GOP to resolve that Reagan does not deserve support

[Saddle Bronc 124]

6. Reagan didn't preside over a war in Iraq or Afghanistan so anything you could have put here would be irrelevant. Good thing you didn't even try to make a point. (although I think Reagan would have listened to his commanders on the ground. At the very least, he wouldn't have deliberated for 13 weeks while soldiers are dying).

7. Conservatives have always supported smaller government and bigger military. This is a whole other debate that would be very tangential, but I don't understand why you think this means that Reagan would disagree with point 7. In any case, Reagan didn't face a similar situation and since he isn't here so you can ask him, get a Ouiji board or stop claiming to know what he would say. On second thought, I don't believe in Ouiji boards so disregard that part.

On both of these, check again--Reagan ordered sending of Marines to Beirut with BLANKS rather than live-ammo, causing death of 243

[SMR 368]

6. Reagan didn't preside over a war in Iraq or Afghanistan so anything you could have put here would be irrelevant. Good thing you didn't even try to make a point. (although I think Reagan would have listened to his commanders on the ground. At the very least, he wouldn't have deliberated for 13 weeks while soldiers are dying).

7. Conservatives have always supported smaller government and bigger military. This is a whole other debate that would be very tangential, but I don't understand why you think this means that Reagan would disagree with point 7. In any case, Reagan didn't face a similar situation and since he isn't here so you can ask him, get a Ouiji board or stop claiming to know what he would say. On second thought, I don't believe in Ouiji boards so disregard that part.

On both of these, check again--Reagan ordered sending of Marines to Beirut with BLANKS rather than live-ammo, causing death of 243

How is that relevant? You are trying to draw parallels between current foreign policy issues and issues that Reagan faced and then use that to determine how Reagan would have faced current events (honestly, I'm not even understanding the parallel between blanks in Beirut and nukes in Iran). You can't prove how a dead man would have answered a question that no one could have asked him.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're definitely putting words into Ronald Reagan's mouth. The bit about homosexuals is pure speculation. We don't know what he would do. Additionally, defending marriage as between a man and a woman is not intolerance.

On the budget and immigration, I think you have to realize there is a difference between what the man believed and what reality dictated had to be done based on having a Democratic congress and compromises that have to be made. If you asked Reagan, he would tell you he supported smaller government, as he said many times.

The point on Iran is completely intellectually dishonest simply because the Middle Eastern situation was very different 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected. Nuclear weapons for Iran weren't on the table and the balance of power was different. It's like saying that FDR disagrees with modern Democrats because he thought that we should have a war with Germany and Japan. It was a completely different situation. Since Reagan isn't here to give his opinion on modern foreign policy, I don't think we should make assumptions.

Take the same sex marriage out (albeit using your argument of different times coupling that with Reagan's rather progressive and tolerant stance on the issue of homosexuals in those days might lead one to believe that Reagan might not be a supporter of gay marriage but he certainly wouldn't have spent a lot of energy and capital on defeating any such measure) and Reagan still fails the 80% test. Despite what he believed and said, the scorecard on small government and debt reduction is in and Reagan doesn't meet the test. Neither does he meet the test on illegal immigration. Wiggle all you want but the test isn't met. As for Iran, did an arms embargo exist at the time that Reagan transferred arms to that country? Did that arms embargo exist in a vacuum or because it was the policy of the US to contain that country? Is breaking the embargo how containment works?

Actually, the test is based on what the candidates believe and considering Congress writes the budget and immigration bills, it's unfair to judge a president based on legislation. Yes, he signs the legislation, but he has to accept a budget and maybe it was the best he was going to get. Arguing that Reagan was for big government is laughable and absurd. On immigration, I am not sure of his stance, but that is 1/10.

And on Iran, you are still comparing apples to oranges. The point is, the Iran situation is different today than it was then. The current Iranian President was elected in 2005. Atomic weapons have been on the table only in this decade. Saddam Hussein lost power (if you don't know why this makes a difference in Iran, you don't understand the Middle East). The country has different leaders, different capabilities, and there is a different balance of power among it's neighbors. Iran is just a name. It's a different country from a foreign policy standpoint today than it was 30 years ago. To assume that Reagan would have the same policy stance is presumptuous, insulting to his intelligence, and, moreover, ridiculous.

