Jump to content

Rand Paul Is Right: Carter Was Thriftier Than Reagan


Recommended Posts

http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/24/rand-paul-is-right-jimmy-carter-was-thri

 

 

 

Mother Jones does love found footage, doesn't it? The progressive mag's airing of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comments at a fundraiser definitely hurt the former Massachusetts governor in his attempt to boot President Obama in 2012.

 

Now Mojo is back with the vid above, which the mag must hope will discombobulate Republicans and help put the brakes on a libertarian-leaning senator whose anti-war and anti-NSA stances draw long looks from disaffected liberals and lefties.

 

"Rand Paul: Jimmy Carter was better on the budget than Ronald Reagan" is how the vid begins. It shows the Kentucky senator in a variety of settings between 2007 and 2009 slagging St. Reagan as a spendthrift.

 

As Mediaite's Andrew Kirell points out, all of Paul's basic statements about spending under Reagan are absolutely true. The short version: Reagan spent like a drunken sailor and skipped out on the bill.

 

Here's a chart by Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy:

Federal-Outlays-Per-Capita-580_1.jpg

Paul is correct to say that Reagan was worse than Carter when it came to spending. As de Rugy does the math, Carter increased real spending 17 percent over the last budget of his predecessor, Gerald Ford. Over two terms, Reagan increased spending by 22 percent over Carter's final budget. On an annualized basis, then, Carter grew spending by 4.25 precent a year, while Reagan grew it by 2.75 percent. However, when expressed as a percentage of GDP, spending under Carter averaged 20.6 percent per year while Reagan averaged 21.6 percent. Spending typically really gears up in a second-term president's final years, so it's plausible to theorize that had Carter managed to stick around for eight years, he might have equaled or surpassed what the real-world Reagan managed. Note: The paragraph above has been edited to better reflect annual spending patterns.

 

When it comes to debt, there's no question that Reagan was worse. Over an eight-year reign, he tallied up $1.4 trillion in deficits, or an average of $177 billion per year. Carter—a famously cheapskate Southern Baptist—racked up just $253 billion over four years, for an average deficit of $63 billon per year. Tax revenue went up sharply under Reagan, for sure, but like a Hollywood big shot, he still managed to spend ever larger amounts, resulting in an average annual deficit of 4.1 percent of GDP. The Peanut Farmer From Plains? A relatively tiny 2.3 percent of GDP. (All this data if from the Congressional Budget Office.)

 

Far from being the budget hawk of lore, Dutch had no problem jacking overall spending through the roof, especially when it came to military spending. As Reagan's first budget director, David Stockman, told Reason in 2011:

After trimming some programs early in his presidency, Reagan came around to pushing massive increases on just about everything, including education (a newly formed federal department he promised to kill upon taking office), Medicare (which he had denounced as "socialized medicine" in the early 1960s), and Social Security (before championing massive hikes in payroll taxes in his second term, he had once called for making Social Security voluntary).

reason: Reagan was famous for saying that government wasn’t the solution to the problem; government was the problem. Why wasn’t he more skeptical of Pentagon claims of what they needed and of where their financial estimates were coming from?

 

Stockman: That’s one of the mysteries of the time, I guess, and it’s one of the factors that led to the utter failure of spending control. He was utterly uninterested in any detail of the defense budget, of any of the claims for dollars made by the Pentagon. He gave them a blank check, without question, and that had a two-fold effect. One, it ballooned spending just as we were massively reducing the revenue. But second, it created an enormous political impasse. And that is, the spending increases were so huge in defense that it became almost impossible to get anybody to look at you with a straight face on Capitol Hill and say we’re gonna go after the food stamp program or school lunches, when you’re just showering tens of billions of dollars on ammunition accounts and spare parts replacements and a massive expansion of the Navy, which was totally uncalled for.

 

In many ways, Reagan's late-life embrace of old-age entitlements may have been his worst spending legacy. Created to address very different times and a very different workforce, Social Security and Medicare were in dire straits by the 1980s and had Reagan tried, he might have been able to replace these fundamentally unsustainable and unfair transfer programs into more effective and lower-cost safety net programs. Instead he called saving Social Security and Medicare—a feat accomplished through massive increases in FICA rates—"the highest priority of my administration." By the end of his presidency, the combined employee-employer rate was 15 percent, up from 9.35 percent in 1981 (and more income was subjected to Social Security tax to boot).

