Political Crossfire Forums

[Gus]

If Reagan is the hero of modern Republicans, then maybe small-government conservatism is dead in the Party.

[FCTE]

Small government is dead in all parties that have a grasp on reality. While there is definitely some wasted dollars and worthless government extensions, this is not the late 1700's.

Reagan's spending was military build up in a cold war with another superpower. Technological advancement and state of the art weaponry was necessary spending.

[Bobicito]

Reagan didn't spend all of the goverments money on superwepons and what not. Reagan spent some of the money on goverment programs to help those in need but in the end it just the goverment in more debt which is probably were the Liberatarians get those public spending numbers, although Bush and his wars have cost us a lot of money to.

[Il Principe]

Gus wrote:

If Reagan is the hero of modern Republicans, then maybe small-government conservatism is dead in the Party.

It was never alive to begin with, some of the most supportive new dealers and anti-isolationists were Republicans.

Secondly Reagan was hardly responsible for Presidential duties at all, most of his orders were simply the papers of his advisors that he was told to sign, given his memory problems and confusion of reality and fiction, this was probably somewhat of a good thing.

[Canadian_Patriot]

Yeah reagon was like George W. Bush a tool used by real criminals to control government. When Reagon cleaned out his staff it wasn't just to hide the crimes of his staff but his own. George Bush Sr. Vice President at the time was the real power behind Reagon and Dick Cheney is the power behind this president.

[Bobicito]

How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

[Jehan]

Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

Reagan fell asleep at the wheel while his subordinates ran the show. If you don't believe me, check out Iran-Contra. An unbalance Lt. Colonel was allowed to make presidential policy that clearly circumvented the law.

[FCTE]

Bobicito wrote: Reagan didn't spend all of the goverments money on superwepons and what not. Reagan spent some of the money on goverment programs to help those in need but in the end it just the goverment in more debt which is probably were the Liberatarians get those public spending numbers, although Bush and his wars have cost us a lot of money to.

Reagan was the only president recently who took America and American funding away from UNESCO. George HW Bush reestablished it.

He also put us on the "New New Federalism" AKA "Contractive Federalism" plan which heavily reduced welfare spending from the New Federalism, The Great Society, and the The New Deal plans.

[FCTE]

Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.

[Bobicito]

I guess tahts your opinion, mine however stays right were its at.

[foadi]

soldierofchrist wrote:
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.
since he is an anti-chinese communist i have a feeling he'll go with lincoln

[Simon De Montfort]

Reagan was a great President but not the best. I also think he was for smaller government. The increases in spending were mostly on the military which I viewed as necessary.

I would go with George Washington as the best President. He defined the role of the President and it traditions. Washington is why we refer to the President as "Mr. President" and not "your Excellency" nor "your Highness." A lesser man would have been corrupted by the power offered a president and become a dictator. Washington, by his actions defined a commander and chief with limits to his power. Our nation would have been in big trouble if people like Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton or Bill Clinton had been our first President.

[Dr. Righteous]

Gus wrote:

If Reagan is the hero of modern Republicans, then maybe small-government conservatism is dead in the Party.

Reagan actually wanted to slash spending in order to match his massive tax cuts. However, the Democratic Congress refused to cut spending to match, thus driving the deficit up.

[Protostar]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Gus wrote:

If Reagan is the hero of modern Republicans, then maybe small-government conservatism is dead in the Party.

Reagan actually wanted to slash spending in order to match his massive tax cuts. However, the Democratic Congress refused to cut spending to match, thus driving the deficit up.

Sounds about right.

[Il Principe]

soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

FDR was probably the best thing to happen to US in terms of presidents, at least in the 20th century.

Reagan may have been a good public speaker, but he was also the most detached president of them (maybe due to his alzheimer's, maybe becuase Reagan was taking drugs ever since his near miss with death back in '81).

Even if you like the horrible decisions of the Reagan admin, chances are Reagan had very little to do with them.

[Dr. Righteous]

Il Principe wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

FDR was probably the best thing to happen to US in terms of presidents, at least in the 20th century.

Reagan may have been a good public speaker, but he was also the most detached president of them (maybe due to his alzheimer's, maybe becuase Reagan was taking drugs ever since his near miss with death back in '81).