Truth hurting again? Congress fattened Reagan's budget proposals? Or did Congress actually slash some of the spending requests? And were Reagan's budget proposals perhaps built on unrealistic assumptions that could not and did not materialize?

The House Budget Committee, with virtually all its Republicans refusing to vote, tentatively agreed yesterday to cut $24 billion from President Reagan's $312 billion request for defense spending authority in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

More fun - the Gipper as the tax and spender...

But the Reagan tax bill worsened the deficit. Reagan's prediction that the tax cuts would increase revenues missed the mark, at least during the 1981-1982 recession. The 1982 budget deficit was $113 billion—more than $30 billion more than when Carter left office. Unemployment rose to 11 percent, and Reagan was often picketed when he campaigned for Republican candidates in the 1982 midterm elections.

Leading Republicans, including Senate leader Howard Baker, urged Reagan to break with the Federal Reserve, but he refused to do so, believing that tight interest rates would eventually work. "Stay the course," Reagan proclaimed over and over again. Over time, despite the human costs of the recession, the Fed's policies did work. Tight money and reduced inflation laid the basis for a boom that began in 1983 and was still going when Reagan left the White House in 1989. Once the economy turned upwards, Reagan chided his critics, saying "They don't call it Reaganomics anymore." One reason for this was that Reagan himself no longer indulged the more extreme claims of supply-side economics. The President stopped talking about balancing the budget and in 1982 supported the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), a measure presented as a tax reform bill that was also a tax increase. Congress passed TEFRA, and Reagan signed it into law. In 1984, he supported another tax increase, again packaged as reform.

On another fiscal front, after failing in an aborted attempt to reduce some Social Security benefits, Reagan teamed with House Speaker Tip O'Neill to bring spiraling Social Security costs under control. Reagan appointed a commission, headed by Alan Greenspan, on which O'Neill and Senate leader Baker also had appointees, that came up with a monumental compromise that slightly raised the retirement age, boosted payroll taxes, and taxed the benefits of high-end recipients for the first time. Reagan signed the bill into law in the White House Rose Garden on April 20, 1983, at a ceremony attended by O'Neill, who said, "This is a happy day for America." This compromise preserved the solvency of the Social Security system for a generation.

As for Iran: While the landscape in the region has certainly changed over the last few decades, our policy towards Iran back then was containment. That's still the case today. Breaking an arms embargo doesn't further that goal no matter what the landscape. Hence, Reagan failed on that end.

Illegal Immigration, Budget and defict and Iran containment - 3 out of 10. The Gipper comes up short.

[SMR 368]

You're definitely putting words into Ronald Reagan's mouth. The bit about homosexuals is pure speculation. We don't know what he would do. Additionally, defending marriage as between a man and a woman is not intolerance.

On the budget and immigration, I think you have to realize there is a difference between what the man believed and what reality dictated had to be done based on having a Democratic congress and compromises that have to be made. If you asked Reagan, he would tell you he supported smaller government, as he said many times.

The point on Iran is completely intellectually dishonest simply because the Middle Eastern situation was very different 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected. Nuclear weapons for Iran weren't on the table and the balance of power was different. It's like saying that FDR disagrees with modern Democrats because he thought that we should have a war with Germany and Japan. It was a completely different situation. Since Reagan isn't here to give his opinion on modern foreign policy, I don't think we should make assumptions.

Take the same sex marriage out (albeit using your argument of different times coupling that with Reagan's rather progressive and tolerant stance on the issue of homosexuals in those days might lead one to believe that Reagan might not be a supporter of gay marriage but he certainly wouldn't have spent a lot of energy and capital on defeating any such measure) and Reagan still fails the 80% test. Despite what he believed and said, the scorecard on small government and debt reduction is in and Reagan doesn't meet the test. Neither does he meet the test on illegal immigration. Wiggle all you want but the test isn't met. As for Iran, did an arms embargo exist at the time that Reagan transferred arms to that country? Did that arms embargo exist in a vacuum or because it was the policy of the US to contain that country? Is breaking the embargo how containment works?

