Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General "Reagan Principles"

Senator, the danger of a "mandated" president was never more demonstrated than with Reagan's administration. A mandate that cowers the Congress into a rubberstamp machine is a failed congress. Too many of those have existed in the last 28 years.

A president who proposes a bogus budget under a bogus scenario is no more the leader, and every bit the executive spender, than than is the congress who bites the apple. The "cut taxes to increase revenues through economic growth" approach - even with the invoking of Kennedy - has proven to fail & fail & fail. For the executive branch to see that & execute its right to spend knowing it is driving the nation into a financial abyss is not leadership.

Like much of the black & white wording of the Constitution, practice ain't what's always preached. Should it be? Yeah, probably, but that requires guts on the parts of all parties participating. The congress hasn't often had 'em, and the executive has regularly played the part of the unchallenged bully...cuz, gosh, our guy might be there next and heaven forbid (s)he be restrained by constitutionalized fiscal sanity.

That is of course if you conveniently forget about the "mandated" presidency of FDR. To this day the Senate is still considered brave for standing up to FDR for his court packing scheme.

Exactly. That is what the Republican campaigns are running toward - the idea of Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about the facts of Reagan's reign, but the bottom line is that he remains one of the most popular Presidents ever, and is considered by many to be among the best Presidents ever.

When we talk about "Reagan Principles", we should keep this in mind: he perfected the fine art of denying the obvious, deflecting blame, and changing the subject. He wasn't called "the Teflon President" because Teflon was invented during his term.

The facts may not change the popularity point, but they certainly get in the way of the "among the best" category. There may have been intended principles, but the resulting failure to apply those principles is fact.

I don't believe FDR fit within the 28 year time frame I noted Senator. I'd suggest, though, that FDR satisfied his mandate successfully, without bankrupting the country. He got the country to successfully invest in itself when & where its citizens needed an investment. I know it is upsetting to some that many of those programs are still in place and operating for a valid reason. I doubt the same will be said of any Reagan or Bush program directives 40 or 60 years from now, though we may still be cleaning up some of their "initiatives".

The Senator's point about FDR is spot on. Both FDR and RR were revered for the same reasons, and odd as it may seem, by the same people. Many of those who lives spanned the decades that included both of their Presidencies were supporters of both men. They shared qualities that appealed to people who believed that America is the best hope for the world, that everybody deserves a fair shake, that people will work hard and work together if they are treated fairly and given a chance.

Neither man was perfect, and not all their good ideas have worked out well in practice. No surprise. But does anyone doubt that we'd be better off with a President who is loved and respected, even revered?

Just being a stickler.

The Congress authorizes spending

The Executive actually spends those funds.

Or not, as seen by many great presidents, who refused to release the funding for congressional excesses.

Yup...and some executives are not spendthrifts.

Can someone name some programs started under the "Reagan Principles" which have bettered this nation? Being popular, beloved & witty doesn't cut it. I don't buy the ending the cold war bit either...Gorby had just as much or more to do with that on the Soviet side of politics.

Reagan did not cut spending. Any thoughts?

No republican of the Reagan ere proposed any spending cuts that would offset the enormous increase in defense spending he lead.

Well, not exactly. The Reagan principle was supply side economics. You cut taxes, and the economy booms as a result, and the additional taxes on the differential output more than make up for the spending cuts.

In addition, tax cuts were part of the "Kill the beast" strategy of politics. The idea being if you eliminate revenues, and drive the government deeply in debt through non-negotiable defense expenditures--- it will force cuts in social spending (or at least circumscribe any potential expansion of social programs).

Interestingly, when Clinton was President, the Republican congress discovered that it was possible to commit themselves to fiscal responsibility by insisting that all new expenditure be fully funded. This commitment disappeared when Bush became president. No doubt republican commitment to this principal will return during the next democratic administration. It seems that republicans can only control spending by democratic presidents.

You know, every time I see the title to this thread I laugh out loud. Reagan and principles? Give me a break. Reagan was the biggest fake and liar on the planet in his day. The problem was, he lost track of reality and started believing his press. What is even more shocking is that people still believe.