Even if you like the horrible decisions of the Reagan admin, chances are Reagan had very little to do with them.

FDR acted in the interest of the country, that I can't blame him for. However, most of his economic policies have shown to have a negative effect when permanently instituted and show why government intervention in the economy fails. He also knowingly employed Soviet spies in high government positions and didn't do anything about it, so once they got the bomb, Americans would live under the threat of nuclear war for the next half century.

Those Reagan horrible decisions you speak of saved the American economy in a mere number of years when it was preditcted to have taken decades and single-handedly annihilated the Soviet Union.

[Il Principe]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

FDR was probably the best thing to happen to US in terms of presidents, at least in the 20th century.

Reagan may have been a good public speaker, but he was also the most detached president of them (maybe due to his alzheimer's, maybe becuase Reagan was taking drugs ever since his near miss with death back in '81).

Even if you like the horrible decisions of the Reagan admin, chances are Reagan had very little to do with them.

FDR acted in the interest of the country, that I can't blame him for. However, most of his economic policies have shown to have a negative effect when permanently instituted and show why government intervention in the economy fails. He also knowingly employed Soviet spies in high government positions and didn't do anything about it, so once they got the bomb, Americans would live under the threat of nuclear war for the next half century.

Those Reagan horrible decisions you speak of saved the American economy in a mere number of years when it was preditcted to have taken decades and single-handedly annihilated the Soviet Union.

The New Deal was a necessary application of Keynesianism to the US economy - public works, wage controls, corporate regulation etc. Most of this still functions within the US today, obviously some aspects of it are in trouble, such as the social security system, but due more to the incompetence of the Reagan and first Bush admin more than Keynesian principle.

The important lesson of the new deal is that the business cycle must be moderated to avoid panic outflows and depressions, and certain apects of the economy placed under government administration as a means of achieving large combined goals, such as the space program.

The only real reason FDR's New Deal is portrayed as a negative impact on the US economy is becuase too much of the total revenue the government earns is spent on non-social goods, mainly weapons, instead of education, welfare and health etc. FDR and his economists planned to cut back spending after war, the junior neocons such as Truman obviously had other ideas (like mainting a 17:1 nuclear warhead ratio with the USSR). And as can be seen from above, it was a doctrine Reagan obided by as well.

[Dr. Righteous]

Il Principe wrote: Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

FDR was probably the best thing to happen to US in terms of presidents, at least in the 20th century.

Reagan may have been a good public speaker, but he was also the most detached president of them (maybe due to his alzheimer's, maybe becuase Reagan was taking drugs ever since his near miss with death back in '81).

Even if you like the horrible decisions of the Reagan admin, chances are Reagan had very little to do with them.

FDR acted in the interest of the country, that I can't blame him for. However, most of his economic policies have shown to have a negative effect when permanently instituted and show why government intervention in the economy fails. He also knowingly employed Soviet spies in high government positions and didn't do anything about it, so once they got the bomb, Americans would live under the threat of nuclear war for the next half century.

Those Reagan horrible decisions you speak of saved the American economy in a mere number of years when it was preditcted to have taken decades and single-handedly annihilated the Soviet Union.

The New Deal was a necessary application of Keynesianism to the US economy - public works, wage controls, corporate regulation etc. Most of this still functions within the US today, obviously some aspects of it are in trouble, such as the social security system, but due more to the incompetence of the Reagan and first Bush admin more than Keynesian principle.

The important lesson of the new deal is that the business cycle must be moderated to avoid panic outflows and depressions, and certain apects of the economy placed under government administration as a means of achieving large combined goals, such as the space program.

The only real reason FDR's New Deal is portrayed as a negative impact on the US economy is becuase too much of the total revenue the government earns is spent on non-social goods, mainly weapons, instead of education, welfare and health etc. FDR and his economists planned to cut back spending after war, the junior neocons such as Truman obviously had other ideas (like mainting a 17:1 nuclear warhead ratio with the USSR). And as can be seen from above, it was a doctrine Reagan obided by as well.

It depends on how you look at it. If you're willing to sacrifice freedom in order to prevent a depression, then some of what he did was good. I would hardly attribute the failure of social security to Reagan or Bush I. It's a system that doesn't even deserve to exist.