Actually, the test is based on what the candidates believe and considering Congress writes the budget and immigration bills, it's unfair to judge a president based on legislation. Yes, he signs the legislation, but he has to accept a budget and maybe it was the best he was going to get. Arguing that Reagan was for big government is laughable and absurd. On immigration, I am not sure of his stance, but that is 1/10.

And on Iran, you are still comparing apples to oranges. The point is, the Iran situation is different today than it was then. The current Iranian President was elected in 2005. Atomic weapons have been on the table only in this decade. Saddam Hussein lost power (if you don't know why this makes a difference in Iran, you don't understand the Middle East). The country has different leaders, different capabilities, and there is a different balance of power among it's neighbors. Iran is just a name. It's a different country from a foreign policy standpoint today than it was 30 years ago. To assume that Reagan would have the same policy stance is presumptuous, insulting to his intelligence, and, moreover, ridiculous.

Truth hurting again? Congress fattened Reagan's budget proposals? Or did Congress actually slash some of the spending requests? And were Reagan's budget proposals perhaps built on unrealistic assumptions that could not and did not materialize?

The House Budget Committee, with virtually all its Republicans refusing to vote, tentatively agreed yesterday to cut $24 billion from President Reagan's $312 billion request for defense spending authority in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

More fun - the Gipper as the tax and spender...

But the Reagan tax bill worsened the deficit. Reagan's prediction that the tax cuts would increase revenues missed the mark, at least during the 1981-1982 recession. The 1982 budget deficit was $113 billion—more than $30 billion more than when Carter left office. Unemployment rose to 11 percent, and Reagan was often picketed when he campaigned for Republican candidates in the 1982 midterm elections.

Leading Republicans, including Senate leader Howard Baker, urged Reagan to break with the Federal Reserve, but he refused to do so, believing that tight interest rates would eventually work. "Stay the course," Reagan proclaimed over and over again. Over time, despite the human costs of the recession, the Fed's policies did work. Tight money and reduced inflation laid the basis for a boom that began in 1983 and was still going when Reagan left the White House in 1989. Once the economy turned upwards, Reagan chided his critics, saying "They don't call it Reaganomics anymore." One reason for this was that Reagan himself no longer indulged the more extreme claims of supply-side economics. The President stopped talking about balancing the budget and in 1982 supported the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA), a measure presented as a tax reform bill that was also a tax increase. Congress passed TEFRA, and Reagan signed it into law. In 1984, he supported another tax increase, again packaged as reform.

On another fiscal front, after failing in an aborted attempt to reduce some Social Security benefits, Reagan teamed with House Speaker Tip O'Neill to bring spiraling Social Security costs under control. Reagan appointed a commission, headed by Alan Greenspan, on which O'Neill and Senate leader Baker also had appointees, that came up with a monumental compromise that slightly raised the retirement age, boosted payroll taxes, and taxed the benefits of high-end recipients for the first time. Reagan signed the bill into law in the White House Rose Garden on April 20, 1983, at a ceremony attended by O'Neill, who said, "This is a happy day for America." This compromise preserved the solvency of the Social Security system for a generation.

As for Iran: While the landscape in the region has certainly changed over the last few decades, our policy towards Iran back then was containment. That's still the case today. Breaking an arms embargo doesn't further that goal no matter what the landscape. Hence, Reagan failed on that end.

Illegal Immigration, Budget and defict and Iran containment - 3 out of 10. The Gipper comes up short.

I guess you and I are just going to disagree on this one. But arguing about the views of a dead man in the current political landscape is really beside the point. The point is that the Republicans are putting forth a statement as to what they support. The platform is one that I support and I think that a plurality of Americans also support it. That is really the question.

The RNC has put forth a platform and said this is what the party is about. Now we get to see if the platform is one that America wants or do they want Obama.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But arguing about the views of a dead man in the current political landscape is really beside the point.

So, what you're saying is that the GOP should put out it's principles in this landscape without suggesting that a dead man actually stood for them.

[nowhereman 1]

But arguing about the views of a dead man in the current political landscape is really beside the point.

So, what you're saying is that the GOP should put out it's principles in this landscape without suggesting that a dead man actually stood for them.