45229-land-Baseline1-yellow.png

As I argued the other day at The Daily Beast, Reagan is the "Godfather of Groupon Government," of huge and ongoing discounts to current taxpayers. Just as Groupon makes purchases more attractive by offering major price breaks, Groupon Goverment makes government goods and services more attractive by charging taxpayers much less than the retail price.

Three or four years ago, I heard then-Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) give a great talk to a group of conservatives. I can't reproduce the exact phrasing but the gist went something like this. Daniels talked about going to college in the late '60s and early 1970s. He talked about how there were always a bunch of lefties and progs around on campus, talking about FDR and the New Deal and how it hadn't gone far enough. Daniels said he'd tell those folks to get bent (again, the phrasing isn't exact), because the New Deal was like 30 years ago, man, and it doesn't have very much to do with today's America.

The Godfather of Groupon Government is none other than Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on killing whole cabinet departments and then presided over deficits that were so scandalously large that even Andy Warhol felt a need to comment on them. Starting in 1983, revenue increased every year under Reagan, but so did spending...leading to a tripling of the national debt on the Gipper’s watch.

 

Between 1974 (when new budget rules and accounting systems were put in place) and 2013, the CBO reports that total federal revenues averaged 17.5 percent of GDP while outlays averaged 20.5 percent of GDP. Expressed in terms of dollars, the government only charged Americans 84 cents per dollar of spending. Over the course of Reagan’s two terms, revenue only covered 82 cents, thus generously offering Americans an 18 percent discount.

 

So far, so good. Conservative-libertarian audiences like peeing on campus radicals and FDR. Daniels pulled some applause and hoots. But then he went on to say something that was really fricking awesome. He pointed out that here "we"—Republicans, he meant, or maybe fiscal conservatives more broadly—were in the 2000s and all "we" could do was invoke St. Ronald Reagan like he was the second coming of Jesus H. Christ (again, not his phrasing). Daniels looked around the room and said, You know, we're further in time from Reagan than those half-baked New Dealers were when I was in college. We've got to get new ideas, new policies, and a new vision of government. Times have changed. America has changed. Budget realities have changed.

 

The room was silent. Even the crickets were sitting on their hands (or whatever crickets have). In the movie of my mind, I'd like to think that I started a slow clap that eventually caught on and Mitch Daniels was carried out jubilantly by the crowd, kind of like Debra Winger is by Richard Gere at the end of Officer & a Gentlemen.

 

But of course none of that happened. Around the same time Daniels had also famously called for cease fire in the culture wars and for Republicans to focus on spending issues (the governor didn't mince words about how awful his former boss, George W. Bush, had been). Conservatives jumped all over him like pit bulls on a steak. Because he has a mind and was a serious thinker about policy, Daniels once discussed the effects of a possible V.A.T. tax during a talk about the legacy of Herman Kahn and was pilloried for that.

He left the podium that night having pissed off the very people who needed to hear his message the most, passed on a presidential run, and is now the president of Purdue University. If there was ever a victim of epistemic closure on the right, it was Mitch Daniels.

 

The point is: Take on Reagan's legacy and you're playing with fire. Especially if you're right about Reagan's terrible record on spending, which Rand Paul absolutely is. I used to think that the GOP would never move forward until it fully acknowledged just how utterly awful George W. Bush's presidency really was. Across every possible dimension—with the possible exception of immigration reform, where Dubya essentially created the DREAM Act that fills Republcan lawmakers with nightmares about cantaloupe-calved illegals "hauling 75 pounds of marijuana aross the desert"—Bush was a big-government disaster. Despite stated interest in a top-to-bottom makeover, the GOP isn't really interested in changing all that much of its general platform or vibe. Until they are, they can kiss libertarians goodbye, along with other rising segments of America. The GOP's one big ace in the hole is that they run against Democrats. But even that wears off.

 

Rand Paul is interested in doing things differently (check out this Google News capture of recent articles about the guy). He's actually reaching out to minority voters by talking about school choice and how free markets will help alleviate poverty and lack of opportunity. He's proposed budgets that actually cut government spending. He's the loudest political voice for civil liberties in an age of ubiquitous government surveillance. He's pushing back against exaggerated fears of voter fraud and dumbed-down arguments about global warming. He's smart on military spending, which is to say he's against limitless defense spending and blunderous foreign policy.

