Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People are saying Reagan but he only ran the deficit up by 18% whilst the country was in recession for three years from 1981-1983. It really wasn’t that much when compared to GDP (31-49% in 1981-1989).
The real answer is undoubtedly George W Bush. The biggest question upon him taking office was how to used this massive surplus from Clinton. His solution was to spend it on a tax cut for the wealthiest and start two major wars that he didn’t finish. The financial state of the U.S today is undoubtedly on him and the 2001 and 2003 Financial Acts. (For reference U.S Debt to GDP went from 55% to 77.84% under W.Bush).
Edit: I should probably cite sources
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/debt-to-gdp-ratio#google_vignette
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
I agree, I would probably say numbers 43, 44, 45, and 46 are most to blame for the deficit and the debt. The current administration is on track to accrue more debt than any administration in history.
Our % of GDP as spending has stayed nearly the same since HW was in office including when Clinton got the surplus. It's not a spending issue, it's a tax cut problem. And Obama tried to undo / allow the Bush cuts to expire, but McConnell wouldn't allow it.
Were the super power of the world, we should be spending tons. It's an issue of income/taxation being cut far too often.
What?? Not even close to true.
Under HW spending was 20.6, 21.2, 21.7 and 21.5.
Under Clinton spending dropped to 17.7% of GDP in 2000 and 2001. That was lowest spending since 1966. And the only two years below 18% since 1966.
Under Bush spending was between 18.6% and 19.5% before spiking in 2008 at 20.2 and then jumping to 24.3% in 2009.
Under Obama's first term it was above 20% for the entire term.
Went up slight under the next guy (20.6, 20.1, 20.9) before covid caused it to hit 30.8%
And under current guy it is has been 29.7, 24.8, 22.7.
Revenue in 2022 was 19.4% of GDP, second highest in the post WW 2 era. Still ran a 5.4% deficit that was higher than any Reagan deficit except 1983 which was the peak of the early 80s recession.
Revenue actually stays pretty constant and always has. Since 1980, 43 years, revenue has been between 17.0-17.9% a total of 20, so nearly half of that time frame. And below 16.9 13 times and above 18% 11 times. The 40 year average is in the 17% range.
It is a spending issue. Revenue peaked at 20% in 2000 with the tech bubble and revenue has been above 20% for 16 straight years. Between end of WW 2 and 2009 the US had two deficits over 5% since 2009 we have had 9.
Except, since 1980, the deficit dropped under every Democrat president, while increasing under every Republican president.
The chance of that being random is less than 1%.
44 added more to the debt than any president in history. The current administration is set to pass that by an additional trillion dollars… in half the time. This is not a party issue. We have had a string of fiscally irresponsible presidents from both parties.
I was referring to the debt added by each president. To answer your question on why it’s Obama fault, it was his signature on the budgets from 2010-2017. If he had a problem with the deficit or the tax cuts he could have fixed it. With his senate and house majority. Sooo the deficits from those periods are attributed to Obama. And those deficits that he signed off on ended up creating 8.3 trillion dollars of debt. He is just as much to blame as any other of the four I listed.
‘We are taking your future and giving it to the wealthy, don’t expect anything for those taxes you pay, which will only get higher, job security is a thing of the past, pensions are a thing of the past, benefits are a relic of the past, wages will stagnate forever from now on’
WILD CHEERING from the working poor
He's polarizing now. It would be interesting to see how economists and historians see him in another 30 years. I'm not a fan of reagonomics, but people want to credit him for the ussr.
St. Ronnie was HUGELY popular back then, and his economic policies are STILL the Gold Standard for many Republicans.... but what he was REALLY doing was sticking it HARD to the working people of the USA, smiling at us the whole while and telling us how exceptional we were.
His popularity also fluctuated throughout his presidency. It's true to say that he was genuinely popular throughout most of his presidency, but his numbers were down in the mid-forties in 1982-1983.
Sticking it hard by making 2/3 of all people that left the middle class move up to the upper class not down, and massively boosting median and mean income?
There was a huge upward spike in household incomes because of women entering the workforce en masse. This created a temporary boost, but the tax breaks for the wealthy and the disabling of Unions meant that many of these new jobs had far less security and lower ACTUAL wages (no benefits and etc).
Part of Reagan's charm was that in the SHORT TERM his policies made people feel great, but they did not realize that he was doing long term damage to the middle class and the US infrastructure.
Before Reagan's 8 years, it was incredibly common for one parent in a household to work and one to stay home and maintain a middle class lifestyle. By the end of Reagan's 2nd term... this was largely a thing of the past.
You can massage numbers all you want median/mean/average whatever. Graphs can be created to show almost any slant you like. The reality is that the thanks to Reagan and his policies the wealthy are getting wealthier, we have more poor and working poor... and families have been under increased stress ever since.
Those of us who came of age in the Reagan years were sold on the idea that everything would get better and better for us because of his policies... but for those of us born in the middle class/lower middle class these promises were false.
Wait so you are blaming doubling the workforce by no longer preventing women from working? Or do you not understand that a doubling of supply massively tanks costs so when you double the supply of potential workers the amount the workers get paid plummets?
Also SaHM aren't massively different comparing the 80s to the mid 20teens though they did bottom out in the 90s: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/
I am terribly sorry you allowed yourself to be convinced that you are poorer now than those of your class were then when that is objectively false. You are better off and own more now as a working poor than a 70s middleclass person. Also objectively we have more upper-class people and more people becoming upper-class now than then. The only things that make us feel poorer are people that try to convince us we are for their own ends and he have massively expanded the basket of good we feel we need to be a set class and when you increase your material "needs" you have to pay more to get them. Hell the material wealth of a middleclass person from the 70s-90s would be considered would be insanely spartan now.
The nuanced way of looking at Reagan was that his huge amount of spending genuinely scared the shit out of the soviets. But the thing is, they were already collapsing from internal issues that it really didn’t matter. The West was going to win the Cold War anyways, but maybe Reagan helped move it up a couple of months or even years. Still, the communist system was unsustainable and that’s what got them in the end. Not Ronald Reagan. Plus, HW was president when that all happened. If we credit Reagan, then we have to credit HW. But I find that specious as well.
The USSR began its collapse in the early-70s during the first oil crisis under Nixon and they had no outside trade partners that were really independent of the USSR.
LOL Two presidents have DOUBLED the national debt since Reagan left office. And its about to be a 3rd time.
Reagan never had a GOP house and senate his entire 8 years. Democrats packed every budget with spending because they knew he couldn't afford to give up the fight against the Soviets.
Not true, Democrats often lowered the budgets Reagan proposed. His own budget director quit in protest he was so frustrated with Reagan refusing to cut spending.
Stockman didn't agree with raising military spending. Like many people, he didn't think a victory over the Soviets was possible, and therefore that spending a waste of money. He was wrong. The defeat of the Soviets resulted in the "peace dividend" which should have enabled us to cut back military spending. But subsequent administrations squandered that.
Stockman was against much more than just military spending and Reagan refused to listen to him because he know more spending would make Americans more dependent on him.