OK let me mediate this debate... Reagan ruled but the current GOP sucks

[SMR 368]

But arguing about the views of a dead man in the current political landscape is really beside the point.

So, what you're saying is that the GOP should put out it's principles in this landscape without suggesting that a dead man actually stood for them.

No, what I'm saying is that there is little point in trying to convince you that Iran is not the same country it was 30 years ago in spite of critical changes or that Reagan was for small government in spite of the fact that he said it many times.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

But arguing about the views of a dead man in the current political landscape is really beside the point.

So, what you're saying is that the GOP should put out it's principles in this landscape without suggesting that a dead man actually stood for them.

Reinhard, the very fact of posting on a forum whose necessity was caused by Reagan's 1986 scamnesty (whose aftereffects I much suffered) as well as Reagan's increasing government size in reality (even confirmed by Reagan-proponent Joseph Farah of WND) haven't convinced SMR--basically the Russkie is quite dense on the matters.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But arguing about the views of a dead man in the current political landscape is really beside the point.

So, what you're saying is that the GOP should put out it's principles in this landscape without suggesting that a dead man actually stood for them.

No, what I'm saying is that there is little point in trying to convince you that Iran is not the same country it was 30 years ago in spite of critical changes or that Reagan was for small government in spite of the fact that he said it many times.

You don't have to convince me that Iran today isn't the same country that it was 30 years ago. Neither is the US. However, the US policy towards Iran was containment then and it is containment now. That hasn't changed at all. Reagan didn't help Iran's containment but rather acted contrary to US policy towards that country by transferring arms despite an arms embargo.

And he said that he was for small government? That's it? He said it? Oh no, he actually said it many times. That makes the difference, then? Dude, where are the deeds? Where is the smaller government that Reagan advocated? What happened to his deficit reduction? He failed on both points as he actually grew government spending. And he borrowed the funds for that spending. By that verbal only standard you're looking to apply here, anyone in the GOP can sign up for them principles and then go on their marry way doing the opposite anyway. Seeing that it only matters what they say not what they do.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMR 368]

On Iran, I don't know what else to say. If you think nuclear weapons don't change the playing field, then I think you are a little out of touch with reality. Nuclear weapons make a difference. If you want to sum up our policy in one word, maybe that word would be the same (containment). But foreign policy can't really be summed up in one word.

On big government, you are arguing that Reagan disagrees with the current GOP because he wanted to increase military spending and cut taxes. Of course, if the Democratic congress doesn't allow you to cut any other programs, cutting taxes and increasing military spending will increase the deficit. In order to balance the budget, taxes were eventually increased because Congress wouldn't cut spending on other programs.

As has been pointed out, Reagan was a pragmatic conservative. That means that if a Democratic Congress prevented him from putting his full plan into effect and a half measure wouldn't work, he was willing to compromise. This doesn't make him less conservative. It just means that he was a President who put the country first.

This simply underscores the reason for the GOP push right now. With enough conservatives in Washington, such compromises won't be necessary. If there were 536 Ronald Reagan's in Washington, you would see conservatism in action. That's the point of the present GOP statement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

On Iran, I don't know what else to say. If you think nuclear weapons don't change the playing field, then I think you are a little out of touch with reality. Nuclear weapons make a difference. If you want to sum up our policy in one word, maybe that word would be the same (containment). But foreign policy can't really be summed up in one word.

On big government, you are arguing that Reagan disagrees with the current GOP because he wanted to increase military spending and cut taxes. Of course, if the Democratic congress doesn't allow you to cut any other programs, cutting taxes and increasing military spending will increase the deficit. In order to balance the budget, taxes were eventually increased because Congress wouldn't cut spending on other programs.

As has been pointed out, Reagan was a pragmatic conservative. That means that if a Democratic Congress prevented him from putting his full plan into effect and a half measure wouldn't work, he was willing to compromise. This doesn't make him less conservative. It just means that he was a President who put the country first.

This simply underscores the reason for the GOP push right now. With enough conservatives in Washington, such compromises won't be necessary. If there were 536 Ronald Reagan's in Washington, you would see conservatism in action. That's the point of the present GOP statement.

