PDA

View Full Version : Did Reagan really expand government by 90%




Agorism
06-17-2010, 08:37 PM
Seems a far fetched statement but maybe with inflation? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html)

Vessol
06-17-2010, 08:42 PM
I've never understood how any libertarian has admired Reagan.

Anti Federalist
06-17-2010, 08:46 PM
I've never understood how any libertarian has admired Reagan.

Ron Paul certainly did.

At least at first.

Everything changed after he got shot.

I can see in my mind's eye the scene:

Reagan, laying on a bed of pain in the hospital. Two goons, representing the powers that be, leaning over him. One presses on his wound and says:

"You got lucky. Consider this a warning, play by the rules, follow the program and don't make any more waves. Next time we won't miss."

sevin
06-17-2010, 09:06 PM
Ron Paul certainly did.

At least at first.

Everything changed after he got shot.

I can see in my mind's eye the scene:

Reagan, laying on a bed of pain in the hospital. Two goons, representing the powers that be, leaning over him. One presses on his wound and says:

"You got lucky. Consider this a warning, play by the rules, follow the program and don't make any more waves. Next time we won't miss."

Creepy. Did his policies really change that much after he was shot?

Zippyjuan
06-17-2010, 09:15 PM
90% is way too high of a figure but Reagan did not live up to his promise to "get the government off the backs of the people" when he claimed that "government IS the problem". His first term saw huge buildup in the military and his second term saw growth on the domestic spending side. Clinton was actually the recent president who had the least growth in government during his presidency.

Anti Federalist
06-17-2010, 09:15 PM
Creepy. Did his policies really change that much after he was shot?

I'm sure some would argue but I was there.

And I would say yes, they did. Night and day, to my way of looking at things.

Ron Paul ran in 88 and called Reagan a "failure".

This was Ron and Ron in 1976. RP was one of the few people who threw his support without reservation behind Reagan.

http://ahrcanum.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ron_paul_reagan_3.jpg

I think the bad guy in all that, and Iran Contra was Bush Sr.

Coincidence that the Hinckley and Bush families were very close?

MN Patriot
06-17-2010, 09:18 PM
Seems a far fetched statement but maybe with inflation? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html)

Depends on what they mean by "expand" government. Budget outlays? Debt? Employees? Federal spending as % of GDP?

Loosy goosy statements like these dilute our message. The writer should be more specific. How much did government grow as measured by what, and why that is bad?

Some charts and graphs for your entertainment pleasure:
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/govtsize/fig-3.gif

Reagan really increased government debt according to this chart. Republicans have been terrible compared to Democrats.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/change-us-debt-administration.jpg

Check out this baby! What a chart! Show this to a Republican and see what he says. Selling out our children's prosperity.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us_national_debt.jpg

Vessol
06-17-2010, 09:22 PM
I do have to say, Ron looks very..different, in that picture.

susano
06-17-2010, 09:26 PM
I remember that Reagan passed the largest tax increase in history (up to that point) and the bill originated in the senate (unconstitutional).

Philhelm
06-17-2010, 09:31 PM
I do have to say, Ron looks very..different, in that picture.

Which Ron? ;)

White Knight
06-17-2010, 11:58 PM
I've never understood how any libertarian has admired Reagan.

"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem!" - Reagan, January 20, 1981.

He then gets shot a month later (by the brother of Neil Bush's friend, wink wink), and considerably tones down his anti-government rhetoric. My take is he was threatened by the leaders in the Shadow Government, or possibly they said "Your wife's next!" if he didn't shut up.

akforme
06-18-2010, 12:04 AM
Ron Paul certainly did.

At least at first.

Everything changed after he got shot.

I can see in my mind's eye the scene:

Reagan, laying on a bed of pain in the hospital. Two goons, representing the powers that be, leaning over him. One presses on his wound and says:

"You got lucky. Consider this a warning, play by the rules, follow the program and don't make any more waves. Next time we won't miss."

