Posted on 04/25/2014 7:04:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Reason Magazine is a libertarian rag. Naturally they would come to the defense of Paul. Now whether the facts they cooked up here are accurate or not is a different matter.
But when you start from the left, anything can happen.
This is true, and I’d say something else: the very notion that a President “increases spending” is just not true. Reagan lost many spending battles to a liberal Congress, and he horse traded with them to grow the economy, and he lowered tax rates, and he defeated the Soviet Union.
Not that a hard core libertarian rag ever thought the Soviets were a big deal in the first place.
Let’s get one thing straight — INCREASED SPENDING UNDER REAGAN IS NOT ENTIRELY HIS FAULT.
His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the subsequent federal surpluses ( To which the Gingrich congress gets greater credit than Clinton himself, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to agree to the budget ).
His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending despite the efforts of the Tip O’Neil congress to INCREASE IT.
If Reagan’s critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993.
The president spends only what Congress allows.
RE: The president spends only what Congress allows.
But he has the veto pen.
Carter saved the money on the military, which Reagan had to rebuild.
Reagan campaigned as a budget slasher in 1976 ($90 billion budget cut). He outlined the cuts. Suffered dearly from political blowback, especially as the cutting SocSec mantra had even more currency then. Since then, he decided to work on the tax side of the equation.
First week in, hiring freeze.
Late in office he did allow the SS taxes to be increased, or it would have bankrupted. We had a healthy enough economy back then to pull it off.
Not a perfect man, but did very well with what he inherited.
‘On an annualized basis, then, Carter grew spending by 4.25 percent a year, while Reagan grew it by 2.75 percent’
So how is 2.75% greater than 4.25% — as the article alleges?!
The old saying is proven again: “There are liers, d*mn liars, and statisticians”.
What else does the Left p0wn you on, Rand?
“Rand Paul: Jimmy Carter was better on the budget than Ronald Reagan”
If Rand Paul prefers Carter to Reagan, he has no business running for president as a Republican.
Congress decides how much to spend. A President who respects the Constitution can't stop them.
Reagan also had a Cold War to win. That was his goal.
As opposed the incompetent “intellectual” Jimmy Carter was regarding foreign affairs. The man who watched Iran fall and the Soviet Union move into Afghanistan and the problems caused by that incompetence we are still dealing with today.
It will be the same when Captain Midnight departs the White House.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Budget_&_Economy.htm
Jimmy Carter on Budget & Economy
Failed to control inflation and unemployment
On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion.
With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.
Source: Grolier’s Encyclopedia, “The Presidency” Dec 25, 2000
Pushed alternative energy program to fight oil shortage
Carter faced a drastic erosion of the value of the US dollar and a persistent trade deficit, much of it a result of US dependence on foreign oil.
The president warned that Americans were wasting too much energy, that domestic supplies of oil and natural gas were running out, and that foreign supplies of petroleum were subject to embargoes by the producing nations, principally by members of OPEC.
In mid-1979, in the wake of widespread shortages of gasoline, Carter advanced a long-term program designed to solve the energy problem. He proposed a limit on imported oil, gradual price decontrol on domestically produced oil, a stringent program of conservation, and development of alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power, oil and gas from shale and coal, and synthetic fuels. In what was probably his most significant domestic legislative accomplishment, he was able to get a significant portion of his energy program through Congress.
Source: Grolier’s Encyclopedia, “The Presidency” Dec 25, 2000
When was the last time a president vetoed a spending bill? I can’t remember. Was it Reagan?
Jimmah was so great, let me tell you! Put on your sweater before spending
6 hours waiting to fill your tank on your way to the unemployment line.
Jimmah personified everything we should look for in a leader - passive, liked
to kiss the sandals of our enemies- just a real turn-down-your-thermostat sort of guy.
Not that I don’t enjoy rehashing the ‘70’s & ‘80’s - but is this worth writing about in 2014?
Dang....
Reducing revenue? Stockman, still an assclown.
Tax revenue went up sharply under Reagan
But Stockman said it went down. LOL!
Wow... let’s not talk about the total neglect Carter gave to the military while the Soviets were gathering strength. Kinda left Reagan with no choice but to increase outlays to the DOD.
Look like that chart only levels off when the Republicans have the house.
Look at the graph, and imagine connecting a straight line from the START of the KENNEDY administration to the END of the CLINTON administration. With minor bumps to either side, the slope of the graph for ALL the administrations in that interval is essentially the same. So, overall, spending increased at about the same rate for ALL these administrations in that time interval. In other words, there was little practical difference in the RATE of growth of the government (as measured by spending) from KENNEDY thru CLINTON.
Then, notice the marked RISE in the slope starting with the BUSH 2 administration, and continued rise thereafter...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.