Does a fiscal conservative pay for their spending? Or do they simply pass the buck to another generation and force them to make decisions based on the actions of a previous generation?
Does a fiscal conservative pay for their spending? Or do they simply pass the buck to another generation and force them to make decisions based on the actions of a previous generation?
I do not believe we had a weak military prior to Reagan. Of course this is just my opinion you have to be careful, as people are touchy about it
Let me get this straight...
Reagan tries to cut domestic spending but the Congress refuses. Still, Reagan increases military spending because it is necessary to national security, therefore, the deficit is Reagan's fault -
Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If Reagan had his way, the deficits would have been much smaller or even non-existent.
What part of eliminating all the line items of the budget other than Defense, the VA, and interest on the Debt do you not understand?
Do you deny that Reagan tax cuts doubled Govt. revenue to the treasury? Military spending was indeed paid for and the buck passed to another generation was due to Congressional social spending that were attached to the Reagan defense bills.
If you don't think our military was weak then you ignored the Carter years and the failed rescue of our hostages taken in Iran. It was equipment failure do to an Administration that paid little attention to the military.
let's then look at what you would do away with because you don't believe they deserve funding:
■Executive Office of the President
■The President's Cabinet
■Department of Agriculture (USDA)
■Department of Commerce (DOC)
■Department of Education (ED)
■Department of Energy (DOE)
■Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
■Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
■Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
■Department of Justice (DOJ)
■Department of Labor (DOL)
■Department of State (DOS)
■Department of the Interior (DOI)
■Department of the Treasury
■Department of Transportation (DOT)
■Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
■Export-Import Bank of the United States
■Farm Credit Administration
■Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
■Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
■Federal Election Commission (FEC)
■Federal Housing Finance Board
■Federal Labor Relations Authority
■Federal Maritime Commission
■Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
■Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
■Federal Reserve System
■Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
■Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
■General Services Administration (GSA)
■Merit Systems Protection Board
■National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
■National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
■National Capital Planning Commission
■National Council on Disability
■National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
■National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
■National Mediation Board
■National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
■National Science Foundation (NSF)
■National Transportation Safety Board
■Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
■Office of Government Ethics
■Office of Personnel Management
■Office of Special Counsel
■Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
■Overseas Private Investment Corporation
■Peace Corps
■Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
■Postal Regulatory Commission
■Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
■Selective Service System
■Small Business Administration (SBA)
■Social Security Administration (SSA)
■Tennessee Valley Authority
■U.S. Trade and Development Agency
■United States Agency for International Development
■United States International Trade Commission
■United States Postal Service (USPS)
so, you think life would be ok if we just did away with all of that
don't think so
I can understand the need to decrease taxation when the economy is experiencing inflation, and the need to increase spending (in this case military Keynesianism) when unemployment is high. He allowed for deficits to remain even during economic recovery.
Whether or not his military spending boost was a matter of national security is another discussion.
Prior to Reagans presidency, transfer payments made up about 41% of the total tax revenue (1978). In 1988, transfer payments made up about 44% of tax revenues. The fact remains that he did not have his way, and abandoned fiscal responsibility in the process.
Yep, most of those are duplicated by the States, we need a vastly reduced size of the Federal Govt. but those aren't the line items in the Treasury Website. Our Founders got it right and we are so far from their intent because people like you buy the rhetoric that we need all this crap.
Moderator's Warning: |
So, you blame Reagan for Congress's insistence upon sustained domestic spending? That's utterly nonsensical.
No, it's not. His military advisors said it was necessary and Reagan listened to them; we won the Cold War. You don't get to ignore those facts because it suites your argument.
Such BS. Reagan spent what was necessary to national security whereas Congress spent what was necessary to remain in power. The idea that Reagan should have decreased military spending to accommodate the Congress's love of pork is totally absurd.
I blame him for not dealing with reality in a fiscally conservative manner. Whether or not he "got his way" has nothing to do with it.
I blame him for not dealing with reality in a fiscally conservative manner. Whether or not he "got his way" has nothing to do with it.
We lose the cold war without increased military spending? (not that i was against it)
He did have another option that would have been "fiscally conservative". Increase government revenue. :shrug:
Let's say a family has a budget of $100 and the head of the household needs to spend $75 dollars on necessities like food and water while the rest of the household wants to spend $50 on things like cigarettes and booze. The head of the household submits a budget: $75 on food and water, $25 on cigarettes and booze.
If the head of the household goes out an buys $75 dollars worth of food and water while the rest of the household goes out and puts $50 dollars worth of cigarettes and booze on their credit card - who are you going to blame for the $25 deficit? The person who bought the necessities or the idiots who refused to live within their means? I suspect you would blame the idiots, unless, of course, the head of the household's name was Ronald Reagan...
