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.
Economist Stephen Slivinski used CBO/OMB data to calculate "Real annual growth rate of federal spending (minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements)" for presidents from LBJ to W Bush. In other words basically domestic spending growth (note that entitlements are essentially 'auto pilot' spending, over which any admin. has limited control). Ronald Reagan was the only prez out of 7 to have a negative growth rate, which Slivinski calculated as -1.4% over his two terms. Federal tax revenue increased by about 20% (inflation adjusted) during Reagan's two terms.
The upshot is that virtually all of Reagan's deficit spending was due to military spending. This was a conscious strategy pursued by Reagan in his quest to win the Cold War. It worked. The result was millions of souls freed from enslavement behind the Iron Curtain.
Franklin Roosevelt followed a virtually identical course during WWII. From 1941 to 1945 the national debt skyrocketed from $48 billion to $247 billion. This represented about a 120-fold increase in the level of debt of pre-1929 crash levels. As one historian put it:
If you can find me a post where a liberal poster rags on FDR for exploding the debt in order to win WWII, DM me with your address, and I will personally send you a box of cookies.
Why do liberals rag on Reagan, but not on FDR, for following identical courses of action.
This argument is based on a false premise.
Republicans claim that you should never deficit spend, there for it makes them hypocrites and Democrats are just pointing that out.
Democrats have never made such a claim, so it does not make us hypocrites.
This isnt very hard to understand. Threads like this are exactly why many people think some of the Republicans on this forum are just here to troll.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
A whole lot of Americans thankful? LMAO The longest and worst economic times we've had, which his policies prolonged, and you're singing his praises. He was a complete economic failure.
Doesn't surprise me since you never saw the biggest collapse since the Great Depression coming. Of course you'd think FDRs spending worked.
FDR's spending did work.
the great depression is called so because of an Economic feeling, not because of an actual recession, because the first recession of the great depression actually ended in 1933. The second started in may of 1937 and ended in june 1938
the funniest part of this argument is that the second recession(1937) was actually caused by trying to balance the budget, not New Deal government policies. I understand conservatives want to continue the narrative that of hating Democratic policies and bashing Democratic Presidents for spending, but the New Deal prolonging the depression argument is long debunked.
Economist Stephen Slivinski used CBO/OMB data to calculate "Real annual growth rate of federal spending (minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements)" for presidents from LBJ to W Bush. In other words basically domestic spending growth (note that entitlements are essentially 'auto pilot' spending, over which any admin. has limited control). Ronald Reagan was the only prez out of 7 to have a negative growth rate, which Slivinski calculated as -1.4% over his two terms. Federal tax revenue increased by about 20% (inflation adjusted) during Reagan's two terms.
The upshot is that virtually all of Reagan's deficit spending was due to military spending. This was a conscious strategy pursued by Reagan in his quest to win the Cold War. It worked. The result was millions of souls freed from enslavement behind the Iron Curtain.
Franklin Roosevelt followed a virtually identical course during WWII. From 1941 to 1945 the national debt skyrocketed from $48 billion to $247 billion. This represented about a 120-fold increase in the level of debt of pre-1929 crash levels. As one historian put it:
If you can find me a post where a liberal poster rags on FDR for exploding the debt in order to win WWII, DM me with your address, and I will personally send you a box of cookies.
Why do liberals rag on Reagan, but not on FDR, for following identical courses of action.
First of all, they are not liberals.
Liberals have principles and generally support the Constitution.
They are statists using liberal ideology you justify their intrusive, self-serving state.
The reason they supported FDR and not Reagan is because they opposed Nazism, not Communism.
FDR raised taxes during WW2 and Regan lowered then to fight the Cold War. We should have kept the WW2 tax rates to cover the Cold War and the Mideast Debacle instead of lowering the top level taxes and increasing the mid level rates. We need to return to the WW2 tax rates.
We need to stop being the world's greatest Terrorists with our remote controlled assassination program in the Mid East and just get out and let them solve their own problems. We also need to stop funding incredible expensive and incredibly ineffective weapons to fed the endless corporate profit. I think it is absurd to ***** about a poor unwed mother getting a few grand a year but saying nothing of a corporation making billions.
The logical fallacy is that Ronald Reagan's defense spending directly lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The truth is that the Soviet Union was going to break up sooner than later after their debacle in Afghanistan. Did Reagan's accelerated defense spending play a factor? Sure. But to directly credit it for a collapse that was going to happen sooner than later is quite the leap.
Because the spending did **** all to win the cold war. The Soviets were on that path before Reagan and didn't match U.S. spending. Ronald Reagans hard line gave dissident movements inspiration and helped fuel them. So he did play a part in helping expedite the process. But the idea that Ronald Reagan was a cold war warrior who single handily cut down the evil empire just isn't based in fact, and his economic policies had zero to do with it. At best it fell a year or two before it was going to. It was going to fall regardless however.
A better question might be why do conservatives insist on spending more and more on the military when (i) they are hell bent on cutting government spending everywhere else at any cost, and (ii) our military spending is 300% of the combined military spending of China and Russia. I think I know the answer.
Raising interest rate now would be almost impossible.
That makes increasing the buying power of the dollar almost impossible.
Have you even LOOKED at where the U.S. dollar index is?
Apparently not.
The U.S. dollar is pretty strong and as a consequence it's buying power is great. A strong dollar has both good and bad points, but to say that "increasing the buying power of the dollar is almost impossible" is pretty ignorant.
Ken
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.
