A question about Reagan.

[Axxon]

I'm watching the news and this last statement hit me. They were calling him a "game changing" president. OK, but then the commentator justified the statement by saying "even Bill Clinton used the phrase "the era of big government is over."

Is it?? I'm not saying Reagan didn't want it and I'm not saying Bill Clinton didn't want it, but how is it so??

I'd really like to know. I mean no disrespect for the late president, but I've wondered how we consider this when it seems so obvious it's not so. Was the government that much bigger before? I know personal income taxes were but aside from that???

[Arles]

What Reagan did was make the idea of big government a negative one to the masses. That said, capitol hill is a completely different story (on both ends of the aisle). And that is a shame.

[Jon]

I am by no means a Reagan fan, but I do believe that he fundamentally shifted the way that Americans look at politics, even those on the center-left. Beginning with FDR, we had a social welfare state with high expectations of government services. This was dramatically increased by the LBJ administrations. People believed that government was the only solution, for the most part. Reagan, with his "government is not the solution, but the problem," changed how people looked at government, to this day. Political scientists have said that he not only shifted the political center of this country to the right, but he shifted the world's political center to the right as well. In any event, it wasn't his actions, which did nothing really to shrink government save cutting social programs and whatnot, but he did change how people acted with respect to government (not to mention his leadership by committee). BUT --- whether you liked his policies or not, Ronald Reagan made people ask themselves "what should the role of government be." In that respect, he has shaped both the democrat and republican parties.

He deserves this credit, in addition to his foreign policy successes, for this, as it will shape the debate in this country for the next several decades.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Arles

What Reagan did was make the idea of big government a negative one to the masses. That said, capitol hill is a completely different story (on both ends of the aisle). And that is a shame.

I certainly think this is true but is this exactly game changing??

It means that elected officials must pander to peoples beliefs but once elected, it's business as usual??

I applaud his efforts but really, has it affected the price of tea in China???

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Jon

I am by no means a Reagan fan, but I do believe that he fundamentally shifted the way that Americans look at politics, even those on the center-left. Beginning with FDR, we had a social welfare state with high expectations of government services. This was dramatically increased by the LBJ administrations. People believed that government was the only solution, for the most part. Reagan, with his "government is not the solution, but the problem," changed how people looked at government, to this day. Political scientists have said that he not only shifted the political center of this country to the right, but he shifted the world's political center to the right as well. In any event, it wasn't his actions, which did nothing really to shrink government save cutting social programs and whatnot, but he did change how people acted with respect to government (not to mention his leadership by committee). BUT --- whether you liked his policies or not, Ronald Reagan made people ask themselves "what should the role of government be." In that respect, he has shaped both the democrat and republican parties.

He deserves this credit, in addition to his foreign policy successes, for this, as it will shape the debate in this country for the next several decades.

Great answer, Jon. As another not a Reagan fan, I can see and respect this. Thanks.

[Dutch]

Could you question him.....errrr......TOMMORROW, maybe.....geez.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Could you question him.....errrr......TOMMORROW, maybe.....geez.

WTF????? Seriously.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I certainly think this is true but is this exactly game changing??

It means that elected officials must pander to peoples beliefs but once elected, it's business as usual??

I applaud his efforts but really, has it affected the price of tea in China???

I don't know that you will ever fully convince Washington that big government is "bad" in practice. But, what Reagan did was shift the playing field for the American public where congressmen must now campaign from the stance that big government is bad. Before Reagan, being fiscally conservative in your policies was akin to stealing from children. Now, it's often looked on as a virtuous trait in many areas.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Could you question him.....errrr......TOMMORROW, maybe.....geez.

OK, I think I get what you're thinking but that's NOT where I'm coming from.

I've payed my respects and they are sincere. This comes from someone who has been very critical of him. I'm not being that way in this thread. I mean no disrespect. I've payed homage to his intents here as well. i just questioned a statement, not his intents. Sorry you took it wrong but I mean no disrespect. I'm giving him full respect on his intentions and his presidency.

I'm just curious about a reporters statement.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know that you will ever fully convince Washington that big government is "bad" in practice. But, what Reagan did was shift the playing field for the American public where congressmen must now campaign from the stance that big government is bad. Before Reagan, being fiscally conservative in your policies was akin to stealing from children. Now, it's often looked on as a virtuous trait in many areas.