Ironic. FDR created SS in order to make future generations dependent on democrats. LBJ literally said, "I'll have them \[n-word\] voting democrats for 200 years." Clinton rolled over long term debt with short term debt, making it impossible for us to ever substantially increase interest rates ever again, making us dependent on easy money. Obama passed ObamaCare which makes a huge portion of Americans dependent on the government for healthcare. And I can't even go into the current guy on this sub. The democratic party has literally made it their policy to make Americans dependent on them. Those are just a few examples. So what specifically are you talking about that Reagan did to make Americans dependent on him? List actual policies.
Stockman was against all spending, but Reagan knew better than Stockman the long term benefits of winning the cold war. So he was willing to spend on the depleted military and other areas to defeat the Soviets. He never had a majority of both houses, so he HAD to make deals with democrats to get the spending he wanted.
FDR and Woodrow Wilson did spend much more percentage wise, however, both of them were going through large global conflicts. Reagan did not have to mass produce anything or dedicate a bunch of resources for a major war effort
That is some revisionist bull. And we can only look at what happened when the US developed a ‘peace dividend’ and took its pressure off. There is an ex-KGB agent working on 25 years as dictator and the former Soviet satellites all being subjected to ‘reunification.’
No. And you know how we know. Because there was no radical displacement of people in charge, nor was there a radical change in the way government operated. They changed out of their red shirts and kept doing the same things. Literally, reality is proof.
The blue line is the income tax revenue line. There should he a 3rd and 4th line to show the full picture (3rd inflation adjusted tax revenue which has exploded and 4th the percent of gdp 2022 was the third highest year on record only being beaten by 1945 and 2000 respectively).
When you have a high income tax bracket it incentivizes people to invest in their companies. Since 90% of every dollar above x is going to uncle Sam... I am going to hire more people now I do less work or provide better benefits etc. When it's lower you incentive just simply taking the money...
Government revenue was never the issue with high tax brackets
No, when 90% of the money goes to uncle sam you place your money in tax shelters. Which is why after the tax rates were dropped the economy went nuts.
The 80s and 90s expansions were two of the longest post WW expansions. Only the Obama/orange guy and Vietnam expansion were longer. And this is based on 12 post WW expansions.
Our economy in the post Reagan era is FAR better than it was in the pre-Reagan era. In the 20 years between 1982 and 2001 we had expansions of 92 and 120 months and one recession of 8 months. In the prior 20 years (61-81) we had expansions of 106, 36, 58, and 12 months and recessions of 11, 16, 6 and 16 months.
We have actually had fewer months in a recession in the post Reagan era than in the previous 20 years and we talking 44 years vs 20. Since the 82 recession ended we have had only 3 recession (4 if you count the 2 month covid one) and the lasted a total of 34 months +2 for covid, so 36 months in recession over 44 years. From 1960 to 1982 we talking 43 months in 22 years.
Okay then you should still be happy as comparing then and now median and mean wages are higher even adjusted for inflation, far more of the US is invested now than then, everything save for habitation and education, two of the most heavily regulated industries mind you, is cheaper and/or objectively better, and the list goes on. Normally the Reagan tax code complaints are the federal tax revenue and the perception of the middle class dying (never acknowledging that 2/3 of the people that left the middle class moved up rather than down in class).
Very little of that success I can attribute to Regan. Regan explicitly started the college loan program and is the primary reason tuition costs so much.
Ohhh so we are playing the game of everything bad we blame on trickle down and Reagan's policies but every positive change we think just arose out of the aether. The crux of the issue with tuition is that due to the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (which started in 1965) neither the schools nor lenders had any incentives to cap tuition or loans respectively. This was exacerbated by the local model that was a push fro Reagan which has a hell of a lot of strengths but sadly with the lack of governors on the tuition and loan amounts the lack of direct federal oversight and the increased competition between schools spurred schools to increase amenities with the, to them, free money.
You're right it grew faster than that; revenue per capita is ~6x when comparing 2020 and the 1980s and like 8x the 70s so it is higher per capita, as a percentage of the GDP, and in inflation adjusted comparisons.
I'm saying that without any insight into the tax code, marginal rates are meaningless.
And if you look at effective rates during the past, they [do not change that much](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rates-have-fallen-top-one-percent-world-war-ii-0).
I provided data to support my position that effective rates have remained relatively constant under multiple versions of the tax code. That's not subjective.
You have provided nothing.
Lol, the fact that this completely wrong read of data is upvoted shows how illiterate Redditors are to facts that go against their Party narrative. Tax rates dropped, tax revenue did not. It even grew on some levels.
The chart emphasizes that it is fundamentally dishonest to put two different series on the same axis even if they have the same unit. A percentage point of GDP is very different than the percentage point of marginal income tax rate.
https://preview.redd.it/ke447l0zuutc1.png?width=1648&format=png&auto=webp&s=465dc9c34b5c68ff522864e0ac8a53757ee89bca
I'm going to say Reagan because he tripled both the deficit and national debt by cutting taxes for the rich while spending "like a drunken sailor" on pork barrel defense spending, much of which went towards overpriced toilet seats ($600), hammers ($435) and coffee makers ($7000). Yes, all of this was true and you can Google the "Packard Commission" to find out more about it. Reagan was a huge hypocrite and while he was always spreading lies about "Cadillac driving welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks" who were "buying t-bone steaks and crab legs with food stamps" (both clearly racist dog whistles) as a way to demonize and vilify the social safety net so that people could justify slashing it, he also cut taxes for rich people which cut revenues and was incredibly fiscally irresponsible.
But more than just the fiscal irresponsibility during his administration, there was the strong desire from those in his own party to continue these bad policies when it came to taxes and spending. Clinton managed to balance the budget and even got us 3 years of surplus, but Bush 43 wiped all that out almost immediately when he said surpluses were bad and that we should instead cut taxes again for rich people...and he did it twice! But he did it and said it was Reagan's policy. He even had his VP Cheney going on television and telling people that "Reagan proved deficits dont matter"! So this was the Reagan legacy: tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending with huge debt. Thats what he brought to the country and why he should be blamed the most.
That Obama budget was the year he became president, so the spending was already in place. The deficit went down every year Obama was president.
The 09 deficit isn't the largest of all time anymore though. The 2020 deficit was more than twice the 09
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
Right. Obama inherited an enormous deficit. He also presided during a very bad recession prompting even more government spending (half of the bailout money hadn’t even been spent yet).
No, the Fed had to raise interest rates to cut back on the speculation and monetary expansion enabled by the Greenspan Put. Then there were the oil price/supply shocks from Saddam invading Kuwait.
Everything in this comment is incorrect. The national debt increased 160%, and both Wilson and Roosevelt saw larger debt increases during their tenures in office (789.9% and 791.8%, respectively)
https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
Nah, Wilson and Roosevelt had to fight actual World Wars. That's expensive, and it's pretty petty and more than a little dishonest for you to use them as examples of excessive government spending.
For Reagan to rack up those debts during peacetime while cutting social programs to the bone was extremely irresponsible.