[Il Principe]

Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: Dr. Righteous wrote: Il Principe wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: FCTE wrote: Bobicito wrote: How are you getting this information? Is it even accurate? Reagan may have been on eof the best presidents this countrys ever had.

That's a huge stretch, decent president? yes. Best president? not even close.
Who is better than? In your humble opinion.

FDR was probably the best thing to happen to US in terms of presidents, at least in the 20th century.

Reagan may have been a good public speaker, but he was also the most detached president of them (maybe due to his alzheimer's, maybe becuase Reagan was taking drugs ever since his near miss with death back in '81).

Even if you like the horrible decisions of the Reagan admin, chances are Reagan had very little to do with them.

FDR acted in the interest of the country, that I can't blame him for. However, most of his economic policies have shown to have a negative effect when permanently instituted and show why government intervention in the economy fails. He also knowingly employed Soviet spies in high government positions and didn't do anything about it, so once they got the bomb, Americans would live under the threat of nuclear war for the next half century.

Those Reagan horrible decisions you speak of saved the American economy in a mere number of years when it was preditcted to have taken decades and single-handedly annihilated the Soviet Union.

The New Deal was a necessary application of Keynesianism to the US economy - public works, wage controls, corporate regulation etc. Most of this still functions within the US today, obviously some aspects of it are in trouble, such as the social security system, but due more to the incompetence of the Reagan and first Bush admin more than Keynesian principle.

The important lesson of the new deal is that the business cycle must be moderated to avoid panic outflows and depressions, and certain apects of the economy placed under government administration as a means of achieving large combined goals, such as the space program.

The only real reason FDR's New Deal is portrayed as a negative impact on the US economy is becuase too much of the total revenue the government earns is spent on non-social goods, mainly weapons, instead of education, welfare and health etc. FDR and his economists planned to cut back spending after war, the junior neocons such as Truman obviously had other ideas (like mainting a 17:1 nuclear warhead ratio with the USSR). And as can be seen from above, it was a doctrine Reagan obided by as well.

It depends on how you look at it. If you're willing to sacrifice freedom in order to prevent a depression, then some of what he did was good. I would hardly attribute the failure of social security to Reagan or Bush I. It's a system that doesn't even deserve to exist.

What supposed freedoms do you think were really lost due to the new deal? The freedom to be poor? Freedom from industrialism?

Poverty, and the depressions that cause them, are the ultimate sacrafice of freedom in the name of a volatile economic system.

Neither Reagan or Bush sr made the necessary adjustments or funding to the US social security system, it why its failing in the USA and not in Europe, and its going to have grevious consequences down the line. There is nothing wrong with the system, social security is just Keynesian principle of marginality applied - something both the presidents mentioned and their economic advisors loathe and fail to understand - and something that the current Bush just doesent seem to understand (or care about) either, I suppose that american society just isn't conductive to a strong public sector.

[Dr. Righteous]

Quote: What supposed freedoms do you think were really lost due to the new deal? The freedom to be poor? Freedom from industrialism?

Poverty, and the depressions that cause them, are the ultimate sacrafice of freedom in the name of a volatile economic system.

Dude, I'm sorry, but no one has a right to not be poor. Social security has failed and goes to show that it's time to get rid of it. Medicare as well, is unethical and takes freedom away from a worker's right to do what he pleases with his money. It also forces businesses to raise pay to compensate for the workers' losses.

Quote: Neither Reagan or Bush sr made the necessary adjustments or funding to the US social security system, it why its failing in the USA and not in Europe, and its going to have grevious consequences down the line. There is nothing wrong with the system, social security is just Keynesian principle of marginality applied - something both the presidents mentioned and their economic advisors loathe and fail to understand - and something that the current Bush just doesent seem to understand (or care about) either, I suppose that american society just isn't conductive to a strong public sector.

Why are you excluding Clinton from that list? And what did he do to help the social security system? Nothing, which is what he and every President since Truman should have done. The system should have been privatized or abolished long ago. It's simply unethical. The inherent flaw with the system is that it forcibly steals worker's hard earned wages, witholds them for many years without the guarantee of getting them back. That's a highway robbery and its costing businesses and workers money. You can't take money out of people's pockets and expect it to help the economy in the long run.