I support this but don't you agree that good debate needs balance. It sucked that being fiscally conservative was deemed akin to stealing from children. Doesn't it equally suck that being socially liberal is deemed akin to being a communist sypathizer???

Again, this isn't about Reagan but about the current climate. I'd say that Reagan showed us the way to view the nonmajority view as acceptable, based on the posts I've read here. Why have we forgotten that in the years that followed???

[Erik133]

looks like a troll to me

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Erik133

looks like a troll to me

I've got a pair of glasses you can borrow then. You could use them.

[ISiddiqui]

BUT --- whether you liked his policies or not, Ronald Reagan made people ask themselves "what should the role of government be." In that respect, he has shaped both the democrat and republican parties.

Indeed! Government has grown, no doubt. But one wonders if we followed the LBJ track, how high would government gone? After all Nixon didn't reverse much of LBJ. He realized it would be politically foolhardy to do so. Reagan allowed for an idea of a smaller government to be a powerful force and thus slow down the growth of governmental services, IMO.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

[q]BUT --- whether you liked his policies or not, Ronald Reagan made people ask themselves "what should the role of government be." In that respect, he has shaped both the democrat and republican parties.[/q]

Indeed! Government has grown, no doubt. But one wonders if we followed the LBJ track, how high would government gone? After all Nixon didn't reverse much of LBJ. He realized it would be politically foolhardy to do so. Reagan allowed for an idea of a smaller government to be a powerful force and thus slow down the growth of governmental services, IMO.

Both of them were wildly popular and deemed charismatic. Was it watergate that deterred Nixon or was it the climate? He achieved some wonderful things in his administration. I think he could have floated something similar. It's true he didn't but I wonder why?

Was the thought truly revolutionary????

[TroyF]

Again, this isn't about Reagan but about the current climate. I'd say that Reagan showed us the way to view the nonmajority view as acceptable, based on the posts I've read here. Why have we forgotten that in the years that followed???

We haven't forgotten it. There is very little "majority" in this country right now. What we have is large groups of people who support "their" side with a fervor we haven't seen in decades, and who get defensive the first time their position is attacked.

Ask a Republican how he feels right now, he'll tell you he's sick of Bush getting attacked for EVERYTHING that goes on in this country. Not much different than if you'd asked a democrat the same question when Clinton was in office.

The two "loudest" factions in America are the far right and the far left. The majority of us are in between those two poles. We don't organize or participate in protests, we don't panic everytime a scientist says the world is coming to an end because we used our air conditioner, we don't think the right is the equivalent of the Third Reich or that the left is a bunch of moronic hippies. (those last two are reserved for the FAR right and the FAR left)

The people who lean left feel their opinions aren't heard about the war because they are unpopular. Fine. Flip the arguement around. How would you feel if you were against abortion and wanted to start a debate about it? Might you feel unpopular or that your opinion didn't count for anything on a national scale? (please don't get caught up in the schematics of which arguement I posed first)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Axxon

OK, I think I get what you're thinking but that's NOT where I'm coming from.

I've payed my respects and they are sincere.

For public record, I was a little too excited in my response. Sometimes I get a little emotional.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Arles

What Reagan did was make the idea of big government a negative one to the masses. That said, capitol hill is a completely different story (on both ends of the aisle). And that is a shame.

The best answer, imo. If you want to know history, look at those groups and individuals screaming the loudest during that time when he dared suggest that the "idea of big government [should be] a negative one".

[JPhillips]

You guys are completely wrong about Nixon. He was not a conservative at all. He didn't follow Goldwater and didn't embrace some big gov legislation because it was politically expedient, he did he because he belived in a role for the government. Whether you love Nixon or hate him, he most certainly can not be called a conservative.

In many ways I'm happy to see Reagan end his suffering. I watched my Dad die of cancer and it was horrific, but it only lasted a year. God bless Nancy. She has really been through a lot. I may not agree with Reagan's politics, but I don't doubt he loved his country and deserved a better death. At least he and Jimmy Stewart can finally hook up again and share movie stories!

[RandyChase]

Aside from the politics, I think the real realization today is that this a blessing for his family. Having dealt with family members in conditions like that, there is no way of knowing how painful and hard it is. And they've been dealing with the fact that Ronnie's been gone for years. While I agreed with almost none of his political beliefs, dating back to his days as Gov. in Calif, I hope he's at peace and am glad for his family that this difficult decade has come to an end.