 

He's not perfect from a libertarian angle—no politician is—but he is a damn serious threat to the Republican establishment. And to the Democratic status quo too. Which explains both why conservatives and establishment Republicans are going after him and lefty progs want to see him take a powder. And why his star is rising among the growing number of political independents who are sick of living in a fantasyland of the past and a thoroughly disappointing present. When the knives come out to cut him down to size—from the right and from the left—I hope he has the guts to stick to his libertarian guns.

 

Over the past dozen-plus years, we've seen what conventional Republicans and Democrats have to offer America, and it ain't pretty. Change is needed and it ain't going to be easy. But that just makes it more important to fight for.

 

I absolutely agree, this romanticized--Often followed by a high-degree of White Washing rivaled only by Liberals and their White Washing of Clinton--view of Reagan needs to go and has utterly no basis in reality.

 

-NW

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every President before Reagan going back to Truman was thriftier than Reagan. Every President since has been more expensive (at least according to the chart)!

 

That's because Democrats like Carter, Kennedy, and even Johnson would be derided and denigrated as "Conservatives" in the modern era(Reagan-Obama). Forget about more fiscally sound policies of Eisenhower.

 

Most of our Presidents in fact, thought inflating, borrowing, and deficit spending were an abomination to be avoided at all costs. To FDR and Truman's credit, they at least tried to mitigate the cost of WWII via War Bonds and War Tax.

 

Modern presidents don't give this concept even a moment of thought.

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every President before Reagan going back to Truman was thriftier than Reagan. Every President since has been more expensive (at least according to the chart)!

Except for Johnson and FDR.

 

You guys act as if Reagan's spending was all his own. He traded spending with Tip so he could get the military spending he wanted and the tax cut. Then he raised taxes and all sorts of stuff.

 

No president is perfect. I liked Reagan but he is still just another politician to me. He did good things and bad things. I have NO idols in politics. Trusting in politicians is a fools bet.

Libertarians are like Linux users. They scream from their basements how great their product is and say it is growing and growing, yet to this day it is still a nothing OS. No your brand is not growing. You few are just getting louder and more annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's because Democrats like Carter, Kennedy, and even Johnson would be derided and denigrated as "Conservatives" in the modern era(Reagan-Obama). Forget about more fiscally sound policies of Eisenhower.

 

Most of our Presidents in fact, thought inflating, borrowing, and deficit spending were an abomination to be avoided at all costs. To FDR and Truman's credit, they at least tried to mitigate the cost of WWII via War Bonds and War Tax.

 

Modern presidents don't give this concept even a moment of thought.

 

-NW

 

Modern presidents wouldn't politically dare. Americans thought more of their government 70 years ago than they do today, and with good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarians are like Linux users. They scream from their basements how great their product is and say it is growing and growing, yet to this day it is still a nothing OS. No your brand is not growing. You few are just getting louder and more annoying.

https://www.google.com/search?q=millennials+the+most+libertarian+generation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

 

 

Read it and weep. The status quo is being shook my the Millennial Generation which, by the way, is ALREADY the largest voting group in the US. Yes, even larger than Boomers. The awesome thing is this generation will not reach full-strength until 2020. By then, it will command 1/3rd of the ENTIRE voting electorate, that's astonishing.

 

It is a voting block the Democrats are starting to lose.

 

The proof is in the pudding, fewer Millennials bought the Democrat brand in 2012 than they did in 2008. While Libertarians like Ron Paul made huge gains in that voting block in the Republican Primaries.

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.com/search?q=millennials+the+most+libertarian+generation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

 

 

Read it and weep. The status quo is being shook my the Millennial Generation which, by the way, is ALREADY the largest voting group in the US. Yes, even larger than Boomers. The awesome thing is this generation will not reach full-strength until 2020. By then, it will command 1/3rd of the ENTIRE voting electorate, that's astonishing.

 

It is a voting block the Democrats are starting to lose.

 

The proof is in the pudding, fewer Millennials bought the Democrat brand in 2012 than they did in 2008. While Libertarians like Ron Paul made huge gains in that voting block in the Republican Primaries.

 

-NW

no, you guys will still be fringies. Sorry

 

The young always want to go against the status quo. They soon grow up and find out groups like libertarians are childish and foolish. So you assume they will stay with the same political views. I changed mine around 22. I was a big time liberal. Then I grew up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for Johnson and FDR.

 

You guys act as if Reagan's spending was all his own. He traded spending with Tip so he could get the military spending he wanted and the tax cut. Then he raised taxes and all sorts of stuff.

