McConnell: Rand Paul can 'count on me' for 2016

I will support any candidate in 2016 who has the spine to cut federal spending. Because I look at long term.

Both your examples were fallacious examples from the perspective of being the "complete package" where conservatives are concerned.

G.W.B. because he never was a fiscal conservative, ever.

Reagan WAS the "complete package" where being a conservative was concerned, but, he never had a Republican House of Representatives. You know, that part of congress that is supposed to have the power of the purse where all legislation is supposed to start.

If with the spending tripling, he was still able to cut the size of various parts of the Federal government more than 5% and closer to 10% in some cases.

If you are going to present your case, present it with an "Apples to Apples" comparison and not an "Apples to Tire Iron" comparison.

My point with G.W.B. is that he never professed to being an economic, small-government, or limited-government conservative as Reagan did.

With respect to Congress during Reagan’s tenure and the resultant tripling of spending, it get’s even worse, as during his last two years, the Democrats had both the House and Senate.

Go back and check how many spending bills Reagan vetoed.
After you do that research we can continue discussion if Reagan was a fiscal conservative.

Any president who allows spending to TRIPLE and not exercise enough vetoes on most of those spending bills is a fiscal liberal.

Will Obama ever hesitate to veto ANY conservative bill which arrives at his desk? NO! NO! and NO!

Why don’t we just accept the actual fact that both Reagan and Bush rarely vetoed any spending bills? My respect for Reagan would be 100 times greater if he had vetoed many more spending bills, and then let the Rats override his vetoes.

Tea Party would not be proud of Reagan’s record on spending.

Why don’t we just accept the actual fact that both Reagan and Bush rarely vetoed any spending bills? My respect for Reagan would be 100 times greater if he had vetoed many more spending bills, and then let the Rats override his vetoes.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

That same Reagan who you say didn't exercise his veto enough, was able to get major tax cuts through and destroy the Soviet Union by massively building up the Military and without firing a shot and at the same time, decrease the overall size of several of the large government agencies.

He did this all while not having a Republican Led Congress.

Oh, and those large budgets he had, in large part were a result of the horse-trading he had to do with a Democrat led congress in order to build up the military at the same time.

The Tea-Party is completely proud of President Reagan’s record.

Sum total of tax cuts + Increased spending = Tripling of net spending. Flunks my test of a fiscal conservative on every count. Like I said, TEA Party would not be proud.

Sum total of tax cuts + Increased spending = Tripling of net spending. Flunks my test of a fiscal conservative on every count. Like I said, TEA Party would not be proud.

Well, I guess Reagan should have just vetoed all of those budgets and not built up the Military, the Soviet Union would still be around and who knows how many cold wars and hot wars we would have had to fought

Good plan!

You really need to learn more details. Soviet Union was already in a decline with central planning, and communist methodology. Star wars was just a very small portion of spending. I was directly involved in working on a star wars project so I have a fairly good idea of money spent. Majority of spending bills signed by Reagan were for social services and welfare. That was exactly what the majority democrat congress wanted.

Opinions are not a good substitute for facts and figures. As for Reagan’s tax cuts, he deserves huge credit. My own personal tax bracket dropped from 43% to 28%.

You really need to learn more details. Soviet Union was already in a decline with central planning, and communist methodology. Star wars was just a very small portion of spending. I was directly involved in working on a star wars project so I have a fairly good idea of money spent. Majority of spending bills signed by Reagan were for social services and welfare. That was exactly what the majority democrat congress wanted.

From the American Enterprise Institue:

Everyone talks about the Reagan tax cuts, yet there is more to President Reagan’s legacy than tax cuts. There is also his courageous and largely unappreciated willingness to fight for reductions in domestic spending.

Ronald Reagan sought–and won–more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term (see table 1). Sadly, during his second term, President Reagan did not manage to cut nondefense discretionary spending, and it grew by 0.2 percent. But his record is still quite remarkable if compared to other administrations. Every other president since Lyndon Johnson serving a full four-year term did not even do as well as Reagan in his less-impressive second term.

President Reagan understood economics, and he knew an unjustified economic subsidy when he saw one. He believed that the federal government had usurped private, state, and local responsibilities, and consequently he thought that most department’s budgets should be cut. Table 2 shows how many agencies’ budgets were cut (in real terms) during each presidential term going back to the one full term President Johnson served. These interesting facts are revealing of the president’s philosophy.
•President Reagan cut the budget of eight agencies out of fifteen during his first term, and ten out of fifteen during his second term.
•President Clinton cut the budget of nine out of fifteen agencies during his first term but cut none during his second term.
•President George W. Bush has cut none of the agencies’ budgets during his first term.

It is also interesting to see which president cut what and how much. Table 3 shows the change in real spending for each agency during each full presidential term served since President Johnson. Here are some other interesting facts about President Reagan:

•President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).
•President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Transportation. He cut it by 10.5 percent during his first term and by 7.5 percent during his second term.
•During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent, while President Nixon increased it (that is the education part of what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) by 19.1 percent. That budget increased by 22.2 percent under Bush 41 and by 38.5 percent under Carter. Our current president has increased it by a whooping 67.6 percent.
•Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent in constant dollars during his first term and by 3 percent during his second one. President Clinton by contrast increased the department’s budget by 24 percent in his first term and then by 96.7 percent in his second term.
•President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24 percent during his second term in office.
•President Reagan never cut the budgets of the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State.

And what's really amazing, and which you refuse to acknowledge, is that he did this without the GOP being in control of the House during both his terms, and the Senate for part of the time he was President.

Given what he was handed, and what he accomplished, with the resources he had, I'd say the Tea-Party was extremely proud of Ronald Reagan and what he accomplished. Now to the Ron and Rand Paul, irrational Libertarians and their supporters, I realize that this was not adequate.

DO not get me wrong Reagan was 100 times better than the alternative at the time, Jimmy Carter.

But any president who allows federal spending to triple during 8 years flunks my requirements of a fiscal conservative. That list you presented completely ignores that fact. Cutting federal departments was very good, increasing social welfare spending was very bad. Net result was very bad. Spending increased during Reagan more than any previous president since WWII.

It is the NET RESULT which counts. If you cut your personal spending by 50% in clothes but then spend 200% more on a fancy car resulting in your total spending to triple, is the similar to what took place during Reagan’s 8 years.

I understand he had to deal with Tip O’Neill and democrat congress. But he did not exercise veto on all those increases in spending. He should have forced the democrats to override his vetoes. Them Reagan would have been a real hero in my book.

I understand he had to deal with Tip O’Neill and democrat congress. But he did not exercise veto on all those increases in spending. He should have forced the democrats to override his vetoes. Them Reagan would have been a real hero in my book.

You are still not getting it.

As long as he was dealing with the enemy in control of the House of Representatives and sometimes the Senate as well, In order to get what he wanted, he had to give them something they wanted.

He gave away the store. Not a fiscal conservative by a long shot. Grew national debt by far more than any president before him. Must have lost his veto pen.