I see him during the GOP conference with somebody sitting him down and saying... you want the presidency, the Bush is your VP, and he runs the show or we'll take you out. The "shot" was because he didn't listen.

Depressed Liberator
06-18-2010, 12:09 AM
I'm sure some would argue but I was there.

And I would say yes, they did. Night and day, to my way of looking at things.

Ron Paul ran in 88 and called Reagan a "failure".

This was Ron and Ron in 1976. RP was one of the few people who threw his support without reservation behind Reagan.

http://ahrcanum.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ron_paul_reagan_3.jpg

I think the bad guy in all that, and Iran Contra was Bush Sr.

Coincidence that the Hinckley and Bush families were very close?

Look at those burns! Ron needs to grow them again. In fact, he needs to grow a full beard.

Fredom101
06-18-2010, 01:00 AM
Yep, there are no coincidences in politics.
Reagan and Bush were enemies in the primaries and people were starting to HATE Bush's lame attack ads, and then POOF Bush becomes VP. This is typical of how things work. McCain was on the outs, and Rudy G was the chosen one in 07. Then it turns out Mr. 9/11 isn't very popular and POOF McCain is back in action and McCain is suddenly the leader out of nowhere.

More reasons why trying to use the system to gain more freedom will never work.

susano
06-18-2010, 01:14 AM
As long as we're talking conspiracy and Bush 41, don't forget Ross Perot and his peculiar in the race/out of the race actions. Last I heard, when he finally dropped out, was that he accused Bush of being behind the threatening to kidnap Perot's daughter on her wedding day. That was the last we ever heard out the very vocal Ross Perot (who was so right about NAFTA).

Uriel999
06-18-2010, 01:24 AM
Look at those burns! Ron needs to grow them again. In fact, he needs to grow a full beard.

http://www.libertymaven.com/wp-content/uploads/ronpaul-gandalf.jpg

akforme
06-18-2010, 01:51 AM
As long as we're talking conspiracy and Bush 41, don't forget Ross Perot and his peculiar in the race/out of the race actions. Last I heard, when he finally dropped out, was that he accused Bush of being behind the threatening to kidnap Perot's daughter on her wedding day. That was the last we ever heard out the very vocal Ross Perot (who was so right about NAFTA).

I'll take your conspiracy and raise you one more.

Why did bush sr. raise taxes? Him and Reagan showed they could borrow all the money they needed, why break such a huge campaign promise?

justinc.1089
06-18-2010, 01:54 AM
Bush Sr. was always in control of the presidency in my opinion.

I'm not so sure it was pre-arranged just before or when Reagan won the nomination, and Reagan was forced to take Bush as his VP, or arranged by shadowy powerful people trying to force Reagan to do what they wanted.

Thats all possible I suppose, but I think its more usual and common ways that Bush was in control.

I think Bush had a very dominating personality over Reagan, and that was probably part of the reason why he ended up being the VP. I think I remember reading Reagan wanted a different VP, but the person he asked refused to be the VP unless Reagan agreed to do some wierd co-presidency thing where we would have two presidents at the same time instead of a president and a vp.

So I think after Reagan couldn't get the guy he wanted to do it, Bush and the party kind of pushed Reagan around a bit until he gave in and accepted Bush as his VP.

Then later Bush pushed around Reagan, and probably had other people in Reagan's administration on his side, rather than Reagan's, so Reagan gave in, again and again.

And finally, I think Bush was doing things behind Reagan's back since Bush had an extremely extensive network of contacts, and had been the director of the CIA. (His expansive network of contacts had helped him become the CIA director). I think once Reagan realized Bush had more control than he had himself, and especially after he was shot, he probably gave up on the idea of being able to accomplish anything, and sadly Bush was able to do whatever he wanted to do.

justinc.1089
06-18-2010, 01:57 AM
I'll take your conspiracy and raise you one more.

Why did bush sr. raise taxes? Him and Reagan showed they could borrow all the money they needed, why break such a huge campaign promise?

