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.
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. - HHutzky
Other than the guy H claims to have voted for twice in the 80's
As if Ronald Reagan ever did anything to shrink government at any level.
He was an adept politician. He paid lip service to lots of things. Unfortunately, in a Western democracy, it is crucial to capture some reasonable share of the gullible vote.
And you voted for him twice. Allegedly
Gullible is your middle name. RUSSIA
Yes. Twice.
He wasn't remotely like what you gals now imagine, though you were there and should know better. Alas, not everyone can age well.
I do know better and I'm not a pathological liar like you
I never voted for Reagan
RR was all about shrinking government and doing what government is supposed to do. Defend the country
What he wasn't was beloved or treated fairly by the slime ball media which is what I have been telling the GALS for over a year now as they got the vapors over Trump
RR never shrank a government in his life. It wasn't remotely a touchstone of his governing philosophy.
Sure
You GALS are always worried about a GOP dictator then whine like GIRLS when they aren't and go along with Congress and stuff
Reagan stood for less government. You didn't and you don't
You're a fraud and a loser. And a sucker
Reagan was a big government spender. In good times (California) and bad (when he took the Presidency).
That's not a criticism on my part. It's a big part of the reason the early 80s economic recovery was so rapid.
If spending alone could bring about an economic Recovery you man crush Obama would have had a booming economy. As a percentage of GDP spending actually shrank under Reagan.
Sort of. The ratio shrank under Reagan to where it had been at the beginning of his presidency from the highs it had grown to during his presidency. Almost exactly the same as the Obama experience, btw.
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. - HHutzky
Other than the guy H claims to have voted for twice in the 80's
As if Ronald Reagan ever did anything to shrink government at any level.
He was an adept politician. He paid lip service to lots of things. Unfortunately, in a Western democracy, it is crucial to capture some reasonable share of the gullible vote.
And you voted for him twice. Allegedly
Gullible is your middle name. RUSSIA
Yes. Twice.
He wasn't remotely like what you gals now imagine, though you were there and should know better. Alas, not everyone can age well.
I do know better and I'm not a pathological liar like you
I never voted for Reagan
RR was all about shrinking government and doing what government is supposed to do. Defend the country
What he wasn't was beloved or treated fairly by the slime ball media which is what I have been telling the GALS for over a year now as they got the vapors over Trump
RR never shrank a government in his life. It wasn't remotely a touchstone of his governing philosophy.
Sure
You GALS are always worried about a GOP dictator then whine like GIRLS when they aren't and go along with Congress and stuff
Reagan stood for less government. You didn't and you don't
You're a fraud and a loser. And a sucker
Reagan was a big government spender. In good times (California) and bad (when he took the Presidency).
That's not a criticism on my part. It's a big part of the reason the early 80s economic recovery was so rapid.
If spending alone could bring about an economic Recovery you man crush Obama would have had a booming economy. As a percentage of GDP spending actually shrank under Reagan.
Sort of. The ratio shrank under Reagan to where it had been at the beginning of his presidency from the highs it had grown to during his presidency. Almost exactly the same as Obama, btw.
He cut spending and pushed for a line item veto that would have given him the authority to cut even more spending. He submitted budgets that cut spending and he called for the complete elimination of some Federal Departments. Obama never did any of this. You measure people by how you are Dazzler. You know that you're a dishonest and duplicitous hack and therefore you assume everyone else is like you.
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. - HHutzky
Other than the guy H claims to have voted for twice in the 80's
As if Ronald Reagan ever did anything to shrink government at any level.
He was an adept politician. He paid lip service to lots of things. Unfortunately, in a Western democracy, it is crucial to capture some reasonable share of the gullible vote.
And you voted for him twice. Allegedly
Gullible is your middle name. RUSSIA
Yes. Twice.
He wasn't remotely like what you gals now imagine, though you were there and should know better. Alas, not everyone can age well.
I do know better and I'm not a pathological liar like you
I never voted for Reagan
RR was all about shrinking government and doing what government is supposed to do. Defend the country
What he wasn't was beloved or treated fairly by the slime ball media which is what I have been telling the GALS for over a year now as they got the vapors over Trump
RR never shrank a government in his life. It wasn't remotely a touchstone of his governing philosophy.
Sure
You GALS are always worried about a GOP dictator then whine like GIRLS when they aren't and go along with Congress and stuff
Reagan stood for less government. You didn't and you don't
You're a fraud and a loser. And a sucker
Reagan was a big government spender. In good times (California) and bad (when he took the Presidency).
That's not a criticism on my part. It's a big part of the reason the early 80s economic recovery was so rapid.
If spending alone could bring about an economic Recovery you man crush Obama would have had a booming economy. As a percentage of GDP spending actually shrank under Reagan.
Sort of. The ratio shrank under Reagan to where it had been at the beginning of his presidency from the highs it had grown to during his presidency. Almost exactly the same as Obama, btw.
He cut spending and pushed for a line item veto that would have given him the authority to cut even more spending. He submitted budgets that cut spending and he called for the complete elimination of some Federal Departments. Obama never did any of this. You measure people by how you are Dazzler. You know that you're a dishonest and duplicitous hack and therefore you assume everyone else is like you.
Used to listen to Rush on the morning drive, during the Clinton years, whom I voted for twice, btw.
Back then nobody needed Trigger Warnings because nobody shit their pants when they heard opposing opinions like the fragile generations since. I listened, I learned, and I frequently disagreed.
And somehow, miraculously, I lived through it.
