Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This became a debate on another thread, but was taking that thread off topic.
It's a shopworn lefty meme to allege that Reagan was a big spender. I don't know why they do it. I would think it would only elevate Reagan, according to their normal lights. Nonetheless, it has become one of the more commonly spouted lefty memes, along with such memes as 'lies about WMD,' and the newly created 'justice for Trayvon.'
Regarding Reagan's spending, the devil is in the details. He actually presided over a slight decline in domestic, non-defense spending during his two terms. He is the only one of the past 8 presidents who can say that. See figure 5 in the below link: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/pa543.pdf
For those who don't wish to click the numbers are thus:
'Real annual growth of non defense and non homeland security outlays by president'
LBJ...........4.1%
Nixon........5.0%
Carter.......1.6%
Reagan.... -1.4%
HW Bush....3.8%
Clinton......2.1%
W Bush.....4.8%
Reagan's -1.4% number was remarkable considering that the US House was D-controlled for all 8 of his years. Speaker Tip O'Neil once boasted "I've been one of the big spenders of all time; it's true, I am a big spender." And for that matter, Reagan had to fight spenders in his own party such as Bob Dole and Pete Domenici, making the -1.4% number even more remarkable.
The area where Reagan did increase spending was defense, of course. But again he achieved the remarkable result of bringing down the USSR, and freeing millions of souls from despotic tyranny. And he did it without having to fire a shot.
In the years leading up to 1991, virtually no Western expert, scholar, official, or politician foresaw the impending collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it one-party dictatorship, the state-owned economy, and the Kremlin's control over its domestic and Eastern European empires
Reagan did. When asked about his plan for the cold war, he famously replied: "we win, they lose." His own FP apparatus inveighed him to drop such rhetoric. When drafting the speech that included the famous 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall' line, the state dept, NSC, and top aides all wanted the line taken out. Sec'y of state Shultz, national security advisor Colin Powell, and eventual Chief of Staff Duberstein all took turns at trying to talk RR out of the line. All failed. En route to Berlin, the State Dept faxed a rewrite of the speech that dropped the line. Reagan threw it in the trash.
A similar tale can be told regarding SDI, or as it was derisively termed, 'Star Wars.' Reagan got the idea after seeing physicist Edward Teller on Wm. Buckley's 'Firing Line' TV show. When he began to push it, almost everyone around him was opposed. George Shultz said it would be destabilizing. The Joint Chiefs were unenthused. Richard Darman was "violently opposed." Chief arms negotiator Richard Burt said that it was a "pipe dream." The entire lib establishment ridiculed it. Even Margaret Thatcher was opposed.
But Reagan persisted. The impact of SDI is still a matter of debate, but there is no question that Gorby was obsessed with getting Reagan to give up the idea. The obvious question is: why?
“Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that you won the Cold War because of your president’s insistence on SDI.”— Genrikh Trofimenko, one of Russia’s leading specialists in international security and politics
He exploded government spending. That's for sure. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and again Bush all grew government jobs by leaps and bounds. Obama is the first president in decades to cut these jobs.
Ronald Reagan would not fare well in today’s political climate. He was the biggest "tax and spend" president of all. His campaign mantra "government is the problem" was never so true as when he was in charge.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and again Bush all grew government jobs by leaps and bounds. Obama is the first president in decades to cut these jobs.
Define "government jobs." If you're going to credit or blame the President, you should refer exclusively to federal government jobs, and not include state government numbers.
Obama is adding how many thousands of jobs - just in the IRS - for the singular purpose of enforcing Obamacare?
I would be interested in seeing the REAL numbers; those that don't include state government positions. I don't care enough (nor do I have the time) to dig up those stats myself, but if you were genuinely interested in honest debate about facts, and since you made the initial claim, you should consider finding out exactly what those numbers are.
'Real annual growth of non defense and non homeland security outlays by president'
"Guess what, Honey? Not counting the payments on that new car we bought, and if you ignore the credit cards, we spent less money this year than last year!"
I would be interested in seeing the REAL numbers; those that don't include state government positions. I don't care enough (nor do I have the time) to dig up those stats myself, but if you were genuinely interested in honest debate about facts, and since you made the initial claim, you should consider finding out exactly what those numbers are.
But apparently you're not interested enough to do the ten seconds of googleing that would give you those numbers:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
