Posted on 04/25/2014 7:04:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Carter served one term: 17% increase
For two terms that would work out to a 34% increase.
Reagan had a 22% increase.
Reagan also had to work with a Democrat Controlled House and Senate.
Carter had a Democrat Controlled House and Senate. He could have cut spending if he wanted to, and could get his den of thieves to go along.
Reagan didn’t have that chance.
During Reagan revenues soared.
The Dems have a real problem coming to grips with that. He cut taxes. That’s something they can’t admit or it destroys their theory of governance.
Looks as if every president was more thrifty than his successor based on that bar chart.
Yeah, carter even turned off the lights on the Christmas Tree.
Actually none of the spending increases were his fault. The military/national defense portion of the budget, or when measured as a % of GNP, scarcely moved in the 1980s. What grew were “Payments to individuals,” by about 15%. Straight from the government’s own budget books.
One thing they ALWAYS neglect to mention is:
WHAT Democrats spend on vs. WHAT Republicans spend on...
And, what our Founders INTENDED the government to spend on.
Makes a LOT of difference.
I see some jumping on the bait to defend Ronald Reagan against JIMMY CARTER? Good grief. Get a grip folks. It is not worth the time or energy. This BS article is helpful however as it does expose Rand Paul as someone with no analytical skills and who has no business being a Republican much less a president.
That’s actually amazing if true, because Reagan refurbished our military forces after Carter let things go so badly during his term.
Reading some of this is chilling. Rand Paul... Daniels..., do either of these people understand who controls spending in Washington, D. C.? Do they understand the impact on spending if the Democrats control the House and Senate? Do they know who controlled the House and Senate in the Reagan years?
They talk about Reagan spending as if he had this great big check-book and spent his days and nights writing checks the nation couldn’t afford. Yep, “That mean old man Reagan. He was just the worst!”
This article is tripe.
Part of the reason the spending on Reagan was higher, was because Carter butchered the military during his term in office. Someone had to rebuild our forces and Reagan was stuck with the task.
Anyone remember that failed raid in Iran to rescue the hostages? That was Carter’s idea of a properly run military. Reagan knew better.
People that wish to dissect Reagan better put on their big boy pants and do more work. The guy was even better than he gets credit for.
Note that Obama is the model of efficiency don’t you know...
LOL
Reagan had to rebuild the Military that Carter helped destroy.
Reagan had to deal with a Legislature dominated by Democrats to get anything done. Those same Democrats failed to hold up their end of the negotiations when it came to the agreed to spending cuts in exchange for Tax Increases.
Reagan won the Cold War, Carter lost the Cold War.
Federal Tax Revenues doubled under Reagan.
Of course, none of this matters nowadays. Everything Reagan did to make the United States of America the greatest Nation the World has ever known is being torn down by Obama and his sycophants.
I thank God that I was around to see what America could be under Reagan’s great Leadership. Now I am just saddened and disgusted to see what unchecked Liberalism Power is doing.
I am not saying everything Reagan did worked out for the best, i.e. Immigration Amnesty, but Reagan was still the greatest President in my lifetime, period.
This is right as far as “under Reagan,” but Reagan didn’t push for the domestic spending. The democrat congress is responsible Reagan is responsible for military spending, which turned out to be an excellent investment in the long run.
Reagan had 435,000 Americans on the Soviet border, we were ditching our old WWII and Vietnam war goods and buying Kevlar helmets and Gore-Tex gear to equip our troops who's combat area was in the European theater, we were building a 600 ship Navy, taking on the Soviet Union all over the globe, and when Reagan and the Pentagon were finished, the Soviet Union was defeated.
The best spent money the world has ever seen, I hope we never return to those days of wondering if "this day" is going to be the end of civilization, but the fact is, Reagan gave the world a generations long breather from that certain nuclear annihilation.
Reagan had to outspend the USSR in the military programs. It’s what finally brought the Commies to their knees.
So yea he outspent Carter, but at least it was money well spent.
Ayn Rand truly despised Reagan and did not vote for him, the best election the libertarians have ever had was running against Reagan in 1980.
Off the top of my head, Reagan repaired two problems left behind by past presidents and congresses that almost instantly improved US and lead to decades of economic growth and prosperity for US and the world: our screwed up tax code and our decimated military.
Fixing the tax code's graduated punishment on achievement spurred growth and innovation that lead to an invigorated economy.
Rebuilding the military was expensive but absolutely necessary and lead to the fall of the Soviet empire. Modernizing and rebuilding our military was of such value that most of our current air force and weapons came from his time in office.
He did these things in spite of the demonrats in Congress and the many critics in the now one stream media, thanks to a Reagan lead reinvigorated Republican party and the support of an approving grass roots.
Not bad for an old guy.
Re: “Rand Paul is interested in doing things differently.”
Yesterday, Rand Paul advocated that all illegal aliens should be given a path to “work visas.”
How is that different?
Every serious, honest observer of American politics understands that is also the first step on a path to citizenship and 12 million new Socialist voters.
That's a bad mistake.
GDP can be very volatile and can move up and down for many reasons that have nothing to do with who is president.
It is much more helpful to compare presidents on a “per capita” basis.
Namely:
GDP per capita.
National Income per capita.
Government Spending per capita.
Tax Revenue per capita.
Quoting Stockman won’t win many converts. Stockman was a status quo bureaucrat.
The left, and libertarians, are purist. They always point to his deficits. By today’s standards they were nothing.
His last three fiscal years the deficits were around $150B a year. Today they are over $1 Trillion a year.
Reagan did not have the line item veto.
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.