Even fragile flowers like @HHusky somehow survived.
Could it be that people on the political Right AREN'T actually trying to kill Lefties, all day every day?
Political conservatism was actually moored to conservatism writ broadly, and was intellectually and philosophically coherent in in 1980.
Rush helped to change that.
Missed by the right wing's rabble. No one else.
Do you consider social media writ? How was Rush's spoken opinions on subjects like small government different than intellectual prose on the same subject in 1980?
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. It's not an intellectually honest pursuit and neither political party has ever pursued it, regardless of what they said during a campaign. It's a fantasy. And all most of you ever mean by it is you want the government to do stuff you like, but not stuff you don't like.
Small government is at best a rhetorical flourish required to pander to the stupidest voter a Republican can hope to convince to pull the lever for him come election time.
I think "small government" should be replaced with "limited government". Government will never be small, but it should be limited when it can be.
You and I might disagree on the details, but I agree with you in principle.
Political conservatism was actually moored to conservatism writ broadly, and was intellectually and philosophically coherent in in 1980.
Rush helped to change that.
Missed by the right wing's rabble. No one else.
Do you consider social media writ? How was Rush's spoken opinions on subjects like small government different than intellectual prose on the same subject in 1980?
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. It's not an intellectually honest pursuit and neither political party has ever pursued it, regardless of what they said during a campaign. It's a fantasy. And all most of you ever mean by it is you want the government to do stuff you like, but not stuff you don't like.
Small government is at best a rhetorical flourish required to pander to the stupidest voter a Republican can hope to convince to pull the lever for him come election time.
I think "small government" should be replaced with "limited government". Government will never be small, but it should be limited when it can be.
You and I might disagree on the details, but I agree with you in principle.
Just not a voting issue for the dazzler. He proudly voted for barry because he was clearly the most fiscally responsible alternative.
Political conservatism was actually moored to conservatism writ broadly, and was intellectually and philosophically coherent in in 1980.
Rush helped to change that.
Missed by the right wing's rabble. No one else.
Do you consider social media writ? How was Rush's spoken opinions on subjects like small government different than intellectual prose on the same subject in 1980?
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. It's not an intellectually honest pursuit and neither political party has ever pursued it, regardless of what they said during a campaign. It's a fantasy. And all most of you ever mean by it is you want the government to do stuff you like, but not stuff you don't like.
Small government is at best a rhetorical flourish required to pander to the stupidest voter a Republican can hope to convince to pull the lever for him come election time.
I think "small government" should be replaced with "limited government". Government will never be small, but it should be limited when it can be.
You and I might disagree on the details, but I agree with you in principle.
Just not a voting issue for the dazzler. He proudly voted for barry because he was clearly the most fiscally responsible alternative.
Pseudo intellectual Gasbag informs us that the guy who shrank government employment is a socialist.
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence has ever believed that "small government" is a realistic or a worthy objective. - HHutzky
Other than the guy H claims to have voted for twice in the 80's
As if Ronald Reagan ever did anything to shrink government at any level.
He was an adept politician. He paid lip service to lots of things. Unfortunately, in a Western democracy, it is crucial to capture some reasonable share of the gullible vote.
And you voted for him twice. Allegedly
Gullible is your middle name. RUSSIA
Yes. Twice.
He wasn't remotely like what you gals now imagine, though you were there and should know better. Alas, not everyone can age well.
I do know better and I'm not a pathological liar like you
I never voted for Reagan
RR was all about shrinking government and doing what government is supposed to do. Defend the country
What he wasn't was beloved or treated fairly by the slime ball media which is what I have been telling the GALS for over a year now as they got the vapors over Trump
RR never shrank a government in his life. It wasn't remotely a touchstone of his governing philosophy.
Sure
You GALS are always worried about a GOP dictator then whine like GIRLS when they aren't and go along with Congress and stuff
Reagan stood for less government. You didn't and you don't
You're a fraud and a loser. And a sucker
Reagan was a big government spender. In good times (California) and bad (when he took the Presidency).
That's not a criticism on my part. It's a big part of the reason the early 80s economic recovery was so rapid.
If spending alone could bring about an economic Recovery you man crush Obama would have had a booming economy. As a percentage of GDP spending actually shrank under Reagan.
Sort of. The ratio shrank under Reagan to where it had been at the beginning of his presidency from the highs it had grown to during his presidency. Almost exactly the same as Obama, btw.
He cut spending and pushed for a line item veto that would have given him the authority to cut even more spending. He submitted budgets that cut spending and he called for the complete elimination of some Federal Departments. Obama never did any of this. You measure people by how you are Dazzler. You know that you're a dishonest and duplicitous hack and therefore you assume everyone else is like you.
So you'd prefer to change the subject.
Wise.
I like to say people have "changed the subject" when they have continued to talk about the subject, it's what I like to do.
Comments
https://www.cato.org/commentary/reagans-budget-legacy
Dazzler lies, and he loves being lied to.
Sort of. The ratio shrank under Reagan to where it had been at the beginning of his presidency from the highs it had grown to during his presidency. Almost exactly the same as the Obama experience, btw.
Wise.
Back then nobody needed Trigger Warnings because nobody shit their pants when they heard opposing opinions like the fragile generations since. I listened, I learned, and I frequently disagreed.
And somehow, miraculously, I lived through it.
Even fragile flowers like @HHusky somehow survived.
Could it be that people on the political Right AREN'T actually trying to kill Lefties, all day every day?
Bloat!
Flattering.