If Ronald Reagan ran today, where would he fall on the conservative spectrum?

Washington Post ^ | february 25, 2015

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Reagan had far more tolerance for those who were not purists than exist in the party today. I believe in today’s climnate Reagan would get a lot of grief for that.

---

It’s not about “purity.”

We should never tolerate a candidate that shares more values with the democrats than with the party base.

Any Republican that vows to “Destroy the TEA Party” needs to be expelled.

Any candidate complicit in stealing a primary (such as in Mississippi) needs to be covered in tar and feathers followed by expulsion from the party.

You guys aren’t just “eating the crap sandwich.” You buying them with a punch card so you can get your tenth crap sandwich free!

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

If you want to put it in perspective Reagan had to rebuild our devastated Armed Forces and we were also in an arms race with the Soviets.

Clinton had the benefit of “The Peace Dividend” by which he again drastically cut defense spending.

[entropy12]

I am well aware that Carter had degraded the military and it had to be built up. My only beef is with expansion of non-military spending. I am also well aware that Reagan had to deal with a majority democrat congress. Reagan reached too many compromises with democrats on non-military spending expansion. Why he did not exercise his veto power more often? If the congress overrode his vetoes, that would not matter to me, because then Reagan did everything possible to limit expansion of government.

[detective]

First, Reagan was not president in 1980, Carter was. Reagan took office in 1981. The 1981 through 1989 budgets are the correct measure.

Second, you have included the effect of inflation in your data. You need to use constant dollar numbers to make an accurate comparison.

Even your incorrect and flawed data contradict your original false statement that Reagan “TRIPLED FEDERAL SPENDING”.

Reagan needed to rebuild the military that was underfunded and weakened under Carter. Under Reagan big spending Democrats controlled Congress. Under Clinton, Newt Gingrich and other fiscally responsible Republicans controlled spending in spite of Clinton’s opposition.

[entropy12]

Splitting hair is never a good in making a point. Whether he tripled or doubled or doubled and a half is not important. What is significant is the non-significant increase in spending during his 8 years.

I ALWAYS look at the big picture.

The BIG picture is, for a “conservative”, the spending record under president Reagan can never make any fiscal conservative deliriously happy.

Also, I have no problem with his increases in military spending. Those were necessary. What I did not like is the increases in NON-military spending which were evern larger than increases in military spending.

How many spending bills vetoes did he sign, which he could have. If the democrat congress overrode his vetoes, my admiration for Reagan would be even higher.

[debrawiest]

If Ronald Reagan was to run for president, well, that would be an answer to my prayers.

[detective]

“Splitting hair is never a good in making a point. Whether he tripled or doubled or doubled and a half is not important. What is significant is the non-significant increase in spending during his 8 years.”

This is not splitting hair(sic). On a real dollar basis spending increased by 22%. If not adjusted for inflation it was around 70%. Tripling is 300%. You are not even anywhere close.

The true story has far more than this total number. You have to look at everything Reagan accomplished and the political environment in Washington when he was president.

Reagan did an excellent job. The big spending Democrats who controlled Congress, the media and the bureaucracy tried to sabotage him at every step.

It is easy to look back and make false charges against Reagan. But he was a great president who accomplished much under difficult circumstances.

[entropy12]

Actual budget data from Whitehouse.gov web site:

Year-— Revenue Spending
1981-— 599,272 678,241
1982-— 617,766 745,743
1983-— 600,562 808,364
1984-— 666,438 851,805
1985-— 734,037 946,344
1986-— 769,155 990,382
1987-— 854,287 1,004,017
1988-— 909,238 1,064,416
1989-— 991,104 1,143,743

Spending closer to doubled during Reagan.
I admit my error about tripled.
For a fiscal conservative, doubling the size of
government in 8 years is very bad.

[detective]

Those are the correct numbers, though not adjusted for inflation. The percent increase is 68.6%