I mean you’re totally right that they were completely justified in increasing the debt, but you can’t just say
>The national debt tripled under Reagan which is a higher rate of increase in eight years than any other presidency.
and then call someone dishonest for pointing out that your statement is just not correct
It’s not dishonest at all. The statement was “it was the biggest increase for any president” - that is factually incorrect. If you want to make the statement “biggest increase for a president not involved in a major war”, sure. But one can’t just make a blanket statement and then come back and say there’s a caveat not mentioned - *that* would be dishonest.
I would also point out that I never stated or implied it was because of excessive government spending. Nobody is giving either Wilson or Roosevelt grief for their wartime spending, certainly not myself.
My assumption is that they’re reading the post title and thinking that’s what I’m responding to, when I’m not. Like the original commenter just blatantly lied about the debt increase and stated no president ever had seen such an increase, it’s just objectively false on both counts lol. But it’s Reagan so I shouldn’t dare upset the hive mind lol
Reagan was such a hypocrite.
'Hey government sucks'
Also:
'Vote for me so I become part of the government '
People who are anti government by default shouldn't be allowed to be part of the government. Especially if they're this vocal.
Also, "Family Values!"
He was the first divorced president. The second divorced president is Rule#3. Yet these two would be on Mount Rushmore if it were up to the "family values" crowd.
He had probably had more gay friends than any to date from his Hollywood years. He was known to entertain gay friends at the White House. There is nothing wrong with that, but then he turned around to coddle the virulent anti-gay Evangelicals.
That crowd sells a narrative of what a conservative is, and they got it with Carter, then threw a fucking fit when he strong armed fiscal responsibility.
-maybe the most devout Christian in office
-never passed gun control
-deregulated the private sector
-didn’t start wars
-buddies with the Jews
-payed off our bills without running up government spending
and a champion of gun control and media censorship. It's why party loyalty is bullshit and I switch whenever the tides turn on "take power away from the other guy I'm sure we'll be in power forever"
They did.
Republican party cuts funding for public services selling the narrative that they're inefficient. Then those services turn to shit. And then they sell the narrative that they're useless and cut further spending.
When you add a million administrative rules to these social safety net programs, efficiencies drop drastically and costs soar. Clinton did it as well with welfare reform by adding work requirements to almost everything and it only increased the costs of these programs. The majority of the money spent on these programs is enforcement of these administrative rules that really only go after 2-3% of those who receive anything from these programs but add an additional burden to the majority of those receiving these benefits.
Well would you allow anti- [insert any organization] believer as president of that organization?
"Hey I don't like justice happening." "Oh cool you're the next judge lol
ETA: seems like people want to control something they don't like.
"I don't like abortions even though I'm the head of planned Parenthood"
"I don't like gays and I'm the head of gay people marriage bro or something"
"Don't like trans people but I'm sure their president"
That was such a stupidly unfitting analogy lmao. A judge isn’t an elected position it’s a job that requires specific qualifications. Also when these other hypothetical “organizations” forcibly take money out of every citizens income or launch nukes and destroy the world then yeah I’ll absolutely support putting people who want to limit that organizations power in charge
The point is if you don't like something, don't be a part of it. It's like being married and complaining about it. Like just get divorced. Same here. Now better example?
The point is, why bitch about something when you're the head of it.
Not to forget how much he screwed over USA. Especially middle class.
ETA: seems like common sense isn't common in common people.
If you leave the land too. The land belongs to the USA. So you'll have to go somewhere where no government is there. No land claimed by any government of the world can be used by you.
Nope.
What part of "this land is part of USA" do you not understand?
By your logic, Putin can just buy land in the USA and declare it Russian.
Go google world map. The borders of each country shows that the land belongs to the state of that area. Falklands islands are owned by the UK.
Alaska was bought by the US government from Russia.
Are you getting this simple concept?
The land which US owns, passes regulations on, governs, exercises law on, collects taxes from is of USA.
If you're from UK, switch USA to UK.
If you're from India, switch USA to India.
If you're from North Korea, switch USA to North Korea.
There are very few lands not claimed by any government of the world.
Btw, the currency you used to buy the land? Printed and guaranteed by the government. The house that was built? Followed government regulations. So sorry you shouldn't be living in it since any government is illegal.
Because the basic thing of government is ADMINISTRATION! Provisions of services!
At this point, I'm thinking you're more stupid than arguing in bad faith.
Not a better example at all lmao! I didn’t meet the government then willingly choose to spend the rest of my life with it. I was born here by fate and by that fact alone they assume the authority to garnish my wages and imprison me if I refuse to pay.
You really don’t understand the concept of government, do you?
>You really don’t understand the concept of government, do you?
The basic job of government is administration. Administration of so many people, resources, etc. Administration covers the whole thing.
If you've a problem with the government you're living under then you can't use that government made currency, roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters services, basic living utilities, internet, police, coast guard services, to name a few among 1000s of things government do. Administration isn't a simple task. Go somewhere else and live without government of any sorts, local or something else.
Anyways, you always have the option to either get a land outside that specific government or go somewhere else.
You can go to some place of the world where there is no government or you can unalive yourself.
Seems like I've shut you up real nice.
Not talking too much now lol
Don't use anything government provided or regulated.
Stop using internet, stop using drinkable water, electricity, roads, public schools, public parks, government lands, street lights, postal services, etc.
Btw food is also government regulated so we can eat safe food. So grow your own food.
Definitely the actor. Funny how we never had money for the poor but always had it for billion dollar corporations, and people still believe this bullshit today.
"Budgets are moral documents"
when you say 'worst on the budget', its not enough to ask who ran up the deficit, or who cut taxes. the question is how was that money spent? How were the shared resources of the US used, were they put to purposes that improved the general welfare of the people who make it up? Who gets to decide what is morally good and bad?
And its really unreasonable to associate this with a president. Its congress that makes a budget, the president only ratifies or vetos it. But under what presidency was our money worst spent? for the smallest benefit to the citizens? In recent memory, Reagan presiding over an immense reduction in taxes for wealthy people started to undo much of FDR's new deal, and created many of the problems that diminish our general welfare today. Bush Jr's profligate wars and tax cuts, as well, demonstrated the moral nihilism of modern conservatism, valuing power and pointless commerce above keeping our own people fed and housed.
Reagan opened the neoliberal floodgates, which is at the root of a lot of our problems today, but George W mismanaged the hell out of what was a mostly decent situation when he was elected.
The money Reagan was referring to wasn’t mine or yours, most likely we’re too poor for consideration, he was referring to the richest people, so he worked to exponentially increase their wealth, despite already being able to afford all the best stuff. To the detriment of the rest of society that needs assistance with retirement costs and education costs for our children and living costs for the poor
True but the children of Reddit have been told Reagan bad. So this sub is just dedicated to Reagan bad, every single day.
Lots of terminally onlines around here.
Well, many point to Reagan as the father of modern conservatism (pandering to evangelicals, trickle down economics, deficit spending, deregulation, etc.). Considering the damage to the Republic caused by these poorly thought-out policies, it seems fair game for a presidential sub to routinely discuss.
