• 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!

Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

Moot said:
Reagan was the first president to run up the debt when the country wasn't at war. Is that better?


Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[14] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[15] The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987[16] and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget.[17] The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan; however, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration.[2][17] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[18] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation....
Reagan Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink (washingtonpost.com)


Reagan was the first "peacetime" president to run up the debt and turn this country from a creditor nation into a debtor nation. The country has never fully recovered from voo doo reaganomics.
Click to expand...

You just picked a fight with the gold boy. More like a grade b movie actor that wore his wife's clothes.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Actually we were at war, a cold war with the Soviet Union and much of Reagans spending was fighting and winning that war. Give the man some credit Moot.
Click to expand...

Ummm The Soviets were almost bankrupt when Ford was President. There was no War teh neocons used that as an excuse to do what they do best spend/ steal money.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Obviously you are a product of liberal indoctrination-education, how sad for our country.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was indoctrinated by Obama! Please get over yourself. We all can read history books just because the only one the righties read is fiction and made over 2000 years ago is their fault.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Forget 'Republican'. Forget 'Democrat'. Forget 'Libertarian' and 'Progressive' and all the other political labels, for their meanings change over time. At one time Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives, and the Progressives were the ones who under Teddy Roosevelt believed in empire-building.

What is more accurate are the mindsets of 'conservative' and 'liberal'. In American history, Conservatives have historically opposed societal change, and fought for a return to what they feel were the 'good old days'. Liberals, on the other hand, have been eager to embrace societal change, that the good old days weren't so good. Of course there are many nuances, but above any such nuances are the conservative opposition to change, and the eager liberal embracing of change.

While not all societal change is for the good, and not all resistance to societal change is bad, conservatives have more often than not stood on the wrong side of history, as Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist David Horsey makes clear:

View attachment 67153432

The 'good old days' weren't so good...and "that's the way it's always been" is never an acceptable excuse to resist the changes that can make it better. This is why I reject American conservatism and look forward to the better days ahead for everyone, whether rich or poor, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.
Click to expand...

on the wrong side of history is where they are most comfortable ... leave them alone ...
 
greengirl77 said:
Yeah I was indoctrinated by Obama! Please get over yourself. We all can read history books just because the only one the righties read is fiction and made over 2000 years ago is their fault.
Click to expand...

No you were indoctrinated by our liberal education system, your knowledge of history or should I say lack thereof is tragic.


What was President Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War?


"This policy, later named the "Reagan Doctrine," was expressed in the president's June 8, 1982, speech in London to the British Parliament. Here are a few examples from that speech:"

"History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches–political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom...

t is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens.

"What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term–the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history, as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people...

Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated."
The final outcome was the collapse of communism throughout Eastern and Central Europe, which brought freedom, democracy, and the end of Soviet control of this region. With American help, the people of Afghanistan forced Soviet military forces from their country in 1988. One year later, in November 1989, the Berlin Wall–a symbol of Soviet tyranny in East Germany for nearly three decades–was torn down by the German people. This led to the peaceful reunification of Germany in 1990 and the end of communism in Eastern and Central Europe.

In December of 1991, two years after President Reagan left office, the Cold War ended when the Soviet Union was dissolved. President Reagan's prediction of the collapse of Soviet communism had come true. America and its allies had prevailed in the Cold War. President Reagan's policies of preserving peace through strength and promoting the advancement of democracy around the world significantly contributed to this victory



Ronald Reagan and Executive Power | Presidential Leadership in the Cold War
 
LMAO our Military spending is what turned us from a creditor nation to a debter nation thanks Ronnie and Republicans!!!
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Actually we were at war, a cold war with the Soviet Union and much of Reagans spending was fighting and winning that war. Give the man some credit Moot.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union was already on the verge of economic collapse when Reagan took office. When a country can't even feed it's own people and has to buy corn from their foe just to sustain itself....then how much of a threat are they, really?

Effect of US grain embargo on USSR


Reagan used the myth of Soviet superiority to increase military spending and run up the largest debt this country had ever seen during peace time. To this day, more conservatives are dependent on US defense spending for their livlihoods than ever before in US history. They are the true "welfare queens".
 
Last edited:
greengirl77 said:
LMAO our Military spending is what turned us from a creditor nation to a debter nation thanks Ronnie and Republicans!!!
Click to expand...

Actually, you can thank the War on Poverty programs and its associated spinoff programs. Defense spending as a percent of GDP has declined from where it was in the sixties...
 
greengirl77 said:
LMAO our Military spending is what turned us from a creditor nation to a debter nation thanks Ronnie and Republicans!!!
Click to expand...

No no... you have to go back further - why not invoke Lincoln as the problem. It would make about as much sense and be about as accurate as blaming Reagan.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The 'good old days' weren't so good...and "that's the way it's always been" is never an acceptable excuse to resist the changes that can make it better. This is why I reject American conservatism and look forward to the better days ahead for everyone, whether rich or poor, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.
Click to expand...

