Reagan QUADRUPLED the National Debt and he's known for advocating for smaller gov't

[Lostlover]

The deficit went from $700 billion dollars to $3 TRILLION during his presidency. So I guess if the deficit is around $56 trillion when Obama leaves office, will the GOP make a peep about it? Currently, our national debt is about $14.1 trillion dollars and President Obama has increased it about $1.5 trillion a year for his two years. Obama's not nearly on Reagan's pace, yet Reagan is known for wanting smaller government. Please explain this to me.

Obama's increase in the deficit is primarily from economic ideology. He believes that that the government must fill in where the private sector can't. This includes racking up debt to pay for education, emergency services and WIPs to get people back to work. Reagan's debt accumulation wasn't ideological, because as I've said before he talks about the problems with government yet he blew it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03104_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011020403674

 

[opinterph]

Any comments?

Maybe later.

(Edited thread title.)​

 

[JB3]

I've never thought of Reagan as advocating for smaller government. What I've thought of him for is advocating for SMARTER government. (outside of the pentagon, that is) I also have never heard any of my conservative friends claim that he was for small government either.

Its also worth noting that the great majority of that debt increase was due to the arms race and increased military spending.

 

[bike10]

Under Reagan the rich got richer and poor got poorer.

 

[EastMed]

For the American right, smaller government means extra spending on 'Defence'.

 

[rareboy]

It was interesting that during the same period, Brian Mulroney and the Conservative party racked up huge deficits and left behind a staggering debt load that took the liberal government more than a decade to get back under control.

And after about five years of surplus budgets and paying down debt, Harper and CO. turned up and racked up huge deficits again.

 

[Supersix]

Doesn't anyone remember that the House of Representatives is where all spending bills originate? He was forced to accept a lot of pork and programs in order to get the funding for what he wanted, or face a government shutdown.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Doesn't anyone remember that the House of Representatives is where all spending bills originate? He was forced to accept a lot of pork and programs in order to get the funding for what he wanted, or face a government shutdown.

This tired canard, again? Get real.

"The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion

 

[runner]

Why are we jumping on Reagan? Are we worried about the national debt? It doesn't seem that we are.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

this democracy?

 

[palemale]

The deficit went from $700 billion dollars to $3 TRILLION during his presidency. So I guess if the deficit is around $56 trillion when Obama leaves office, will the GOP make a peep about it? Currently, our national debt is about $14.1 trillion dollars and President Obama has increased it about $1.5 trillion a year for his two years. Obama's not nearly on Reagan's pace, yet Reagan is known for wanting smaller government. Please explain this to me.

Obama's increase in the deficit is primarily from economic ideology. He believes that that the government must fill in where the private sector can't. This includes racking up debt to pay for education, emergency services and WIPs to get people back to work. Reagan's debt accumulation wasn't ideological, because as I've said before he talks about the problems with government yet he blew it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03104_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011020403674

I think the term conservative Republicans use is "starve the beast." They rack up huge national debt on defense spending, cut taxes, which ends up starving the federal government for revenue. As a result, there is little money for social programs that might actually improve people's lives. Republicans are crony capitalists and only like to give money to their corporate buddies, who funnel some of it back in the form of campaign contributions and junkets.

 

[Lostlover]

Why are we jumping on Reagan? Are we worried about the national debt? It doesn't seem that we are.

We care about the deficit, after all it was only a democratic president in the last forty years that signed and implemented a balanced federal budget. One even led to a budget surplus. Despite this achievement, the people were more focused on what went on in his pants.

Reagan nor the Republicans do care though. Or do care very, very little. And when a democratic president is at the helms, he has his hands tied cleaning up their mess during the worst recession since the Depression. And what's extremely perplexing is that the loudest people are on Social Security or Medicare, the two biggest contributors to national debt. But you can't cut their programs! Everything else must be cut!

Funny how Reagan cut assistance for "welfare queens"(see black people) and those that supported Reagan then are the new welfare queens. But that's okay. Welfare for some are entitlements for others.

 

[runner]

We care about the deficit, after all it was only a democratic president  in the last forty years that signed and implemented a balanced federal  budget.

Oh yeah, right. This Democratic president is wild about the deficit! Tell me another one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Reagan at least had a sound reason for running up the deficit: driving the Soviets to collapse.

Bush merely had an excuse: delusions about Saddam.

Obama has... a mess.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

driving the Soviets to collapse???

any brain in cosmos fall fa dat one lot hoowee

public wanna go figure 1+1 in any country

 

[Supersix]

The point is that a president cannot spend anything by himself.

 

[chance1]

there you go again

 

[MoltenRock III]

The point is that a president cannot spend anything by himself.

Yeah, but funny how President Reagan's budget he, and he himself alone wanted, was damn near identical in spending and taxes as the Congress. Reagan could have veto'ed the spending bills if he didn't like them.

But saying Reagan was a deficit hawk is as stupid as some saying that tax cuts don't affect deficits, hence the OP's opening statement.

 

[GhostMost]

Reagan at least had a sound reason for running up the deficit: driving the Soviets to collapse.

Bush merely had an excuse: delusions about Saddam.

Obama has... a mess.

Yeah seriously.

I don't understand the huge fuss over Reagan with most people, my friend thinks he was the worst but that's because he was extremely conservative.

(Not adressing Kulindahr) I don't think having a political party choice would suddenly make someone a spender more than a saver.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah seriously.

I don't understand the huge fuss over Reagan with most people, my friend thinks he was the worst but that's because he was extremely conservative.

(Not adressing Kulindahr) I don't think having a political party choice would suddenly make someone a spender more than a saver.

Reagan was a mixed bag. He was brilliant in some ways, but severely limited in others. That makes it easy for some to see him as great and others to see him as horrible. In truth, he was some of each.