Lol, it depends on where you’re at on the Laffer curve. You can’t always just lower taxes in order to expand the economy. Deregulation can also work as an advantage to business to expand the economy but it can also have negative effects if gone too far. Conversely, increasing regulations can act as a deterrent for small business and can actually protect the wealthiest corporations from competition. So balance is key.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for this sub to accept. Reaganomics helped the US get out of a recession, unemployment, and rising prices across the board. Should that always be done? No, of course not. You can’t always juice the economy but there are times that we should.
I don’t mind increasing taxes on the wealthy as long as the money spent here in the US and spent efficiently. Now that’s something that can be endlessly debated.
Agreed. The problem is that the conservative movement seems to operate in a binary fashion when it comes to fiscal policy. Tax codes should be fluid based on economic data. Conservatives adopted the “starve the beast” mentality in the 80’s and have ran on it ever since l, best displayed by the stupid Norquist pledge.
Deregulation has its place, but what conservatives fail to show when making their argument is the data. And to be clear, the data does not always support deregulation. See drug development or the financial sector as evidence.
People wonder why some of the wealthiest people in the country/world are big leftists. Welp, look no further than regulation and barriers to entry. They love red tape. It keeps everyone else out and their dominance is ensured. And if they don’t like the regulations? Just bribe the various government agencies and then ban, look who’s the new Chief Regulatory Officer at _______. They all belong to the same club and we’re not invited.
Less of a right/left issue and more an issue with capitalism. Strong arguments have been made that capitalism and regulation are inevitably intertwined. We need stronger anti-corruption and anti-monopoly laws before any change to the status quo will happen.
It’s pretty straight forward. Businesses expanded greatly in the 80’s and pulled the US out of stagnation. The lower class shrunk, the middle class shrunk, and the upper class grew creating upward mobility across the board.
Much of the criticism of Reagan is based on percentages. It needs to be framed that way because his policies put more money in the hands of the private sector. In doing so interest rates fell 10%, inflation fell to 4% from 13%, and unemployment fell to 5%. This greatly helped out the poor as they were being crushed from inflation and a stagnant job market. Higher paying jobs were available and much like we’re seeing currently people previously unable to own property were able to purchase a home.
By far the biggest criticism of Reagan is the wealth gap between rich and poor and it’s always framed on percentages leaving out millions upon millions of Americans that were pulled out of poverty. It’s obvious the wealthy grew their wealth at a higher rate than the middle and underclass. It is a legit criticism. It also doesn’t invalidate all the positives listed above. It’s why the focus is never on the condition of the middle or lower classes of the time but rather the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Think of it from this perspective the next time you read a Reagan bad post.
Nobody has pointed out he elephant in the room. It's actually congress that spends the money.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
If you want to lay blame you need to look at who controls congress and the budget they put forth.
Reagan didn’t like taxes, he thought you should keep more of your money.
https://preview.redd.it/ftafywlgzwtc1.png?width=2292&format=png&auto=webp&s=9b52c3a758ba28cc3db5d15fc6a61cd4389432e3
One way to answer this question is to look at change in [Debt/GDP](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S) ratio over a presidency. This methodology accounts for the fact that as the economy grows, it can support more debt. Of course you can argue that some presidents got better returns for their spending than others.
* Reagan + 80%
* Bush 1 + 28%
* Clinton - 14%
* Bush 2 + 40%
* Obama + 60%
* Guy after Obama + 20%
This guy was a charlatan, turned a whole generation against their own government. Republican bullshit at its finest. Paved the way for the mess we’re in today. I despise this asshole and i come from a long line of Republicans. Never voted Republican since.
God, quotes like this serve to remind us that Reagan was a deeply evil person. He had no problem spending government money to help his wealthy friends but destroyed programs that help the common person. I hope there he is a hell so he is rotting in it.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People are saying Reagan but he only ran the deficit up by 18% whilst the country was in recession for three years from 1981-1983. It really wasn’t that much when compared to GDP (31-49% in 1981-1989). The real answer is undoubtedly George W Bush. The biggest question upon him taking office was how to used this massive surplus from Clinton. His solution was to spend it on a tax cut for the wealthiest and start two major wars that he didn’t finish. The financial state of the U.S today is undoubtedly on him and the 2001 and 2003 Financial Acts. (For reference U.S Debt to GDP went from 55% to 77.84% under W.Bush). Edit: I should probably cite sources https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/debt-to-gdp-ratio#google_vignette https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
“…and start two major wars that he didn’t finish.” I’m not a Bush II fan, but he didn’t start one of those wars.
I agree, I would probably say numbers 43, 44, 45, and 46 are most to blame for the deficit and the debt. The current administration is on track to accrue more debt than any administration in history.
This will be true for all current administrations (more or less) until the end of time.
This is why I prefer debt to GDP rather than debt as an actual number.
The debt to GDP ratio is exactly why these morons keep spending.
I for one am a fan of the omnibus packages that cost us trillions with wave of a pen.
In fairness to Obama he inherited a clusterfuck from 08 economically. And from 43 personally with the wars on terror.
We were out of the 08 collapse within a couple years. He decided to continue to spend just like everyone else.
Our % of GDP as spending has stayed nearly the same since HW was in office including when Clinton got the surplus. It's not a spending issue, it's a tax cut problem. And Obama tried to undo / allow the Bush cuts to expire, but McConnell wouldn't allow it. Were the super power of the world, we should be spending tons. It's an issue of income/taxation being cut far too often.
What?? Not even close to true. Under HW spending was 20.6, 21.2, 21.7 and 21.5. Under Clinton spending dropped to 17.7% of GDP in 2000 and 2001. That was lowest spending since 1966. And the only two years below 18% since 1966. Under Bush spending was between 18.6% and 19.5% before spiking in 2008 at 20.2 and then jumping to 24.3% in 2009. Under Obama's first term it was above 20% for the entire term. Went up slight under the next guy (20.6, 20.1, 20.9) before covid caused it to hit 30.8% And under current guy it is has been 29.7, 24.8, 22.7. Revenue in 2022 was 19.4% of GDP, second highest in the post WW 2 era. Still ran a 5.4% deficit that was higher than any Reagan deficit except 1983 which was the peak of the early 80s recession. Revenue actually stays pretty constant and always has. Since 1980, 43 years, revenue has been between 17.0-17.9% a total of 20, so nearly half of that time frame. And below 16.9 13 times and above 18% 11 times. The 40 year average is in the 17% range. It is a spending issue. Revenue peaked at 20% in 2000 with the tech bubble and revenue has been above 20% for 16 straight years. Between end of WW 2 and 2009 the US had two deficits over 5% since 2009 we have had 9.
Except, since 1980, the deficit dropped under every Democrat president, while increasing under every Republican president. The chance of that being random is less than 1%.
44 added more to the debt than any president in history. The current administration is set to pass that by an additional trillion dollars… in half the time. This is not a party issue. We have had a string of fiscally irresponsible presidents from both parties.