Not sure what part of the word "containment" is so hard for you to grasp. Or how you figure that transferring arms to a country you are looking to contain helps that goal. If it's purely the nuclear threat that the GOP wants to address, then perhaps the "Reagan" principle should state just that. It doesn't.

Now to big government. Nice try to blame the "Democratic Congress" when actually only the House had a Democratic majority while the Senate had a Republican majority for the first 6 out of Reagan's 8 years in office. Besides, the numbers still don't add up when you consider this against the 1.5 trillion dollar defense spending increase over 5 years Reagan proposed and Congress approved:

At the same time, the administration set out to make substantial cuts in domestic spending. David A. Stockman, Reagan's talented budget director, supervised an effort to squeeze more than $41 billion out of the government's nonmilitary "discretionary" spending. The task was extremely difficult. The administration could not reduce the 10 percent of the budget committed to paying interest on the national debt (which reached $1 trillion during Reagan's first year in office) and had already agreed to actual increases in the 25 percent of the budget that went to the military. It was not willing to make any significant changes in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and several other broad-based programs. That left a host of much smaller programs, constituting about 10 percent of the budget, many of which were designed to help the poorest Americans. Almost by definition, the bulk of the cuts Stockman proposed came from these programs.

The administration increased the already tight spending restrictions on Medicaid, the major program of medical assistance for the poor, which the federal government financed jointly with the states. It reduced federal subsidies for low-income housing, cut spending on food stamps, reduced federal aid to education and federal contributions to state governments, and placed new restrictions on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the principal program of direct assistance to the poor). It also substantially reduced spending on government itself—forcing staff and service cuts in almost all departments and agencies. In some cases, the cutbacks eliminated the waste and inefficiency that Reagan argued was characteristic of many government programs. In other cases, they impaired the ability of agencies to function effectively and contributed to the growing popular belief that government could not be trusted to do anything well.

The administration did not win congressional approval of all the budget reductions it requested, but it did much better than most observers had expected. Even many programs that had once seemed unassailable experienced significant reductions.

Get that: You reduce revenues, increase defense spending by 300 billion a year and then try to offset that with 41 billion in non-discretionary spending cuts. I can detect a sizeable gap with the naked eye here. No calculator required to see that this approach will result in defict spending.

[Tahoma 2,292]

This is fun. Can I join?

Let's take a stroll down memory lane to the time of the immortal Ronald Reagan:

[*]We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes...

I got a chuckle out of this one. It reminded me of Reagan railing on about supply-side economics, the trickle-down theory, and the Laffer curve...ideas that Reagan was clueless about when he decided to run for President. In his book, Reagan's first budget director, David Stockman, describes how clueless Reagan was about all of this and how he was coached so that he could understand it.

[*]We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.

I got another chuckle here. It brought back memories of Reagan looking straight into the camera and swearing that he would never deal with terrorists. We didn't hear any more of those pronouncements after it was discovered that, indeed, Reagan was dealing with terrorists. Not only was Reagan dealing with terrorists, he was shipping arms to them. Iran-Contra anyone?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Get that: You reduce revenues, increase defense spending by 300 billion a year and then try to offset that with 41 billion in non-discretionary spending cuts. I can detect a sizeable gap with the naked eye here. No calculator required to see that this approach will result in defict spending.

Dogpile "Laffer Curve" (mathematical curve of tax-rates vs government revenues) Reinhard. Tax revenues actually INCREASED during Reagan's term (though spending increased faster, as even mentioned by Lee Iacocca in his autobio).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Get that: You reduce revenues, increase defense spending by 300 billion a year and then try to offset that with 41 billion in non-discretionary spending cuts. I can detect a sizeable gap with the naked eye here. No calculator required to see that this approach will result in defict spending.

Dogpile "Laffer Curve" (mathematical curve of tax-rates vs government revenues) Reinhard. Tax revenues actually INCREASED during Reagan's term (though spending increased faster, as even mentioned by Lee Iacocca in his autobio).

I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve and do believe that income tax revenues increased under Reagan as a result of lowering the tax rates and brining them closer to the optimum point. As you rightly point out, the revenue increases did not cover the runaway spending that Reagan presided over.