The Reagan Counterrevolution

The great deregulator....

The new regulator...

I notice you didn't say this part about Obama, "His message resonated with voters, propelling him into the White House to implement an agenda"

 

For good reason. He was voted in because of his skin color and not much more.

 

Wow, what a poor view of the 66,882,230 people who voted for Obama. All those American's voted for Obama exclusively because of the color of his skin???

What if we said the 58,343,671 only voted against him because of the color of his skin?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s

 

Perhaps Sarah should have answered to the 12 questions to see if their hypothesis was correct... We don't know if she would have done better or not.

Didn't see 66,882,230 say they voted for Obama exclusively because he was Black.

I am one who voted for him, he didn't get my vote because he was black so that destroys your ALL theory...

 

Not at all.

 

That makes for a good image of Reagan but u8nfortunately it isn't consistent with the facts either for Reagan specifically or for the Republican party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm


If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagan Reduced Big Government??

The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million.

http://slate.msn.com/id/100474/

 

You know whats funny, it's an atrocity when Obama wants to raise the deficit but no one ask how we'll pay off our debts when GOP POTUS want to cut taxes. Sure, Reagan gave huge tax cuts but the deficit want from $700 Billion to $3 Trillion and he cut every social program under the sun.

Don't forget, Reagan gave us the Iran contra scandal, he contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis and under his watch we had the stock market crash of 1987.

 

If he wants to raise taxes and stop any new spending whatsoever until the debt is paid off in full then he will have some credibility. Until that time he is just bloviating.

 

That's not what Reagan did, why is Obama presented a different standard?

Reagan raised the deficit from $700 Billion to $3 Trillion so it would seem fair if Obama is allowed to raise the deficit $2.3 Trillion.

 

No president at all, ever, has had a budgetary deficit of over a $trillion.

Obama most likely will have.

 

Economists widely believe both were the doings of Volcker and spillover from the Carter admin. Left wing hacks don't mind stepping around whatever they need to to blame Reagan for whatever they choose.

 

Let's not forget brother Neil Bush's role in the S&L meltdown, with his involvement at Silverado.

 

Go read the response in the other thread from Ken you said he couldn't produce. Bush sure managed to prove you wrong. He managed to raise it over $1 Trillion and he's a GOP by the way. The numbers I quoted for Reagan were for his 8 years in office... It is hard to cut taxes like he did and not raise the deficit but it's funny how so many people are worried about the deficit now... Why didn't they worry about the deficit when Reagan was cutting taxes?