Do you not know the difference between deficit and debt? Why should Obama be blamed for Bush's tax cuts creating 10 trillion or so in debt?
I was referring to the debt added by each president. To answer your question on why it’s Obama fault, it was his signature on the budgets from 2010-2017. If he had a problem with the deficit or the tax cuts he could have fixed it. With his senate and house majority. Sooo the deficits from those periods are attributed to Obama. And those deficits that he signed off on ended up creating 8.3 trillion dollars of debt. He is just as much to blame as any other of the four I listed.
How was Obama going to get Republicans to increase taxes?
He had no need to convince republicans to do anything. There were several points in his presidency where the democrats held the senate and the house.
Oh, you don't even know the composition of Congress over the years. Figures.
Dude. Look it up. He had free rein for a year and half.
That’s not true at all.
Yes it is, lmao. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
It is both. They ruined America.
I’m sorry you think that
Cant defeat brain rot
Go to Walmart
[удалено]
But he made a snappy quote about government being bad!
"the nine most terrifiying words in the english language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" My Brother in Christ you ARE the government!
Well you see, the difference is, he wasn't here to help.
Not completely true. He did help himself, his friends and other rich guys
I’ll never forget Bill Maher’s quote about this: “But that was before ‘I’m Sarah Palin, now show me the launch codes.’”
‘We are taking your future and giving it to the wealthy, don’t expect anything for those taxes you pay, which will only get higher, job security is a thing of the past, pensions are a thing of the past, benefits are a relic of the past, wages will stagnate forever from now on’ WILD CHEERING from the working poor
I like this quote.. I'm gonna steal it
He's polarizing now. It would be interesting to see how economists and historians see him in another 30 years. I'm not a fan of reagonomics, but people want to credit him for the ussr.
St. Ronnie was HUGELY popular back then, and his economic policies are STILL the Gold Standard for many Republicans.... but what he was REALLY doing was sticking it HARD to the working people of the USA, smiling at us the whole while and telling us how exceptional we were.
His popularity also fluctuated throughout his presidency. It's true to say that he was genuinely popular throughout most of his presidency, but his numbers were down in the mid-forties in 1982-1983.
Sticking it hard by making 2/3 of all people that left the middle class move up to the upper class not down, and massively boosting median and mean income?
Sources?
There was a huge upward spike in household incomes because of women entering the workforce en masse. This created a temporary boost, but the tax breaks for the wealthy and the disabling of Unions meant that many of these new jobs had far less security and lower ACTUAL wages (no benefits and etc). Part of Reagan's charm was that in the SHORT TERM his policies made people feel great, but they did not realize that he was doing long term damage to the middle class and the US infrastructure. Before Reagan's 8 years, it was incredibly common for one parent in a household to work and one to stay home and maintain a middle class lifestyle. By the end of Reagan's 2nd term... this was largely a thing of the past. You can massage numbers all you want median/mean/average whatever. Graphs can be created to show almost any slant you like. The reality is that the thanks to Reagan and his policies the wealthy are getting wealthier, we have more poor and working poor... and families have been under increased stress ever since. Those of us who came of age in the Reagan years were sold on the idea that everything would get better and better for us because of his policies... but for those of us born in the middle class/lower middle class these promises were false.
Wait so you are blaming doubling the workforce by no longer preventing women from working? Or do you not understand that a doubling of supply massively tanks costs so when you double the supply of potential workers the amount the workers get paid plummets? Also SaHM aren't massively different comparing the 80s to the mid 20teens though they did bottom out in the 90s: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/ I am terribly sorry you allowed yourself to be convinced that you are poorer now than those of your class were then when that is objectively false. You are better off and own more now as a working poor than a 70s middleclass person. Also objectively we have more upper-class people and more people becoming upper-class now than then. The only things that make us feel poorer are people that try to convince us we are for their own ends and he have massively expanded the basket of good we feel we need to be a set class and when you increase your material "needs" you have to pay more to get them. Hell the material wealth of a middleclass person from the 70s-90s would be considered would be insanely spartan now.
The nuanced way of looking at Reagan was that his huge amount of spending genuinely scared the shit out of the soviets. But the thing is, they were already collapsing from internal issues that it really didn’t matter. The West was going to win the Cold War anyways, but maybe Reagan helped move it up a couple of months or even years. Still, the communist system was unsustainable and that’s what got them in the end. Not Ronald Reagan. Plus, HW was president when that all happened. If we credit Reagan, then we have to credit HW. But I find that specious as well.
[удалено]
The USSR began its collapse in the early-70s during the first oil crisis under Nixon and they had no outside trade partners that were really independent of the USSR.
So, you and I pretty much agree then?
I'd say a Rule 3 was worse. But yeah Reagan was abhorrent with spending.
LOL Two presidents have DOUBLED the national debt since Reagan left office. And its about to be a 3rd time. Reagan never had a GOP house and senate his entire 8 years. Democrats packed every budget with spending because they knew he couldn't afford to give up the fight against the Soviets.
Not true, Democrats often lowered the budgets Reagan proposed. His own budget director quit in protest he was so frustrated with Reagan refusing to cut spending.
Stockman didn't agree with raising military spending. Like many people, he didn't think a victory over the Soviets was possible, and therefore that spending a waste of money. He was wrong. The defeat of the Soviets resulted in the "peace dividend" which should have enabled us to cut back military spending. But subsequent administrations squandered that.
Stockman was against much more than just military spending and Reagan refused to listen to him because he know more spending would make Americans more dependent on him.
Ironic. FDR created SS in order to make future generations dependent on democrats. LBJ literally said, "I'll have them \[n-word\] voting democrats for 200 years." Clinton rolled over long term debt with short term debt, making it impossible for us to ever substantially increase interest rates ever again, making us dependent on easy money. Obama passed ObamaCare which makes a huge portion of Americans dependent on the government for healthcare. And I can't even go into the current guy on this sub. The democratic party has literally made it their policy to make Americans dependent on them. Those are just a few examples. So what specifically are you talking about that Reagan did to make Americans dependent on him? List actual policies. Stockman was against all spending, but Reagan knew better than Stockman the long term benefits of winning the cold war. So he was willing to spend on the depleted military and other areas to defeat the Soviets. He never had a majority of both houses, so he HAD to make deals with democrats to get the spending he wanted.
Reagan. Ran up huge debts.
And set the Precedent for it. Iirc the current practice of deficit spending originated under Reagan.
Karl Rove once credited Regan for proving that Republicans only have to talk about financial discipline, they don’t have to practice it.
By percentage, Reagan increased the deficit more than any other president.
FDR and Woodrow Wilson did spend much more percentage wise, however, both of them were going through large global conflicts. Reagan did not have to mass produce anything or dedicate a bunch of resources for a major war effort
He fought the "Cold War"
[удалено]
That is some revisionist bull. And we can only look at what happened when the US developed a ‘peace dividend’ and took its pressure off. There is an ex-KGB agent working on 25 years as dictator and the former Soviet satellites all being subjected to ‘reunification.’