Bush raised taxes for the power. Everyone needs to know that while Bush was in the CIA he worked in China helping them with an abortion program, yet he was supposedly against abortion. And supposedly our CIA wouldn't do anything like that. But the pieces fit into the situation, Bush was in China working with the right agencies so it makes you really wonder if the accusations of him helping them with an abortion program are not true.

Regardless of that, again I say it was for the power. I think Bush was power hungry and couldn't resist increasing taxes... just because he could do it and it would give the government more power.

Fox McCloud
06-18-2010, 02:06 AM
I do have to say, Ron looks very..different, in that picture.

considering it was 34 years ago? Yeah, he'd definitely look different; he would have only been 40-41 at the time (depends on the time of the year).

BuddyRey
06-18-2010, 02:23 AM
Depends on what they mean by "expand" government. Budget outlays? Debt? Employees? Federal spending as % of GDP?

Loosy goosy statements like these dilute our message. The writer should be more specific. How much did government grow as measured by what, and why that is bad?

Some charts and graphs for your entertainment pleasure:
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/govtsize/fig-3.gif

Hey, I noticed something else in that first chart! The spikes in spending seem to correspond roughly with the U.S.'s participation in major wars. Check it out!

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n185/Buddy-Rey/HealthoftheState.jpg

Okay, so it isn't proof of anything (and the absence of a spike during the Vietnam era doesn't fit with my hypothesis), but I still think it serves as a powerful indicator that the old axiom about war being the health of the state is true.

BuddyRey
06-18-2010, 03:29 AM
//

Zippyjuan
06-18-2010, 03:41 AM
War divert resources which could be used for other things. During WWII factories were changed over from making cars and refrigerators to making tanks and airplanes and weapons. That left a shortage of goods for those not off fighting in the war. Once the war was over and production of goods resumed, the economy soared- not becasue of the war spending but because of pent up demand which had not been met during the war.

rich34
06-18-2010, 07:30 AM
Ron Paul certainly did.

At least at first.

Everything changed after he got shot.

I can see in my mind's eye the scene:

Reagan, laying on a bed of pain in the hospital. Two goons, representing the powers that be, leaning over him. One presses on his wound and says:

"You got lucky. Consider this a warning, play by the rules, follow the program and don't make any more waves. Next time we won't miss."

I feel the same!

Travlyr
06-18-2010, 09:03 AM
Bush Sr. was always in control of the presidency in my opinion.

I'm not so sure it was pre-arranged just before or when Reagan won the nomination, and Reagan was forced to take Bush as his VP, or arranged by shadowy powerful people trying to force Reagan to do what they wanted.

Thats all possible I suppose, but I think its more usual and common ways that Bush was in control.

I think Bush had a very dominating personality over Reagan, and that was probably part of the reason why he ended up being the VP. I think I remember reading Reagan wanted a different VP, but the person he asked refused to be the VP unless Reagan agreed to do some wierd co-presidency thing where we would have two presidents at the same time instead of a president and a vp.

So I think after Reagan couldn't get the guy he wanted to do it, Bush and the party kind of pushed Reagan around a bit until he gave in and accepted Bush as his VP.

Then later Bush pushed around Reagan, and probably had other people in Reagan's administration on his side, rather than Reagan's, so Reagan gave in, again and again.

And finally, I think Bush was doing things behind Reagan's back since Bush had an extremely extensive network of contacts, and had been the director of the CIA. (His expansive network of contacts had helped him become the CIA director). I think once Reagan realized Bush had more control than he had himself, and especially after he was shot, he probably gave up on the idea of being able to accomplish anything, and sadly Bush was able to do whatever he wanted to do.

This ^


Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford, present at the convention as agents of David Rockefeller, assured Reagan the presidency if he accepted Bush on the ticket. Otherwise Rockefeller would swing the election to Carter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Republican_National_Convention

During the convention, the possibility of choosing former president Gerald Ford as the vice-presidential nominee was given at least some consideration. Ford asked for certain powers and prerogatives that has been described as making Ford a co-president. This included the return of Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State and the appointment of Alan Greenspan as Secretary of the Treasury. The two sides could not agree and ultimately, George Bush was chosen less than 24 hours before the ticket was announced.