I get along with classical conservatives. They have good fiscal ideas and tend not to get too involved in social politics, at least not to the extent that modern conservatives do. I cringe every time I hear modern conservatives say that the GOP is more conservative now than ever. It's not. It's more socially radical than ever, but with big spending and globalist policies on top of it, which ironically are typically associated with liberalism.
 
Moot said:
The Soviet Union was already on the verge of economic collapse when Reagan took office. When a country can't even feed it's own people and has to buy corn from their foe just to sustain itself....then how much of a threat are they, really?



JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...

When a super power like the Soviet Union that needed to consume other countries and confiscate their wealth in order to survive can't feed its own people that is when they are the most dangerous.
 
Ockham said:
No no... you have to go back further - why not invoke Lincoln as the problem. It would make about as much sense and be about as accurate as blaming Reagan.
Click to expand...

So your are saying good ole Ronnie didnt leave us in debt????? Wow just F'in wow. Next you are gonna say the Crusades started in New Jersey
 
greengirl77 said:
So your are saying good ole Ronnie didnt leave us in debt????? Wow just F'in wow. Next you are gonna say the Crusades started in New Jersey
Click to expand...

Debt started way before that, as did the spending which increased since the 1940's which lead to the debt. Hyper-partisanship like you display opening is without intellect or factual basis is simply spewing nonsense on a political forum. That will only get you ignored. Is that your goal?
 
And yes, the history rewriting rightie wingnuts are out in full force tonite.
Happy Hour is over and they're now at home sloshing their George Thorogood imitation.
 
TheNextEra said:
While I believe there are many conservatives on the wrong side of history on social issues, there are liberals who are on the wrong side of spending. We have a HUGE debt in this country and the spending liberally needs to stop and a welfare state that needs serious reforms that liberals are not working on either.
Click to expand...

*yawn* Which is why all first-world democracies are socialized democracies with levels of spending that conservatives swear up and down are leading to economic doom...but there are ZERO nations with much lower levels of spending that are first-world nations.

The success - or lack thereof - of a nation is eloquent testimony indeed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are mistaking progrm intent with its opperational reality. PPACA is not UHC, to pretend otherwise is simply insane. The intent of income redistribution, or social "safety net" programs, is indeed good - the actual implmentation, however, is not good as it amounts to a reward for HS dropouts having out of wedlock children. If one needs $X, to comfortably survive, then why should they care what proportion of $X is earned from their own labor and how much is added via income redistribution?
Click to expand...

I agree that the PPACA does not function in the same manner of UHC...but the purpose, the aim - and the redistribution that makes it possible - are similar enough to make them comparable.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I agree that the PPACA does not function in the same manner of UHC...but the purpose, the aim - and the redistribution that makes it possible - are similar enough to make them comparable.
Click to expand...

No, not even close...
 
Brooks said:
1. Not arguing your points, just the sneaky bias.
Oppose is such a negative word and embrace is a positive one.
It's not that conservatives oppose change, they prefer more balance and caution.
I might have worded your paragraph thus: Liberals are opposed to slow, thoughtful change while conservatives embrace it.
It's really saying the same thing but with a hidden opposite agenda.

2. I like your take on this difficult topic even though I don't agree.
But I don't think a four panel cartoon "makes clear" anything this complex.

3. There are better days ahead and there are also worse ones.
Click to expand...

I understand and appreciate your reply - I can see your point - it's a matter of inflection, of nuance, of tone. My only reply would be to point to the degree that conservatism has gone to the right, whereas liberalism has gone to the left to a significantly lesser degree.

And yes, there are better and worse days ahead...but on the whole, I'm an optimist.
 
Northern Light said:
I get along with classical conservatives. They have good fiscal ideas and tend not to get too involved in social politics, at least not to the extent that modern conservatives do. I cringe every time I hear modern conservatives say that the GOP is more conservative now than ever. It's not. It's more socially radical than ever, but with big spending and globalist policies on top of it, which ironically are typically associated with liberalism.
Click to expand...

Well said! And I must own up to making the same mistake of not delineating between the conservatives and the radicals.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Well said! And I must own up to making the same mistake of not delineating between the conservatives and the radicals.
Click to expand...

You appear to be a sensible poster, so let me ask you a question. What ideas do you support that makes you a "progressive"?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When a super power like the Soviet Union that needed to consume other countries and confiscate their wealth in order to survive can't feed its own people that is when they are the most dangerous.
Click to expand...

Not according to the CIA.....

Most reports [from 1979] through 1988 on the course of the Soviet GNP and on general economic developments were equally satisfactory: accurate, illuminating, and timely. In fact, we find it hard to believe that anyone who has read the CIA's annual public reports on the state of the Soviet economy since 1975 could possibly interpret them as saying that the Soviet economy was booming. On the contrary, these reports regularly reported the steady decline in the Soviet growth rate and called attention to the deep and structural problems that pointed to continued decline and possibly to stagnation....

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...ons/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/soviet.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom