I’ve heard so many different perspectives about Ronald Reagan being a fiscal conservative, and then others of him being a neo-con, etc. Can you guys list a few things Ronald Reagan did that were more towards the neo-con or bigger-spender categories? I know we had the lowest tax brackets when he was in office, but I’m not sure how libertarian he was.
Pros:
- Cut income taxes
- Brought free market rhetoric back into political life
Cons:
- Prevented the abolition of the (then) technically bankrupt Social Security program by hiking related taxes
- Increased military spending a lot
I thought the income tax was the tax that paid for SSI? Side question - what do you think is the best way to get rid of SSI?
Payroll taxes are used to pay for Social Security as far as I know. Reagan added a tax on Social Security payments of high-income individuals (interestingly enough, this was proposed by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan).
SSI is a third rail issue. Barring a federal default, it will not be abolished. Retirees have strong lobbies in Washington that will most likely prevent nominal cuts in the program. As a consequence, SSI will either be steadily eroded through inflation or informally and involuntarily ended when the checks cease coming. Anything else is rather unlikely.
For an assessment of U.S. presidents, I recommend defense analyst Ivan Eland’s Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty.
Murray Rothbard wrote a number of excellent articles on Reaganomics, which can be found at mises.org. Here’s one of them:
On a side note, I correspond with a gentleman who is now retired after a very successful career on Wall Street. He knew Ronald Reagan very well - going back to even before he was the governor of California. This gentleman wrote to me that “Ronnie was a good guy, but he didnt really understand what was going on in the economy.” He had very good intentions, but once he was in office - policy was formulated & carried out by others in the administration. (As with all Presidents.) In the economics area, those implementing policy come from banking & finance - - with some academics thrown in to provide a ‘theoretical argument’ for what is carried out. Reagan wasn’t equipped to understand the realities or impact of what was carried out in his name.
I still like Ronald Reagan. The man projected optimism and I think he genuinely loved Amercia. Unfortunately, we often are trapped by image over reality. Many of us like John Wayne. But, John Wayne wasn’t really the cowboy, soldier, or lawman that he portrayed in his films. We usually understand that when leaving the movie theatre; - - we often don’t understand that when entering a voting booth. - - -
His tax cuts weren’t meaningful, and it isn’t necessarily a good thing when an evil man advocates a good idea. Those who recognise him to be evil, but don’t understand economics, will tend to associate it with him, and therefore consider it to be evil too. 
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the War on Drugs yet.
I agree. He supported artificially low interest rates (Volcker saved the economy by raising interest rates) actually raised the business tax (see on this website “The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan”) as well as the income taxes on the middle class and poor, which also decreases the tax cuts on the wealthy. Also, as you mention, no one who supports the war on drugs or the military industrial complex or foreign aid can be considered a fiscal conservative or even a capitalist. IIRC, the budget for the World Bank also doubled during his regime.
People like Reagan and Jack Kemp with their pro-deficit Supply side economics BS are ultimately more harmful to capitalism than people like Obama. Uneducated people often mistake Reagan for a capitalist and use him for an example as to why they think capitalism doesn’t work.
Finally, he made very little effort to get rid of the welfare state. Jack Kemp (one of his followers and the engineer of his tax program) supported huge increases in the HUD budget.
Rothbard destroys Reaganomics
^^^^Reading that was pretty damn disturbing. Excellent article though because it exposes the truth.
Reagan was not a good President and he certainly wasn’t a libertarian. The guy had a kick-ass personality and he talked the talk, but that was about it. His major downfalls in my opinion were the huge debt escalation, the drug war, his aggresive defense policy, and his bad trade policy.
As for “fiscal conservatism” . . . here’s a list of the highest non-war deficits as a % of GDP:
-
Obama-2009
-
Truman-1946
-
Reagan-1983
-
Reagan-1985
-
Reagan-1986
-
FDR-1936
-
Reagan-1984
-
Bush, Sr.-1992
-
Bush, Sr.-1991
-
FDR-1935
"
As for “fiscal conservatism” . . . here’s a list of the highest non-war deficits as a % of GDP:
-
Obama-2009
-
Truman-1946
-
Reagan-1983
Do you have a source for this? I dont doubt it’s veracity, just would like to know for my own research and sourcing purposes.
- Increased the USE of the military, as well.
After Nixon, and the entire Vietnam debacle, there was some hope abroad that the USA had learnt a salutary lesson about living and dying by the sword.
Reagan killed that last slim hope off, and made war sexy for Republicans again.
He also presided over the enlargement of the CIA’s drug-running business, and did all he personally couild to abet their criminal activities.
He engaged a war against the victim-less “crime” of Inside Trading. For that alone he should be remembered for what he was - a big fraud!
I didn’t get the list from there, but I did get all of the numbers from there and I ordered them myself. This website is accurate and it takes all of its information directly from government budgets.
I just don’t see how it’s possible for FDR not to be higher than Reagan. Is it possible that some of the “spending” during certain presidencies comes from things implemented during previous ones but not integrated into the system until their own? It could explain why Truman’s first year is at #2 (due to FDR’s New Deal) and Reagan is high as well (due to Carter’s new departments).
“I just don’t see how it’s possible for FDR not to be higher than Reagan”
Unfortunately when liberals recklessly spend money, they increase taxes to pay for it…
“payroll” taxes are meant to pay for SSI and Medicare.. ofcourse they no longer cover the expenses so the difference comes from general revenue fund, i.e all other taxes..
employee pays 6.25% of earning up to a maximum amount for ssi - employeer also pays- “matches” this amount -
employee pays 1.25% of earning up to ?? for medicare - employeer also pays this amount -
just my emotional opinion - even with all his warts and the military build up etc.. - if not for Raygun - this country would be dramatically worse off. I was in high school when he came into office ( i hated him because I was a communist) - and there was an absolutely palpitable difference in the feel of the country - for the better. the regime uncertaintly and anxiety many feel under obama- was how it was before raygun… and I would say that his free market propoganda lead more to go on to “proper” thought than otherwise would have.
BTW- unlike what some posts have said, he was far from stupid - he had a degree in economics - unlike most on this site- and read and admired hyeck
“if not for Raygun - this country would be dramatically worse off”
Speculation impossible to prove.