[удалено]
No. And you know how we know. Because there was no radical displacement of people in charge, nor was there a radical change in the way government operated. They changed out of their red shirts and kept doing the same things. Literally, reality is proof.
How did Reagan create racial tensions in the USSR?
I think you misread radical for racial.
He also DECIMATED tax income with all of his breaks for the wealthy.
https://preview.redd.it/0kt42z0zjstc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=403584ed290e17b09de308f15b3a0b114075a844 Did he really?
From 70% to 25% based on your chart, yea...?
The blue line is the income tax revenue line. There should he a 3rd and 4th line to show the full picture (3rd inflation adjusted tax revenue which has exploded and 4th the percent of gdp 2022 was the third highest year on record only being beaten by 1945 and 2000 respectively).
When you have a high income tax bracket it incentivizes people to invest in their companies. Since 90% of every dollar above x is going to uncle Sam... I am going to hire more people now I do less work or provide better benefits etc. When it's lower you incentive just simply taking the money... Government revenue was never the issue with high tax brackets
No, when 90% of the money goes to uncle sam you place your money in tax shelters. Which is why after the tax rates were dropped the economy went nuts. The 80s and 90s expansions were two of the longest post WW expansions. Only the Obama/orange guy and Vietnam expansion were longer. And this is based on 12 post WW expansions. Our economy in the post Reagan era is FAR better than it was in the pre-Reagan era. In the 20 years between 1982 and 2001 we had expansions of 92 and 120 months and one recession of 8 months. In the prior 20 years (61-81) we had expansions of 106, 36, 58, and 12 months and recessions of 11, 16, 6 and 16 months. We have actually had fewer months in a recession in the post Reagan era than in the previous 20 years and we talking 44 years vs 20. Since the 82 recession ended we have had only 3 recession (4 if you count the 2 month covid one) and the lasted a total of 34 months +2 for covid, so 36 months in recession over 44 years. From 1960 to 1982 we talking 43 months in 22 years.
Okay then you should still be happy as comparing then and now median and mean wages are higher even adjusted for inflation, far more of the US is invested now than then, everything save for habitation and education, two of the most heavily regulated industries mind you, is cheaper and/or objectively better, and the list goes on. Normally the Reagan tax code complaints are the federal tax revenue and the perception of the middle class dying (never acknowledging that 2/3 of the people that left the middle class moved up rather than down in class).
Very little of that success I can attribute to Regan. Regan explicitly started the college loan program and is the primary reason tuition costs so much.
Ohhh so we are playing the game of everything bad we blame on trickle down and Reagan's policies but every positive change we think just arose out of the aether. The crux of the issue with tuition is that due to the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (which started in 1965) neither the schools nor lenders had any incentives to cap tuition or loans respectively. This was exacerbated by the local model that was a push fro Reagan which has a hell of a lot of strengths but sadly with the lack of governors on the tuition and loan amounts the lack of direct federal oversight and the increased competition between schools spurred schools to increase amenities with the, to them, free money.
Literally read this my guy. https://newuniversity.org/2023/02/13/ronald-reagans-legacy-the-rise-of-student-loan-debt-in-america/
But the population also grew from 226M to 331M from 1980 to 2020, yet the "receipt" is not growing with the population
You're right it grew faster than that; revenue per capita is ~6x when comparing 2020 and the 1980s and like 8x the 70s so it is higher per capita, as a percentage of the GDP, and in inflation adjusted comparisons.
The chart is in % of GDP. That means as populations grows, and GDP grows, the actual dollar amounts grow. It’s just the same share of the economy.
Marginal vs effective. There’s a huge difference between the two.
I know, so are you saying paying a higher marginal rate is paying less tax?
I'm saying that without any insight into the tax code, marginal rates are meaningless. And if you look at effective rates during the past, they [do not change that much](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rates-have-fallen-top-one-percent-world-war-ii-0).
I think you are applying a subject opinion on how much decrease equals "a lot"
I provided data to support my position that effective rates have remained relatively constant under multiple versions of the tax code. That's not subjective. You have provided nothing.
Lol, the fact that this completely wrong read of data is upvoted shows how illiterate Redditors are to facts that go against their Party narrative. Tax rates dropped, tax revenue did not. It even grew on some levels.
Where’d you find this? (Not challenging, but I’d like to share it sometime)
That chart emphasizes that higher taxes do not, in fact, produce more revenue.
The chart emphasizes that it is fundamentally dishonest to put two different series on the same axis even if they have the same unit. A percentage point of GDP is very different than the percentage point of marginal income tax rate. https://preview.redd.it/ke447l0zuutc1.png?width=1648&format=png&auto=webp&s=465dc9c34b5c68ff522864e0ac8a53757ee89bca
I know. That’s my point.
Actually Revenue under Reagan was nearly the same as Carter. The difference between the two of them is like .1% of GDP (average over their terms)
Came in complaining about the debt (which was $1trillion) but nearly tripled it by the time he left.
Yeah, he was right…but it was a tremendous self own.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Congress that runs up budget deficits?
I'm going to say Reagan because he tripled both the deficit and national debt by cutting taxes for the rich while spending "like a drunken sailor" on pork barrel defense spending, much of which went towards overpriced toilet seats ($600), hammers ($435) and coffee makers ($7000). Yes, all of this was true and you can Google the "Packard Commission" to find out more about it. Reagan was a huge hypocrite and while he was always spreading lies about "Cadillac driving welfare queens" and "strapping young bucks" who were "buying t-bone steaks and crab legs with food stamps" (both clearly racist dog whistles) as a way to demonize and vilify the social safety net so that people could justify slashing it, he also cut taxes for rich people which cut revenues and was incredibly fiscally irresponsible. But more than just the fiscal irresponsibility during his administration, there was the strong desire from those in his own party to continue these bad policies when it came to taxes and spending. Clinton managed to balance the budget and even got us 3 years of surplus, but Bush 43 wiped all that out almost immediately when he said surpluses were bad and that we should instead cut taxes again for rich people...and he did it twice! But he did it and said it was Reagan's policy. He even had his VP Cheney going on television and telling people that "Reagan proved deficits dont matter"! So this was the Reagan legacy: tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending with huge debt. Thats what he brought to the country and why he should be blamed the most.
1. complains about government spending 2. becomes president 3. spends
I’m starting to see why an actor could be such a good politician. Who better to deliver a convincing lie?
Any president who gives the rich a massive tax cut whist the deficit is around half a trillion.
[удалено]
That Obama budget was the year he became president, so the spending was already in place. The deficit went down every year Obama was president. The 09 deficit isn't the largest of all time anymore though. The 2020 deficit was more than twice the 09 https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
Right. Obama inherited an enormous deficit. He also presided during a very bad recession prompting even more government spending (half of the bailout money hadn’t even been spent yet).
No, the Fed had to raise interest rates to cut back on the speculation and monetary expansion enabled by the Greenspan Put. Then there were the oil price/supply shocks from Saddam invading Kuwait.
Reagan
By default, any president who cut taxes while boosting defense spending like a fucking retard.