 

No president is perfect. I liked Reagan but he is still just another politician to me. He did good things and bad things. I have NO idols in politics. Trusting in politicians is a fools bet.

Libertarians are like Linux users. They scream from their basements how great their product is and say it is growing and growing, yet to this day it is still a nothing OS. No your brand is not growing. You few are just getting louder and more annoying.

 

Please don't group me in with "you guys." Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, you guys will still be fringies. Sorry

 

The young always want to go against the status quo. They soon grow up and find out groups like libertarians are childish and foolish. So you assume they will stay with the same political views. I changed mine around 22. I was a big time liberal. Then I grew up.

 

 

Hur dur, hur dur, hur dur.

 

I can do this too, you ready? Apple bubblegum is actually made with green rainbows and toenails!

 

There, i can make wild suppositions based on utterly no fact as well. There is no evidence that shows people change their view on social issues as they age and any evidence that shows they change their fiscal views is sketchy at best. After all, Boomers routinely vote in staunch conservatives and loopy liberals.

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys act as if Reagan's spending was all his own.

 

 

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who famously said "The buck stops here?"

 

What, did his veto pen break? He was the Obama of his era and set the precedent for out-of-control, egregious, and unethical deficit spending, inflating, and borrowing that every single president after him merely emulated.

 

I'm just as tired of Conservatives making excuses for Reagan's bloated spending as I am of Liberals doing the same for Clinton or Obama.

 

There isn't an ounce of conviction amongst the lot of you.

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People never seem to pay attention to their history.

 

OF COURSE deficits went up under Reagan, they HAD TO! Thanks to the DISASTEROUS fiscal policies of Carter, we were in the middle of the worst recession since WWII, taxes going to the government were low because people weren't working, we were SCREWED (as anyone who lived through it clearly remembers) so Reagan cut taxes to spur the economy AND IT WORKED. By cutting taxes, both individuals and business had more money to work with, inflation slowed, jobs were created, and the economy turned around before the end of his first term, and by the end of his second term the Treasury has more money coming in than EVER BEFORE, and he did it with a divided, or Democrat controlled Congress (Reagan NEVER had a fully Republican Congress)

 

Here comes Barry O, who "inherited" ANOTHER DEMOCRAT CRAFTED MESS, but rather than learn from Reagans example he went back to the FDR model (which FDR's own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morganthau, admitted before Congress on May 9, 939 were an abysmal failure), and here we are, 6 years later, with FEWER people in the work force than when he was elected, despite the fact that over 4 MILLION young people have "come of age" since Barry O became President and CAN'T FIND JOBS, not counting the MILLIONS that HAD jobs when he was elected and have since lost them (and are no longer counted as unemployed because they just gave up looking). More debt, more deficits, more unfunded liabilities, MORE, MORE, MORE. Barry O had a fully Democrat Congress his first two years in office, and has managed to FVCK THINGS UP MORE THAN ANY OTHE PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People never seem to pay attention to their history.

 

OF COURSE deficits went up under Reagan, they HAD TO! Thanks to the DISASTEROUS fiscal policies of Carter, we were in the middle of the worst recession since WWII, taxes going to the government were low because people weren't working, we were SCREWED (as anyone who lived through it clearly remembers) so Reagan cut taxes to spur the economy AND IT WORKED. By cutting taxes, both individuals and business had more money to work with, inflation slowed, jobs were created, and the economy turned around before the end of his first term, and by the end of his second term the Treasury has more money coming in than EVER BEFORE, and he did it with a divided, or Democrat controlled Congress (Reagan NEVER had a fully Republican Congress)

 

Here comes Barry O, who "inherited" ANOTHER DEMOCRAT CRAFTED MESS, but rather than learn from Reagans example he went back to the FDR model (which FDR's own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morganthau, admitted before Congress on May 9, 939 were an abysmal failure), and here we are, 6 years later, with FEWER people in the work force than when he was elected, despite the fact that over 4 MILLION young people have "come of age" since Barry O became President and CAN'T FIND JOBS, not counting the MILLIONS that HAD jobs when he was elected and have since lost them (and are no longer counted as unemployed because they just gave up looking). More debt, more deficits, more unfunded liabilities, MORE, MORE, MORE. Barry O had a fully Democrat Congress his first two years in office, and has managed to FVCK THINGS UP MORE THAN ANY OTHE PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY!!

 

 

Oh good, another excuse maker.

 

One could say the double-recession, as bad as any since WWII, was enough of excuse for Obama to spend like a whore and that should, at least with your argument for Reagan, should be as 100% as justifiable right?

