It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government

And still no 285bound reaction to big spender Reagan and government shrinking Obama. A bunch of you put him up as your avitar and then post about smaller govt. Maybe I got people mixed up and I am the only one that did not know this. Just too hard to accept or perhaps too easy, already known. This just blew me away and was not what I expected when I started that post. The way everyone talks, I got the impression that Reagan was a fiscal conservative and that Obama was spending his brains out and it is the exact opposite.

Many of those in my party,especially the younger ones, don't understand Reagan's ideology and would contemptuously label him a RINO would he emerge on the political scene today. Huntsman is very Reaganesque.

posteryoyo wrote: And still no 285bound reaction to big spender Reagan and government shrinking Obama. A bunch of you put him up as your avitar and then post about smaller govt. Maybe I got people mixed up and I am the only one that did not know this. Just too hard to accept or perhaps too easy, already known. This just blew me away and was not what I expected when I started that post. The way everyone talks, I got the impression that Reagan was a fiscal conservative and that Obama was spending his brains out and it is the exact opposite.

I've been amazed by what you can do with numbers ever since I took that Statistics course back in the late 70s. The professor what quite interesting because he took the time to show us how you can take most any stats and "shape" them to support your arguement. It's truly remarkable.

eaglebear wrote: I feel it is time to vote out anyone that has been there more then 3 terms. We need to revamp the way our government does things and that means new faces in there that will turn more and more things back to the states, cut there own benefits and not listen to the lobbyists.

Agree, and they should all work for minimum wage it should be a honor, not a carreer.

:thumbsup:

And still no 285bound reaction to big spender Reagan and government shrinking Obama.

There's still no reaction because it's just lyer's figures. If anyone is responsible for the value of the dollar falling- it's the government's spending more than it takes in revenue.

Here- you question the 2011 federal spending figure?
Total expenditures;
$3.83 trillion (estimated)
source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Obama_announces_US$3.8_trillion_2011_budget_plan_for_US

Federal spending in 1985 was $946 billion- just short of a trillion dollars. Keep in mind that Reagan invested quite a bit of money at that time to win the cold war- and that investment has paid us back many times over- in many different ways- who knows the cost in lives that were saved because you can not quantify the savings of a war that never materialized. In all other areas of government- Reagan pushed for smaller government.

Please try to keep from spewing the bullsh** that Obama is a small government politician and Reagan was a big government politician- we all know it's a total bald faced lie, and you'll keep from losing any respect you might want to preserve- otherwise I'll have to explain how full of crap you are in painful detail.

If you divide 946 billion by 3.83 trillion- you will find that the government is indeed 400.04% bigger in terms of total dollars today than it was in 1985. That's the real math and those are the real facts.

And here's another fact- Since 2008 when your "small government Obama" took officed the federal government spending is up by 32.06%. 2008 spending was 2.9 trillion and 2011 is 3.83 trillion. Does that sound like Obama is cutting spending? You can't claim that the inflation adjusted dollar is responsible here either can you- no you can't

Yea- government grew by 32% in 3 years- we Americans need to face the facts. Wonder why we are a stalled economy? There it is!

Every one of our economic futures depends on our ability to reverse this trend- period. Our country can not prosper with this massive government on our backs - we will pay for it in taxes - or our dollar will be worthless all around the world.

Yes it's high time to gut the government.

Here are Reagan's numbers:



The source is the Congressional Record...

Spin all you like... They don't change...and they won't change.

First off, I am not for Obama, not do I really believe he is not for a big govt. THEY ALL ARE, he esp.

That being said, I found a source for year after year figures...and quoted it and gave you the path to it. Lets do the same with your sources of yearly data and inflation. This is not spin.

Would you be ok with making simple interpretations (like year A is X% more or less than year from any one source of year after year spending adjusted by inflation. Seems that by not doing so and just going off that this person is responsible for inflation so we wont compare. Both the Budget/Yearly Spending and Inflation do exist, regardless of the reasons, provide your own sources for year after year data for both and lets compare presies if that is what gets people going. My sense is they are all spending WAY TOO MUCH and have for some time, along with the govs and mayors, etc.