[ISiddiqui]

Whether you love Nixon or hate him, he most certainly can not be called a conservative.

Why not? Conservatives 'conserve' and go for slow growth. Nixon did that. He took what had happened under LBJ and slowed it down. Reagan, in reversing it, was reactionary. And he was a bit radical in his thought as well.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I certainly think this is true but is this exactly game changing??

It means that elected officials must pander to peoples beliefs but once elected, it's business as usual??

I applaud his efforts but really, has it affected the price of tea in China???

The public has a conflicting desire for lower taxes and more services. So peoples' beliefs actually align with what he accomplished. Lower taxes and higher spending.

Overall, government spending shot through the roof under his watch. I think he showed that talking is easier than doing.

[Buccaneer]

I find it incredulous that some here in this thread and the other who said, "I don't believe in none of his politics" would oppose limiting big govt and winning the Cold War.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The public has a conflicting desire for lower taxes and more services. So peoples' beliefs actually align with what he accomplished. Lower taxes and higher spending.

Overall, government spending shot through the roof under his watch. I think he showed that talking is easier than doing.

Reagan was severly outnumbered in the house (it was 267 dems to 168 reps in the mid-80s) and had to pick his battles. And, to that end, he chose tax cuts as the higher priority to cutting spending. So, what happened was as he doubled and tripled revenue to the treasury, congress double and tripled their spending. And, without a great deal of help from the republicans in the senate, Reagan was somewhat handcuffed on the spending front. His options were to veto both the tax cuts and spending and keep the status quo, or go all out for the tax cuts realizing that spending may also increase.

I remember Reagan's staff stating some goals on cutting spending in the mid-80s, but none of them ever left the house. And, even if they did, I doubt the reps or dems in the senate would have gone for that. Spending other people's money is a very easy thing to do, and the congress in the 80s (both rep and dem) was no exception.

That said, Reagan had the best line on the whole situation. A reporter asked him, "Mr. President, aren't you worried about the deficits?"

Reagan's response was "Well, I think they are big enough to take care of themselves."

[JPhillips]

Arles: Reagan didn't submit budgets with massive spending cuts. You may blame that on the Congress, but he never seriously tried to fight for smaller government. In fact, if you look at how he "saved" Social Security you can argue that he helped defend big government. (Rightly I believe, but that's another argument.)

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Arles

Reagan was severly outnumbered in the house (it was 267 dems to 168 reps in the mid-80s) and had to pick his battles. And, to that end, he chose tax cuts as the higher priority to cutting spending. So, what happened was as he doubled and tripled revenue to the treasury, congress double and tripled their spending. And, without a great deal of help from the republicans in the senate, Reagan was somewhat handcuffed on the spending front. His options were to veto both the tax cuts and spending and keep the status quo, or go all out for the tax cuts realizing that spending may also increase.

I remember Reagan's staff stating some goals on cutting spending in the mid-80s, but none of them ever left the house. And, even if they did, I doubt the reps or dems in the senate would have gone for that. Spending other people's money is a very easy thing to do, and the congress in the 80s (both rep and dem) was no exception.

That said, Reagan had the best line on the whole situation. A reporter asked him, "Mr. President, aren't you worried about the deficits?"

Reagan's response was "Well, I think they are big enough to take care of themselves."

Actually, the reality is that Reagan got almost all of his fiscal agenda enacted in the first year of his presidency, and what he mostly did on spending was shift money from social services to defense. I remember that quite clearly - the Democrats in the House would be opposed to his proposals, and he would give an address to the nation appealing for public support. And within days, there would be enough Democratic defectors to pass the bill. He really had an outstanding ability to rally support for his proposals.

Yes, he proposed budgets that were usually a little smaller than what Congress was proposing, but only by a few billion dollars typically - not enough to make a significant difference in the scale of the budget deficits. And his position on the deficits was that economic growth would take care of them.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Arles

Reagan was severly outnumbered in the house (it was 267 dems to 168 reps in the mid-80s) and had to pick his battles. And, to that end, he chose tax cuts as the higher priority to cutting spending. So, what happened was as he doubled and tripled revenue to the treasury, congress double and tripled their spending. And, without a great deal of help from the republicans in the senate, Reagan was somewhat handcuffed on the spending front. His options were to veto both the tax cuts and spending and keep the status quo, or go all out for the tax cuts realizing that spending may also increase.

