead of claiming, as most Reaganites, that he single handedly defeated and destroyed the USSR. ;) Now if we can only get you to see the rest of the Reagan Legacy Project as revisionism you'll be on the road to recovery. :lol:
 
Don't hurt yourself laughing. I didn't say that.

I was just trying to ascertain whether this was an intellectually honest representation of the numbers.

When has a liberal argument been intellectually honest? When someone posts a chart like this that ignores a major component, use of SS funds, and ignores what is going on right now it shows just how bad liberals really are. The American people get it and that is why Reagan ranks above Clinton in historical ranking of Presidents and why GW Bush rankings are improving.
 
When has a liberal argument been intellectually honest? When someone posts a chart like this that ignores a major component, use of SS funds, and ignores what is going on right now it shows just how bad liberals really are. The American people get it and that is why Reagan ranks above Clinton in historical ranking of Presidents and why GW Bush rankings are improving.

so you didn't like that data, finding it somehow incomplete. then post another more comprehensive chart
let's see what will have changed


it will be nothing. the republican presidents will still be found as the ones who spent more than the government took in

but rather than whine that someone else's data devastates your argument, man up and offer us something more than a crying towel
 
so you didn't like that data, finding it somehow incomplete. then post another more comprehensive chart
let's see what will have changed


it will be nothing. the republican presidents will still be found as the ones who spent more than the government took in

but rather than whine that someone else's data devastates your argument, man up and offer us something more than a crying towel

I have posted the charts as well as the study commissioned by the Clinton Administration on the Reagan Administration and the affects of tax cuts on the economy. The Joint Economic Commission put out a report in the mid 90's regarding the Reagan economy and is posted on another thread in this forum. You unfortunately are like far too many liberals and want to re-write history and ignore history. No President spends a dime without Congressional approval and this President with a Democrat Congress is spending us into oblivion yet you want to focus on the 1.7 trillion debt that Reagan AND the Congress created in the 80's in 8 years but not the 3 trillion dollar debt that Obama created in just two years. Got it! You are an ideologue whose sole purpose is to divert from the present.

Nothing is going to change your mind so it serves no purpose to continue arguing what happened over 20 years ago except to divert from what is happening right now. You are so concerned about the debt that occurred in 1980 that you ignore what is happening right now.

I know of no one with a brain who wouldn't take the 80's over what is happening right now with Obama. The majority of the American people get it, apparently you never will.
 
so you didn't like that data, finding it somehow incomplete. then post another more comprehensive chart
let's see what will have changed


it will be nothing. the republican presidents will still be found as the ones who spent more than the government took in

but rather than whine that someone else's data devastates your argument, man up and offer us something more than a crying towel

This is an interesting site that destroys most of liberalism. Wonder if you have the guts to explore it.

http://www.drdino.com/godonomics.php
 
so you didn't like that data, finding it somehow incomplete. then post another more comprehensive chart
let's see what will have changed


it will be nothing. the republican presidents will still be found as the ones who spent more than the government took in

but rather than whine that someone else's data devastates your argument, man up and offer us something more than a crying towel

Here is a true fair and balanced look at Reaganomics. Suggest you read it as it will dispel much of the myth you and others have about what happened in the 80's.

There are good and bad with every President and this site lays out both. I will take the 80's in a heartbeat over what we have right now. Liberal social engineering and attempts to re-write history has created a bunch of Zombies who wander around with a glazed look in their eyes everytime a liberal like Obama speaks. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in the liberal world as they continue to throw money at individual responsibility issues.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
 
Reagan didn't cut domestic spending. It actually went up under him.
He reduced the rate a growth.
Any other time a liberal will describe this as a cut in an attempt to sacre those who might be negatively affected by it -- so, it's a cut.
 
Last edited:
He reduced the rate a growth.
Any other time a liberal will describe this as a cut in an attemptt o sacre those who might be negatively affected by it -- so it's a cut.

Obviously the Cato review of Reagan has no place in the liberal playbook as they refuse to believe anything other than the myths they perpetuate.
 
Obviously the Cato review of Reagan has no place in the liberal playbook as they refuse to believe anything other than the myths they perpetuate.
Demonizing whoever they hate is nothnig new -- after all, it just wont do for anyone to have a positive impression of any conservative.
 