Dr.3D
06-18-2010, 09:05 AM
As I recall, it was Nancy (his wife) who really got the "war on drugs" going. I remember her with the "Just say no!" slogan.

Carole
06-18-2010, 09:19 AM
I have always believed his policies of his great speeches died after he was shot.

The handlers seemed to be in charge. Just MHO.

HOLLYWOOD
06-18-2010, 10:08 AM
There all puppets for American voters to think they have representation. Reagan is controlled by the money masters. elitist, wealth, etc... every bit on a leash as the government has the people on a noose. Oh yeah the puppet leaders get there little pet projects whether it be HUD or education crap.

Reason
06-18-2010, 11:52 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory12.html

TNforPaul45
06-18-2010, 11:58 AM
Creepy. Did his policies really change that much after he was shot?

Yes they did,

And the amazing thing is that he was shot only 65 Days into office (I think that was how long it was. . . ).

What REALLY creeps me out is how Bush Sr. forced himself into Regan's VP spot, and then Regan was almost immediately taken out, which would have made Bush president early.

If you look into the history of the Bushes, they are some really, dark, seething with evil people, derangedly evil.

Stary Hickory
06-18-2010, 12:44 PM
I've never understood how any libertarian has admired Reagan.

Well he was better than most...especially in recent history. He was not libertarian by any means. But I think some people forget that Reagan did not have carte blanche to do what he wanted, he had to contend with a big goverment leftish congress. I read quite a bit about him and listened to his diaries on audio. He was compromising quite a bit.

He was VERY motivated to fight communism and the Soviet Union which meant he sacrificed a large portion of the domestic agenda to keep defense spending increasing. In a way both sides got what they wanted the left a bigger government and the right a larger military. Of course it was us who felt the squeeze.

The problem with Republicans now is that they refuse to admit the cold war is over and instead always look back to Reagan who was popular more for his Libertarian rhetoric than his big military expenditures.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
06-18-2010, 01:39 PM
Depends on what they mean by "expand" government. Budget outlays? Debt? Employees? Federal spending as % of GDP?

Loosy goosy statements like these dilute our message. The writer should be more specific. How much did government grow as measured by what, and why that is bad?

Some charts and graphs for your entertainment pleasure:
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/govtsize/fig-3.gif

Reagan really increased government debt according to this chart. Republicans have been terrible compared to Democrats.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/change-us-debt-administration.jpg

Check out this baby! What a chart! Show this to a Republican and see what he says. Selling out our children's prosperity.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us_national_debt.jpg

Geez, I dont see he how we survived before 1976 without all that government :rolleyes:

dannno
06-18-2010, 01:42 PM
If Bush doubled the size of government, then he increased it by 100%. Sounds reasonable, they both had 8 years to do it.

Ninja Homer
06-18-2010, 01:52 PM
I guess I'm another in the "Bush Sr. ran everything after Reagan's assassination attempt" camp. I've never seen any direct proof, but if you look at the policy and principle changes, it seems obvious to me.

Just for reference:

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs)

unconsious767
06-18-2010, 01:53 PM
Yes they did,

And the amazing thing is that he was shot only 65 Days into office (I think that was how long it was. . . ).

What REALLY creeps me out is how Bush Sr. forced himself into Regan's VP spot, and then Regan was almost immediately taken out, which would have made Bush president early.

If you look into the history of the Bushes, they are some really, dark, seething with evil people, derangedly evil.

The Whitest Kids U Know (NSFW)

YouTube - Whitest Kids U Know - Ronald Regan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6DC8dYGUs)

Anti Federalist
06-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Jeez, I was going to end up quoting everybody in this thread before it was all over.

+1 to everybody.