I remember Reagan's staff stating some goals on cutting spending in the mid-80s, but none of them ever left the house. And, even if they did, I doubt the reps or dems in the senate would have gone for that. Spending other people's money is a very easy thing to do, and the congress in the 80s (both rep and dem) was no exception.

That said, Reagan had the best line on the whole situation. A reporter asked him, "Mr. President, aren't you worried about the deficits?"

Reagan's response was "Well, I think they are big enough to take care of themselves."

I think you're seeing things through rose colored glasses there. Supply side economics, aka Voodoo economics, was originated from the executive office during his time there. He was popular enough that he could have overcome congressional resistance easily. I think he did a lot of good things while in office, but implementing fiscal responsibility wasn't one of them.

[Jon]

[quote=Buccaneer]I find it incredulous that some here in this thread and the other who said, "I don't believe in none of his politics" would oppose limiting big govt and winning the Cold War.[/QUOTE

I don't see why. To a lot of people, politic positions aren't as simplistic as being "for something or against something." To a lot of people, myself included, the ends don't necessarily justify the means. How we get to the result is just as important. (which is why our criminal justice system is process based, not results based, but that's a different argument). Simply stating one is opposed to "big government" means absolutely nothing. What is meant by big government? It's a generic term that is not used by any serious policy analyst to discuss policy positions. As for saying that Reagan gave people what they want, that's not necessarily true. While taxes were cut, public services were also cut. Services didn't increase, they decreased.

But as I stated previously, Reagan's legacy is not that he racked up huge deficits in beating the communists, cut social services, or even his judicial appointments. It's that he made people ask themselves what they wanted government to do for them and how best to achieve it. It fostered a debate, which, at least in my opinion (even though seems that it is not the accepted practice in our current political environment), is what politics and government is all about. He forced people to get involved and think rather than simply respond to what was handed out.

I came to this conclusion before he died. In fact, I came to this conclusion years ago having studied the presidency and reagan extensively.

[Buccaneer]

That's just it Jon, it is simple - as a voter and as a concerned citizen. The details of any action are complex but it is the basic principle that is (or should be) simple: look in the direction of reducing taxes, reducing spendings and reducing govt dependencies (and increasing personal responsibilities) instead of making excuses as to accepting (or perceiving to need) the opposite. Will we get there? I doubt it but at least we (or get our representatives) to start thinking less is good.

[Dutch]

Another great quotable from Reagan was that (and to paraphrase) the 'Welfare system needs to work with the intentions of minimilizing itsolf, not legitimizing itself.'

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's just it Jon, it is simple - as a voter and as a concerned citizen. The details of any action are complex but it is the basic principle that is (or should be) simple: look in the direction of reducing taxes, reducing spendings and reducing govt dependencies (and increasing personal responsibilities) instead of making excuses as to accepting (or perceiving to need) the opposite. Will we get there? I doubt it but at least we (or get our representatives) to start thinking less is good.

That's what I don't agree with. I don't think that less government and less taxes are always the best way to deal with a problem. There are clearly examples where the private sector has a history of worse performance than the public sector, and there are clearly cases that can be found relatively easily where the free market fails to meet the needs of citizens. There are some needs that the free market will never address, because money can't be made on them. The argument should not be small government vs. big government, but rather whether the private sector or public sector is the best way to meet a societal need. And then, figure out a portfolio of taxation that's fair and can pay for the public sector responsibilities.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's just it Jon, it is simple - as a voter and as a concerned citizen. The details of any action are complex but it is the basic principle that is (or should be) simple: look in the direction of reducing taxes, reducing spendings and reducing govt dependencies (and increasing personal responsibilities) instead of making excuses as to accepting (or perceiving to need) the opposite. Will we get there? I doubt it but at least we (or get our representatives) to start thinking less is good.

I think that your intentions are pure, but I guess we have to disagree. My problem with thinking it's that simple is that every seemingly simple view has a complex consequence. For example, look at reducing taxes. Where should they be reduced? Personal income or payroll? Spending -- which spending is reduced: domestic policy or foreign policy. Which government dependencies -- corporate reliance on tax deductions or almost every single college student's reliance on federal money to get into college.