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naughtyword, FACTS are not "excuses".

 

Reagan didn't spend like crazy, he CUT EVERYTHING except the military, or aren't you old enough to remember his famous speech before Congress?

 

Government spending has NEVER resulted in prosperity...EVER. The ONLY time we prosper is when Washington keeps its hands out of our pockets, but of course you Llbtards are too damned stupid to realize that...mainly because you don't study your own history!

 

If your "boy" had any brains at all, the FIRST thing he would have done is CUT TAXES just like Reagan did. Reagan cut taxes, closed "loopholes", passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1985, and did everything he could to spur the economy. Your "boy" has done everything in his power to CRASH the economy, and you're STILL going to defend that moron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naughtyword, FACTS are not "excuses".

 

Reagan didn't spend like crazy, he CUT EVERYTHING except the military, or aren't you old enough to remember his famous speech before Congress?

 

Government spending has NEVER resulted in prosperity...EVER. The ONLY time we prosper is when Washington keeps its hands out of our pockets, but of course you Llbtards are too damned stupid to realize that...mainly because you don't study your own history!

 

If your "boy" had any brains at all, the FIRST thing he would have done is CUT TAXES just like Reagan did. Reagan cut taxes, closed "loopholes", passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1985, and did everything he could to spur the economy. Your "boy" has done everything in his power to CRASH the economy, and you're STILL going to defend that moron?

 

And if you had read my op, you wouldn't have made this post.

 

Reagan increased some taxes, he increased some social spending, and wasted a fuck-ton of money on military spending that absolutely wasn't needed.

 

Hence, deficits went up.

 

You don't get to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Either he was a budget hawk or he wasn't. History indicates Reagan was ANYTHING but a budget hawk. He was a spender, a big time spender, no different than Obama.

 

Obama isn't my "boy".

 

Now answer the question, if your justification for Reagan spending like a drunken whore is the recession, then surely the logic must follow with Obama battling a double-recession from the Bush administration. Right?

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NW, you're throwing the same old strawman arguments up that have been bandied around for decades, and they're still BS.

 

Did taxes go up while Reagan was President? OF COURSE THEY DID, but the question (that none of you Llbtards seem to be bright enough to ask) is WHAT taxes went up, why, and who was effected?

 

Taxes collected by the Treasury went up BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE WORKING AND PAYING TAXES instead of sitting on their asses TAKING. Reagan also closed many so-called "loopholes" in the tax code by eliminating some deductions. There was a TEMPORARY increase in Federal gas tax from $.04 to $.09 per gallon for infrastructure. He increased the cigarette tax. He increased the Capital Gains tax to a more "fair" level (a compromise he reached with the Dims to get decreases in other areas), so of course "taxes" went up, they always do since taxes are a PERCENTAGE of what you make, or spend. It's the RATES that are important. Are you capable of comprehending that?

 

When Reagan took office, there were 14 marginal tax brackets, from 14% to 70%...when he left there were TWO, from 14% to 28%, but Clintoon screwed that up by jacking the top rate up to 39.6%.

 

As far as military spending, would you rather have the Cold War still going on, and military spending at 50% or more of the Federal Budget, or do you like it where it is now, no Soviet Union and military spending at 18% of the Federal Budget (and that was at the height of Iran AND Afghanistan!)? THAT'S why Reagan ramped up military spending, to END THE COLD WAR! He, like most of us who pay attention to such things, KNEW that the Soviets were on the ropes, and all he had to do was deliver a decisive knock-out punch to end it so that's what he did. 5 years of increases to military spending, level it off, and when GHW took over he was able to start paring the military back.

 

The fact is that if you aggregate all of the so-called "tax hikes" during the Reagan years, he was a net TAX CUTTER! Lower tax RATES bring in MORE money to the Treasury. HIGHER tax rates bring in LESS money to the Treasury. This is an ECONOMIC FACT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NW, you're throwing the same old strawman arguments up that have been bandied around for decades, and they're still BS.

 

Did taxes go up while Reagan was President? OF COURSE THEY DID, but the question (that none of you Llbtards seem to be bright enough to ask) is WHAT taxes went up, why, and who was effected?

 

In your rant you forgot:

 

3 payroll tax increases.

Corporate Tax Rate Increase (Tax Ref. 1986)

Several Consumption Tax increases.