Demonizing whoever they hate is nothnig new -- after all, it just wont do for anyone to have a positive impression of any conservative.

Wrong

I liked George HW Bush, and Bob Dole

the Reagan admin was among the most liberal when it came with government deficit spending.

Any look at deficit to GDP % would show that.
 
Wrong
I liked George HW Bush, and Bob Dole
These guys arent really conservatives - right/moderates would describe them best.

the Reagan admin was among the most liberal when it came with government deficit spending.
I believe this has been addressed...
 
Wrong

I liked George HW Bush, and Bob Dole

the Reagan admin was among the most liberal when it came with government deficit spending.

Any look at deficit to GDP % would show that.

Allowing people to keep more of their own money isn't liberal. Read the Cato analysis of the Reagan years as it dispels a lot of the liberal myths including yours.
 
Allowing people to keep more of their own money isn't liberal. Read the Cato analysis of the Reagan years as it dispels a lot of the liberal myths including yours.

He didnt let you keep more of your money


He defered your taxes to a future date

Remember that unless you default all debts have to be payed back.

Government debt are just taxes that have to be paid in the future. As government debt as % of GDP increased during the Reagan admin, the amount of taxes that will be needed to be paid in the future increased just to pay off debt

Just as the debt that the Obama admin is incuring now will have to be paid back in the future through taxes
 
He didnt let you keep more of your money
He defered your taxes to a future date
This isnt necessarily the case at all.

It -would- be the case if spending never drops below revenues, allowing for the debt to be paid down, but this is not a certainty -- indeed, we can choose to do this any time we want, just as easily as we choose not to.

And so, tax increases are in no way a future necessity.
 
He didnt let you keep more of your money


He defered your taxes to a future date

Remember that unless you default all debts have to be payed back.

Government debt are just taxes that have to be paid in the future. As government debt as % of GDP increased during the Reagan admin, the amount of taxes that will be needed to be paid in the future increased just to pay off debt

Just as the debt that the Obama admin is incuring now will have to be paid back in the future through taxes


LOL, stay in Canada as your knowledge of this country is lacking.

My personal take home pay increased during the Reagan years and I used that money to pay down debt. Reagan debt was 1.7 trillion dollars, today Obama will add double that in 2 years. I will take the 80's any day over what we have now, 2.6 trillion debt with a 14.5 trillion dollar economy vs. a 13 trillion dollar debt with a 14.5 trillion dollar economy? Hmmm, wonder which one is better?
 
This isnt necessarily the case at all.

It -would- be the case if spending never drops below revenues, allowing for the debt to be paid down, but this is not a certainty -- indeed, we can choose to do this any time we want, just as easily as we choose not to.

And so, tax increases are in no way a future necessity.

No you just increasing debt so that your childern will have to pay for it.
 
No you just increasing debt so that your childern will have to pay for it.

It seems that debt only matters when it is created during a Republican Administration. Debt that Obama is creating doesn't matter to liberals nor is the 1.3 trillion that was added to the debt when Clinton was President. Obama debt will exceed the 8 year Reagan debt this year, after only two years in office.
 
really? you're forgetting that right after reagan left office bush raised taxes, out of necessity.
 
It seems that debt only matters when it is created during a Republican Administration. Debt that Obama is creating doesn't matter to liberals nor is the 1.3 trillion that was added to the debt when Clinton was President. Obama debt will exceed the 8 year Reagan debt this year, after only two years in office.

I am not defending Clinton's debt or Obama's debt

I am not defending the debt by Reagan, unlike some
 
No you just increasing debt so that your childern will have to pay for it.
Well, it that's your argument, then he DID let -me- keep more of my money in a manner that in no way necessitates that my children or grand-children will have to pay more.

Like I said - you're only right if we choose to neve rlet revenue exceed spending, at whoch point there's no way to put the blame on Reagan.

Oh, and just for perspective - The Obama ran more in deficits in just His first year than RWR in 8; the INCREASE in entitlement spending in The Obama's first year exceeded the TOTAL spending in half or RWR's years.

So really -- trying to pin any sort of future woe on Reagan is just silly.
 
Back
Top Bottom