It wasn't the only reason we won but it certainly cannot be discounted. The military told Reagan what it needed to win and he gave it to them. That's the responsibility of a Commander In Chief.
Ah yes, the old "increase taxes to accommodate Congress's love of pork" theory. How about, instead of increasing taxes, we just cut entitlement spending? Why do you always ignore that aspect of the budget?
Ah yes, the old "increase taxes to accommodate Congress's love of pork" theory. How about, instead of increasing taxes, we just cut entitlement spending? Why do you always ignore that aspect of the budget?
It is unwise to compare the federal budget (not to mention the manner in which you did) to a house hold budget; much less with unrealistic proportions. I cannot comment on it because it is..... nonsensical
I'm not against the increased military spending. Not by a long shot. However, to claim he was a fiscal conservative is a far reach.
I am not ignoring it.... But it did not materialize and would have been impossible. What you have implied is that you would rather see rising deficits than higher taxes...This is commonly referred to as passing the buck. Not a very conservative thing to do now is it?
Ok, lets look at that in the context of the Reagan years.
After Social Security was reformed in 1983, there were huge surpluses with it and Medicare throughout the 1980s. These surpluses that resulted from payroll tax revenues far exceeding Medicare and Social Security outlays were then used to float deficits in general revenue. This is what the federal government would refer to as a unified budget. Basically, in many ways it constituted a wealth transfer from workers at the time to defense contractors.
Just the same, lets say Reagan got really bold and some how convinced congress to do away with Social Security and Medicare altogether. Now sure, that would have resulted in a reduction of federal outlays. The problem is that if you did away with Medicare and Social Security, you would also do away with the Payroll Tax. Since that tax was generating a large revenue surplus at the time, the net result would have been much greater budget deficits than what would have otherwise existed.
It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. Reagan's military spending was essential whereas Congress's entitlement spending was not. The idea that essential spending should be cut to accommodate entitlement spending is ridiculous.
Let's say a family has a budget of $100 and the head of the household needs to spend $75 dollars on necessities like food and water while the rest of the household wants to spend $50 on things like cigarettes and booze. The head of the household submits a budget: $75 on food and water, $25 on cigarettes and booze.
If the head of the household goes out an buys $75 dollars worth of food and water while the rest of the household goes out and puts $50 dollars worth of cigarettes and booze on their credit card - who are you going to blame for the $25 deficit? The person who bought the necessities or the idiots who refused to live within their means? I suspect you would blame the idiots, unless, of course, the head of the household's name was Ronald Reagan...
It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. Reagan's military spending was essential whereas Congress's entitlement spending was not. The idea that essential spending should be cut in order to accommodate entitlement spending is ridiculous.
He was a fiscal conservative. Just because Congress wouldn't cut their beloved entitlement programs does not make Reagan a hypocrite.
You're basically saying that Reagan should have let the Congress bully him into raising taxes or cutting defense spending. Good thing Reagan had a spine...
What you don't seem to get is that Reagan did not pay for what you are billing as "essential defense spending".
There were huge deficits in general revenue at the time. However, those entitlements were paid for with the payroll tax...
...and that payroll tax generated large surpluses at the time which was then used to pay for true "fiscally conservative" ideas such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars".
Here is an artist depiction of Reagan's fantasy Sci/Fi Battle Satellites in a laser battle with some fantasy commie Satellites.
That project that went absolutely nowhere alone accounted for something like 100 billion in "essential spending".
Of course, lets not let reality get in the way of the Reagan circle jerk here. :mrgreen:
Can you tell us why Reagan saw it essential to increase defense spending given the then well known fact that the Soviet Union was already facing massive shortages of food by the early 1980s and their military was severely crippled by lack of funding?
What you don't seem to get is that Reagan did not pay for what you are billing as "essential defense spending". There were huge deficits in general revenue at the time. However, those entitlements were paid for with the payroll tax, and that payroll tax generated large surpluses at the time which was then used to pay for true "fiscally conservative" ideas such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as "Star Wars".
Here is an artist depiction of Reagan's fantasy Sci/Fi Battle Satellites in a laser battle with some fantasy commie Satellites.
That project that went absolutely nowhere alone accounted for something like 100 billion in "essential spending".
You just can't make this stuff up. The Reagan Administration was the poster child for pissing away the taxpayers money.
Of course, lets not let reality get in the way of the Reagan circle jerk here. :mrgreen:
Hindsight is 20/20. You have that luxury. I doubt many Americans would have shared your sentiment at the time...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?