Reagan didn't spend like crazy, he CUT EVERYTHING except the military, or aren't you old enough to remember his famous speech before Congress?

 

Baloney.

 

 

Reagan presided over at least one major expansion of almost every single government program including education, social security, and medicare.

 

How did Reagan not "spend like crazy" and damn near double the national debt?

 

 

As far as military spending, would you rather have the Cold War still going on, and military spending at 50% or more of the Federal Budget, or do you like it where it is now, no Soviet Union and military spending at 18% of the Federal Budget (and that was at the height of Iran AND Afghanistan!)? THAT'S why Reagan ramped up military spending, to END THE COLD WAR! He, like most of us who pay attention to such things, KNEW that the Soviets were on the ropes, and all he had to do was deliver a decisive knock-out punch to end it so that's what he did. 5 years of increases to military spending, level it off, and when GHW took over he was able to start paring the military back.

 

The fact is that if you aggregate all of the so-called "tax hikes" during the Reagan years, he was a net TAX CUTTER! Lower tax RATES bring in MORE money to the Treasury. HIGHER tax rates bring in LESS money to the Treasury. This is an ECONOMIC FACT.

 

Even those one the right, to include Sen. Rand Paul, have correctly concluded the massive defense spending under Reagan was unnecessary and every major reputable international economist of the time predicted the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union because of greed within its power structure and utter lack of leadership to make it work (No Stalin, no Lenin). The proof is in the pudding, to date the GDP of Russia was higher in the Soviet Era, and it wasn't doing all that swell after the mid 1970s.

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll stop and quantify a statement.

 

 

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

 

 

President Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

 

 

Which by the way, is insofar the highest percentage any President has since FDR, hell even Big Spender Obama isn't set to outpace him.

 

Some budget hawk.

 

Also, if your justification for Reagan spending like a drunken whore is the recession, then surely the logic must follow with Obama battling a double-recession from the Bush administration. Right?

 

 

 

/snarf

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until oblameo Carter was easily the worst president in my lifetime and i was born in the 40's. Stagflation, gas lines, he let the draft dodgers back in to the country, on and on. Reagan had to negotiate with Tip O'neil. Spending rose and so did the deficit. Reagan got his programs through and boom times started. O' neill got less cuts that Reagan wanted. The key was negotiation. Oblame'o cannot negotiate. He is an incompetent ideologue. Clinton negotiated with Gingritch. Reagan negotiated with O' Neill. If GOP takes senate oblameo will become the president of NO. All he will do for the next 2 years is veto bills sent up by a united GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by NaughtyWord, May 4, 2014 - goofed
Hidden by NaughtyWord, May 4, 2014 - goofed

I'll stop and quantify a statement.

 

 

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

 

 

 

Which by the way, is insofar the highest percentage any President has since FDR, hell even Big Spender Obama isn't set to outpace him.

 

Some budget hawk.

 

Also, if your justification for Reagan spending like a drunken whore is the recession, then surely the logic must follow with Obama battling a double-recession from the Bush administration. Right?

 

 

/snarf

 

-NW

Link to comment

 

 

 

Paul is correct to say that Reagan was worse than Carter when it came to spending.

 

I absolutely agree, this romanticized--Often followed by a high-degree of White Washing rivaled only by Liberals and their White Washing of Clinton--view of Reagan needs to go and has utterly no basis in reality.

 

-NW

 

The eternal bulls*** of the liberal-left.

 

1) Carter left the economy on the verge of a depression as he left office, meaning social spending was going to rise no matter who became president.

 

2) Reagan's military build up was key to winning the Cold War and causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it's stupid to criticize him for that.

 

3) Social spending was driven by Democrats and a few Beltway Repubs. Reagan opposed, even allowing the government to be shut down at least once.

 

4) Federal spending shrank by 2 or 3 percentage points over Reagan's presidency, a huge historical achievement.

 

And 5) Reagan went along with Tip O'Neil promise to cut spending in exchange for a payroll tax hike, but O'Neil broke his promise.

 

Save your hooey for the moonbats. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh good, another excuse maker.

 

One could say the double-recession, as bad as any since WWII, was enough of excuse for Obama to spend like a whore and that should, at least with your argument for Reagan, should be as 100% as justifiable right?

 

-NW

 

More baloney. Obama's policies failed, because spending by Beltway politicians won't stimulate economic growth except minimally over the short term and only at the expense of massive debt build up.

 

Had Obama followed competent policies, yes, a short term deficit would have been tolerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...