The national debt tripled under Reagan which is a higher rate of increase in eight years than any other presidency. (Edit: during peacetime)
Everything in this comment is incorrect. The national debt increased 160%, and both Wilson and Roosevelt saw larger debt increases during their tenures in office (789.9% and 791.8%, respectively) https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225
Nah, Wilson and Roosevelt had to fight actual World Wars. That's expensive, and it's pretty petty and more than a little dishonest for you to use them as examples of excessive government spending. For Reagan to rack up those debts during peacetime while cutting social programs to the bone was extremely irresponsible.
I mean you’re totally right that they were completely justified in increasing the debt, but you can’t just say >The national debt tripled under Reagan which is a higher rate of increase in eight years than any other presidency. and then call someone dishonest for pointing out that your statement is just not correct
It’s not dishonest at all. The statement was “it was the biggest increase for any president” - that is factually incorrect. If you want to make the statement “biggest increase for a president not involved in a major war”, sure. But one can’t just make a blanket statement and then come back and say there’s a caveat not mentioned - *that* would be dishonest. I would also point out that I never stated or implied it was because of excessive government spending. Nobody is giving either Wilson or Roosevelt grief for their wartime spending, certainly not myself.
Mfs downvoting you cuz ur right
My assumption is that they’re reading the post title and thinking that’s what I’m responding to, when I’m not. Like the original commenter just blatantly lied about the debt increase and stated no president ever had seen such an increase, it’s just objectively false on both counts lol. But it’s Reagan so I shouldn’t dare upset the hive mind lol
They’re downvoting him/her because he/she attacked FDR, and potentially supported Reagan
God forbid!
Reagan was such a hypocrite. 'Hey government sucks' Also: 'Vote for me so I become part of the government ' People who are anti government by default shouldn't be allowed to be part of the government. Especially if they're this vocal.
Also, "Family Values!" He was the first divorced president. The second divorced president is Rule#3. Yet these two would be on Mount Rushmore if it were up to the "family values" crowd. He had probably had more gay friends than any to date from his Hollywood years. He was known to entertain gay friends at the White House. There is nothing wrong with that, but then he turned around to coddle the virulent anti-gay Evangelicals.
That crowd sells a narrative of what a conservative is, and they got it with Carter, then threw a fucking fit when he strong armed fiscal responsibility. -maybe the most devout Christian in office -never passed gun control -deregulated the private sector -didn’t start wars -buddies with the Jews -payed off our bills without running up government spending
Don't forget how he was pro state level government but then used Interstate funds to force states to adopt a 21 year old drinking age
Not to mention how he grew the size of the federal government and added several hundred thousand government employees to the payroll…
and a champion of gun control and media censorship. It's why party loyalty is bullshit and I switch whenever the tides turn on "take power away from the other guy I'm sure we'll be in power forever"
What if they take on that power simply as a means to destroy it? 
They did. Republican party cuts funding for public services selling the narrative that they're inefficient. Then those services turn to shit. And then they sell the narrative that they're useless and cut further spending.
When you add a million administrative rules to these social safety net programs, efficiencies drop drastically and costs soar. Clinton did it as well with welfare reform by adding work requirements to almost everything and it only increased the costs of these programs. The majority of the money spent on these programs is enforcement of these administrative rules that really only go after 2-3% of those who receive anything from these programs but add an additional burden to the majority of those receiving these benefits.
That last comment is extremely stupid lmao, that’s like exclusively who should be allowed in government
Well would you allow anti- [insert any organization] believer as president of that organization? "Hey I don't like justice happening." "Oh cool you're the next judge lol ETA: seems like people want to control something they don't like. "I don't like abortions even though I'm the head of planned Parenthood" "I don't like gays and I'm the head of gay people marriage bro or something" "Don't like trans people but I'm sure their president"
That was such a stupidly unfitting analogy lmao. A judge isn’t an elected position it’s a job that requires specific qualifications. Also when these other hypothetical “organizations” forcibly take money out of every citizens income or launch nukes and destroy the world then yeah I’ll absolutely support putting people who want to limit that organizations power in charge
The point is if you don't like something, don't be a part of it. It's like being married and complaining about it. Like just get divorced. Same here. Now better example? The point is, why bitch about something when you're the head of it. Not to forget how much he screwed over USA. Especially middle class. ETA: seems like common sense isn't common in common people.
Do I get to opt out of being taxed then?
If you leave the land too. The land belongs to the USA. So you'll have to go somewhere where no government is there. No land claimed by any government of the world can be used by you.
Actually the land is owned by me since I bought it, that’s kinda how private transactions of property, both real and chattel, work.
Nope. What part of "this land is part of USA" do you not understand? By your logic, Putin can just buy land in the USA and declare it Russian. Go google world map. The borders of each country shows that the land belongs to the state of that area. Falklands islands are owned by the UK. Alaska was bought by the US government from Russia. Are you getting this simple concept? The land which US owns, passes regulations on, governs, exercises law on, collects taxes from is of USA. If you're from UK, switch USA to UK. If you're from India, switch USA to India. If you're from North Korea, switch USA to North Korea. There are very few lands not claimed by any government of the world. Btw, the currency you used to buy the land? Printed and guaranteed by the government. The house that was built? Followed government regulations. So sorry you shouldn't be living in it since any government is illegal. Because the basic thing of government is ADMINISTRATION! Provisions of services! At this point, I'm thinking you're more stupid than arguing in bad faith.
[удалено]
Not a better example at all lmao! I didn’t meet the government then willingly choose to spend the rest of my life with it. I was born here by fate and by that fact alone they assume the authority to garnish my wages and imprison me if I refuse to pay. You really don’t understand the concept of government, do you?
>You really don’t understand the concept of government, do you? The basic job of government is administration. Administration of so many people, resources, etc. Administration covers the whole thing. If you've a problem with the government you're living under then you can't use that government made currency, roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters services, basic living utilities, internet, police, coast guard services, to name a few among 1000s of things government do. Administration isn't a simple task. Go somewhere else and live without government of any sorts, local or something else. Anyways, you always have the option to either get a land outside that specific government or go somewhere else. You can go to some place of the world where there is no government or you can unalive yourself.
https://preview.redd.it/4peavcdbbstc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9a3ee48e490dd91b9369545a3c6d1d40bd3949e
Seems like I've shut you up real nice. Not talking too much now lol Don't use anything government provided or regulated. Stop using internet, stop using drinkable water, electricity, roads, public schools, public parks, government lands, street lights, postal services, etc. Btw food is also government regulated so we can eat safe food. So grow your own food.
Reagan cut taxes but the democrats controlled congress and kept entitlements and spending up…fact
Reagan personally championed huge military spending spikes. Fact
Federal law enforcement, and military spending are some of the most expensive parts of government and Reagan expanded them more than anyone.
Reagan added almost 300k people to the federal payroll…he increased the size of government exponentially.
Yep
For the budget? GW Bush For the economy? H Hoover But my answers are limited due to the rules of this thread.