I think most of us try to look at it in simple terms until something is cut that effects us directly. But we realize it's not that simple. It's not simply a case of cutting a, b, and c, and then everything will be fine and dandy. It's not how the world works and it's certainly not how our government works. As was mentioned social spending cuts were then spent on defense, which has been a credited as a huge factor in our victory in the Cold War. If we just did across the board spending cuts coupled with the tax cuts, but didn't reallocate the resources, where would we be? I think we have to define what we mean when we make political slogan statements like "we need smaller government." (which is why I thought clinton was being ridiculous when he said "the era of big government is over"). What is smaller government? I daresay most would not say smaller government means less services to "me."

[Buccaneer]

private sector or public sector is the best way to meet a societal need

I agree to an extent but I would strongly argue that in the public sector: less federal govt and greater local govt is much better. There were very good and defensible reasons why the framers of the Constitution sought to limit the powers of the federal govt and put in the 10th Amendment. But with each generating accepting less and less personal responsibilities for themselves and others, we have automatically given and assume greater responsibilities to the govt. Societys' needs start at home, not in Wash DC or Sacramento or others. But the more license we allow them (because we should in our minds or want to because it relieves us from our responsibilities), they more they will take and will be held less accountable for. Do you really not think that the $5 trillion we have spent on the War for Poverty would have been better spent (and make more of a difference) by other means? But not enough people questioned that and just went along with it. Just like we have allowed them in many other areas.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I agree to an extent but I would strongly argue that in the public sector: less federal govt and greater local govt is much better. There were very good and defensible reasons why the framers of the Constitution sought to limit the powers of the federal govt and put in the 10th Amendment. But with each generating accepting less and less personal responsibilities for themselves and others, we have automatically given and assume greater responsibilities to the govt. Societys' needs start at home, not in Wash DC or Sacramento or others. But the more license we allow them (because we should in our minds or want to because it relieves us from our responsibilities), they more they will take and will be held less accountable for. Do you really not think that the $5 trillion we have spent on the War for Poverty would have been better spent (and make more of a difference) by other means? But not enough people questioned that and just went along with it. Just like we have allowed them in many other areas.

I agree with your general sentiment. I think a lot of the frustration people feel is due to the fact that they don't really have the ability to impact a lot of decisions that should be made at a lower level of government. There are a lot of responsibilities that have been assumed by the federal government that could be more efficiently handled at the state or local level. It's also much easier to hold someone accountable for their decisions at those levels.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by clintl

Actually, the reality is that Reagan got almost all of his fiscal agenda enacted in the first year of his presidency, and what he mostly did on spending was shift money from social services to defense. I remember that quite clearly - the Democrats in the House would be opposed to his proposals, and he would give an address to the nation appealing for public support. And within days, there would be enough Democratic defectors to pass the bill. He really had an outstanding ability to rally support for his proposals.

Yes, he proposed budgets that were usually a little smaller than what Congress was proposing, but only by a few billion dollars typically - not enough to make a significant difference in the scale of the budget deficits. And his position on the deficits was that economic growth would take care of them.

This was what I was getting at. In theory, Reagan was for a "smaller" government and less spending. But, in order to get the tax cuts he wanted, he often went along with more non-discretionary spending than he would have liked had everything else been even. It was a calculated move on his end and he basically took a blind eye to spending in return for his changes in the tax code. He *could* have vetoed or changed the budget he favored to remove some, but he did not do that.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Do you really not think that the $5 trillion we have spent on the War for Poverty would have been better spent (and make more of a difference) by other means?

Really, barring one so far unknown spending plan, the answer to your question
will always be yes. My question is, how should the money be spent or more to the point, how does the government propose to spend the money.

Poverty is an issue very close to my heart and it's one of the reasons I disliked the Reagan presidency. His plan simply didn't address those at the very lowest levels of poverty very well at all. It was far to idealistic and for every reappropriation of funds, every cutting of services, the people on the fringe were hurt worse.

If there was a plan to reenfranchise these people, I never saw it. I'm talking about the marginal here, not the lazy. They exist, they suffer and really, nobody gives enough of a crap to really do anything for them and no, giving them handouts isn't necessarily the best solution but cutting them off, knowing they can't support themselves isn't better, no.