BearMtnHIB

"Consider that under Reagan- the total federal government budget was 1 trillion dollars- a figure that Reagan was quite embarrassed and unhappy with. Today the federal government is 3.86 trillion. In 25 years- the government is very nearly 4 times the size."

This was the statement I responded to, it has some "facts" so I followed up on them, So I am unclear why budget discussions of shear numbers started to include things like Reagan had to spend big for the Cold War. That is called spin when talking about which number is bigger. I have no place to put "Cold War" in a greater than or less than statement. And what about mentioning Reagan's emotional state surrounding the number changes the number...it doesn't, it is just more spin.

Seems to me that no citizen wants a big govt, they just want their small govt to do all the stuff they personally want and none of the rest. Different things are justified to different people, that does not change simple math. Here is what it sounded like to me when you brought up the cold war.

"In 2005 Joe made $30,000. In 2008 Joe made $6,000 (or $7,000 in 2005 dollars)"

"That's not true because Joe lost his job."

It does not matter why it is $6,000 in order for it to be $6,000. It does not mean Joe is good or bad. It is a number. If someone wants to claim that Joe (or Obama or Reagan) is bad/good because of this number, it still does not change the number or if it is larger or smaller than another number. It is not spin, though it may be wrought with misunderstanding or resistance.

I am still curious as lionhead has said I am cooking the numbers, of how many (simple number less than 20) kids he put through the public school system on mostly the public's dime (could be zero kids, but somehow I think not since this was not answered) and why someone would owe you this outright and have this not be questioned when you question contributing to SS if you don't get a payout.

I guess in any case, if you hide the numbers, you don't even have to cook them. I will warn you though, when you hide something that was otherwise meant to be cooked, it is likely to end up rotting.

So, did you ask us all, including me to pay for the $100,000-200,000 per kid, did you pay, have none, none yet? Do you like the biggest socialist program in the US? or Not? Did you use it even if you don't like it, just cause the payoff was so damn big?

I do think, regardless of which number you want to use, in the spirit of the topic, that Reagan is NOT an example of gutting the govt spending. He is just an example of a little bit less. Nothing to write home about on the island of gutting spending. The guy that does not get seat warmers in his Lexus is not in the same club as the guy who is walking to work.

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

Cease the "chirp".

When the budget is looked at as a share of the economy, Reagan's legacy looks a bit better from a small-government perspective. Federal revenues as a share of gross domestic product fell from 19.6 percent in 1981 to 18.3 percent by 1989. Spending fell from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Thus, Ronald Reagan shrank the federal government by about 5 percent — a less radical change than supporters or detractors often claim.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4181

Arlen wrote: Cease the "chirp".

When the budget is looked at as a share of the economy, Reagan's legacy looks a bit better from a small-government perspective. Federal revenues as a share of gross domestic product fell from 19.6 percent in 1981 to 18.3 percent by 1989. Spending fell from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. Thus, Ronald Reagan shrank the federal government by about 5 percent — a less radical change than supporters or detractors often claim.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4181

But I can't come up with a president in my lifetime who I believe had better intentions to reduce the size of government. Despite his best efforts and warnings- Reagan did believe in smaller government and he did try and that's more than I can say for the rest of them. A president can't do it alone, but can make the difference between a government that grows out of control- or one that does not grow out of control. Policy at the top does make a difference.

Even if we elect Ron Paul next year- it will take years to reverse course. Paul would seek to eliminate the IRS and several other agencies that are really not needed- but he would face stiff opposition by all the big government types. Much the way Obama would take us to Socialism much faster if he had his way- Paul would have plenty of obstacles in his way.

In terms of big government- the damage has been done already- 15 trillion in debt will not be reversed without changing course 180 degrees AND some real hardship for the American people is going to happen.

But smaller government MUST be the goal- unless we want the damage to get worse.