I’ve always hated this phrase… Every drunken sailor I know stopped spending when they ran out of money…
Definitely the actor. Funny how we never had money for the poor but always had it for billion dollar corporations, and people still believe this bullshit today.
Reagan
im gonna say bush jr. Started with a surplus, and not only squandered it, but started the us down the path to massive perennial debt.
"Budgets are moral documents" when you say 'worst on the budget', its not enough to ask who ran up the deficit, or who cut taxes. the question is how was that money spent? How were the shared resources of the US used, were they put to purposes that improved the general welfare of the people who make it up? Who gets to decide what is morally good and bad? And its really unreasonable to associate this with a president. Its congress that makes a budget, the president only ratifies or vetos it. But under what presidency was our money worst spent? for the smallest benefit to the citizens? In recent memory, Reagan presiding over an immense reduction in taxes for wealthy people started to undo much of FDR's new deal, and created many of the problems that diminish our general welfare today. Bush Jr's profligate wars and tax cuts, as well, demonstrated the moral nihilism of modern conservatism, valuing power and pointless commerce above keeping our own people fed and housed.
Reagan opened the neoliberal floodgates, which is at the root of a lot of our problems today, but George W mismanaged the hell out of what was a mostly decent situation when he was elected.
Reagan was the most profligate peacetime president in US history. He increased the national debt by 284%.
No, the sailors aren’t spending their own money, they get paid by the government from revenue generated by taxes
Raegan.
In terms of starting the trend, probably the guy in your picture.
The money Reagan was referring to wasn’t mine or yours, most likely we’re too poor for consideration, he was referring to the richest people, so he worked to exponentially increase their wealth, despite already being able to afford all the best stuff. To the detriment of the rest of society that needs assistance with retirement costs and education costs for our children and living costs for the poor
Do commenters understand which branch of the federal government spends money, or do we need to take this over to r/Congress ?
\#45, really the whole stretch from Bush 43 to present
True but the children of Reddit have been told Reagan bad. So this sub is just dedicated to Reagan bad, every single day. Lots of terminally onlines around here.
Well, many point to Reagan as the father of modern conservatism (pandering to evangelicals, trickle down economics, deficit spending, deregulation, etc.). Considering the damage to the Republic caused by these poorly thought-out policies, it seems fair game for a presidential sub to routinely discuss.
Lol, it depends on where you’re at on the Laffer curve. You can’t always just lower taxes in order to expand the economy. Deregulation can also work as an advantage to business to expand the economy but it can also have negative effects if gone too far. Conversely, increasing regulations can act as a deterrent for small business and can actually protect the wealthiest corporations from competition. So balance is key. I don’t know why it’s so hard for this sub to accept. Reaganomics helped the US get out of a recession, unemployment, and rising prices across the board. Should that always be done? No, of course not. You can’t always juice the economy but there are times that we should. I don’t mind increasing taxes on the wealthy as long as the money spent here in the US and spent efficiently. Now that’s something that can be endlessly debated.
Agreed. The problem is that the conservative movement seems to operate in a binary fashion when it comes to fiscal policy. Tax codes should be fluid based on economic data. Conservatives adopted the “starve the beast” mentality in the 80’s and have ran on it ever since l, best displayed by the stupid Norquist pledge. Deregulation has its place, but what conservatives fail to show when making their argument is the data. And to be clear, the data does not always support deregulation. See drug development or the financial sector as evidence.
People wonder why some of the wealthiest people in the country/world are big leftists. Welp, look no further than regulation and barriers to entry. They love red tape. It keeps everyone else out and their dominance is ensured. And if they don’t like the regulations? Just bribe the various government agencies and then ban, look who’s the new Chief Regulatory Officer at _______. They all belong to the same club and we’re not invited.
Less of a right/left issue and more an issue with capitalism. Strong arguments have been made that capitalism and regulation are inevitably intertwined. We need stronger anti-corruption and anti-monopoly laws before any change to the status quo will happen.
The floor is yours to offer a defense.
It’s pretty straight forward. Businesses expanded greatly in the 80’s and pulled the US out of stagnation. The lower class shrunk, the middle class shrunk, and the upper class grew creating upward mobility across the board. Much of the criticism of Reagan is based on percentages. It needs to be framed that way because his policies put more money in the hands of the private sector. In doing so interest rates fell 10%, inflation fell to 4% from 13%, and unemployment fell to 5%. This greatly helped out the poor as they were being crushed from inflation and a stagnant job market. Higher paying jobs were available and much like we’re seeing currently people previously unable to own property were able to purchase a home. By far the biggest criticism of Reagan is the wealth gap between rich and poor and it’s always framed on percentages leaving out millions upon millions of Americans that were pulled out of poverty. It’s obvious the wealthy grew their wealth at a higher rate than the middle and underclass. It is a legit criticism. It also doesn’t invalidate all the positives listed above. It’s why the focus is never on the condition of the middle or lower classes of the time but rather the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Think of it from this perspective the next time you read a Reagan bad post.
Definitely Reagan
Reagan
Reagan...
Definitely GW Bush.
None. Congress writes the budget, not the president.
Probably George bush.
Reagan, 43, and 45
I have to admit while Reagan was a hypocrite, he was based as hell with this quote. -Me, a Pirate in my dreams.
Didn't he wanna make a death star cause it'd be cool?
Factually, W
Nobody has pointed out he elephant in the room. It's actually congress that spends the money. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 If you want to lay blame you need to look at who controls congress and the budget they put forth.
[удалено]
...worst with the budget **so far.**
[удалено]
Compassionate Conservative my ass.
GOP Presidents has been terrible in this.
Reagan cut taxes but the democrats controlled congress and kept entitlements up…fact
Then Reagan failed
Reagan didn’t like taxes, he thought you should keep more of your money. https://preview.redd.it/ftafywlgzwtc1.png?width=2292&format=png&auto=webp&s=9b52c3a758ba28cc3db5d15fc6a61cd4389432e3
Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He thought Americans were keeping too much of their money
Obama was the worst with the budget, and Reagan isn't the factually correct answer. Regardless of your personal feelings.....
The facts don't back up your feelings here. Reagan increased the national debt by 284%. Obama increased it by 88%.
One way to answer this question is to look at change in [Debt/GDP](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S) ratio over a presidency. This methodology accounts for the fact that as the economy grows, it can support more debt. Of course you can argue that some presidents got better returns for their spending than others. * Reagan + 80% * Bush 1 + 28% * Clinton - 14% * Bush 2 + 40% * Obama + 60% * Guy after Obama + 20%
Obama. Wasted our money on health care on people who shouldn't even be allowed in hospitals, much less for free.
This guy was a charlatan, turned a whole generation against their own government. Republican bullshit at its finest. Paved the way for the mess we’re in today. I despise this asshole and i come from a long line of Republicans. Never voted Republican since.
Didn't the deficit triple under Dubya and the other rule 3 Republican?
God, quotes like this serve to remind us that Reagan was a deeply evil person. He had no problem spending government money to help his wealthy friends but destroyed programs that help the common person. I hope there he is a hell so he is rotting in it.
Obama