Could Ronald Reagan still get the Republican nomination?

budget_deficit_chart.gif

wow.... Imagine that... a chart on BUDGET surpluses and deficits.

We all know just how much those matter....

Now... how about you go look at what the ACTUAL surpluses and deficits were.

Every single fiscal year since Ike left office, the idiots in the two parties have raised our nations debt. Every single friggin year. Good times. Bad times. Doesn't matter.
 
Yes, he could still get nominated in today's world!

100th Birthday Quote-to-Quote: The Real Ronald Reagan

“Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?”
– Ronald Reagan, campaign speech, 1980.

“Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.”
– Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976

“I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet, if necessary.”
– Ronald Reagan, Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1965

“I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
– Ronald Reagan, Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1966

“Today a newcomer to the state is automatically eligible for our many aid programs the moment he crosses the border.”
– Ronald Reagan, in a speech announcing his candidacy for Governor, January 3, 1966. (In fact, immigrants to California had to wait five years before becoming eligible for benefits. Reagan acknowledged his error, but nine months later said exactly the same thing.)

“…a faceless mass, waiting for handouts.”
– Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Description of Medicaid recipients.)

“Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.”
– California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966

“We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”
– Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964

“History shows that when the taxes of a nation approach about 20 percent of the people’s income, there begins to be a lack of respect for government…. When it reaches 25 percent, there comes an increase in lawlessness.”
– Ronald Reagan, in Time, April 14, 1980. (History shows no such thing. Income tax rates in Europe have traditionally been far higher than U.S. rates, while European crime rates have been much lower.)

“Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the G. I. Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything.”
– Ronald Reagan, in Newsweek, April 21, 1980. (Wrong again.)

“What we have found in this country, and maybe we’re more aware of it now, is one problem that we’ve had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice.”
– Ronald Reagan, defending himself against charges of callousness on Good Morning America, January 31, 1984

“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”
– Ronald Reagan (Republican candidate for president), quoted in the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, February 15, 1980. (In reality, the average nuclear reactor generates 30 tons of radioactive waste per year.)

“Trains are not any more energy efficient than the average automobile, with both getting about 48 passenger miles to the gallon.”
– Ronald Reagan, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, May 10, 1980. (The U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that a 14-car train traveling at 80 miles per hour gets 400 passenger miles to the gallon. A 1980 auto carrying an average of 2.2 people gets 42.6 passenger miles to the gallon.)

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The U.S. Geological Survey has told me that the proven potential for oil in Alaska alone is greater than the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia.”
– Ronald Reagan, quoted in the Detroit Free Press, March 23, 1980. (According to the USGS, the Saudi reserves of 165.5 billion barrels are 17 times the proven reserves–9.2 billion barrels–in Alaska.)

“I have flown twice over Mount St. Helens. I’m not a scientist and I don’t know the figures, but I have a suspicion that one little mountain out there, in these last several months, has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind.”
– Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time magazine, October 20, 1980. (According to scientists, Mount St. Helens emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day at its peak activity, compared with 81,000 tons per day produced by cars.)

“…until now has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this.”
– President Reagan revealing a disturbing view about the “coming of Armageddon,” December 6, 1983

“Ronald Reagan is the first modern President whose contempt for the facts is treated as a charming idiosyncrasy.”
– James David Barber, presidential scholar in “On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency,” by Mark Hertsgaard

“He demonstrated for all to see how far you can go in this life with a smile, a shoeshine and the nerve to put your own spin on the facts.”
– David Nyhan, Boston Globe columnist

“He has the ability to make statements that are so far outside the parameters of logic that they leave you speechless”
– Patti Davis (formerly Patricia Ann Reagan) talking about her father in “The Way I See It.”

“Poor dear, there’s nothing between his ears.”
– British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

By RS Janes
 
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter

By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years -- which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987 -- as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the "failed policies of Reagan and Bush." As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.

Today, though, you'd never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagan's image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.

More

You lie!
 
wow.... Imagine that... a chart on BUDGET surpluses and deficits.

We all know just how much those matter....

Now... how about you go look at what the ACTUAL surpluses and deficits were.

Every single fiscal year since Ike left office, the idiots in the two parties have raised our nations debt. Every single friggin year. Good times. Bad times. Doesn't matter.

Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared. ref
 
Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared. ref

again you post nonsense. Reagan's policies did not lead to the 2008 housing burst. That is pure nonsense. But good try at avoiding the point of my post.

Clinton may have 'budgeted' surpluses.... but he NEVER had an ACTUAL surplus.

The last President to have an ACTUAL surplus (that was then used to lower the nations debt) was Ike.

thus, the policy of 'borrow and spend' was started under Kennedy. Not Reagan (though Reagan continued it as well).
 
again you post nonsense. Reagan's policies did not lead to the 2008 housing burst. That is pure nonsense. But good try at avoiding the point of my post.

Clinton may have 'budgeted' surpluses.... but he NEVER had an ACTUAL surplus.

The last President to have an ACTUAL surplus (that was then used to lower the nations debt) was Ike.

thus, the policy of 'borrow and spend' was started under Kennedy. Not Reagan (though Reagan continued it as well).

Wrong again...Clinton did HAVE surpluses. They lowered the deficit, but because deficits from Reagan and Bush I were so large, the deficit surpluses only made a small dent in the DEBT.


Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015
(in millions of dollars)

Total
Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(−)

1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968
1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977
1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802
1984 666,438 851,805 -185,367
1985 734,037 946,344 -212,308
1986 769,155 990,382 -221,227
1987 854,288 1,004,017 -149,730
1988 909,238 1,064,416 -155,178
1989 991,105 1,143,744 -152,639
1990 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 [-269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241
 
Wrong again...Clinton did HAVE surpluses. They lowered the deficit, but because deficits from Reagan and Bush I were so large, the deficit surpluses only made a small dent in the DEBT.


Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015
(in millions of dollars)

Total
Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(−)

1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968
1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977
1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802
1984 666,438 851,805 -185,367
1985 734,037 946,344 -212,308
1986 769,155 990,382 -221,227
1987 854,288 1,004,017 -149,730
1988 909,238 1,064,416 -155,178
1989 991,105 1,143,744 -152,639
1990 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 [-269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241

take a look at the national debt moron.

Every single fiscal year since 1960 the debt has increased.

Every single fiscal year.

Do explain how the debt went UP in 1998-2000 if there were ACTUAL surpluses.
 
take a look at the national debt moron.

Every single fiscal year since 1960 the debt has increased.

Every single fiscal year.

Do explain how the debt went UP in 1998-2000 if there were ACTUAL surpluses.

You don't understand debt vs. deficits...

Debt vs Deficit

The government takes in revenues, or receipts, through income taxes, social insurance taxes, etc. The government also spends money every year (also known as outlays) on a variety of different things, including social security, defense spending, etc. etc.

If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits. Each year, the deficit is added to the debt.

If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down.

The debt usually grows year-after-year. With each additional deficit, the debt continues to grow.

Some people think that if a government takes in more money than it spends in one year, then it suddenly doesn't have any debt. This is not the case. This simply means that the government has managed to run a surplus (opposite of deficit), but any accumulated debt is still there.
 
Wrong again...Clinton did HAVE surpluses. They lowered the deficit, but because deficits from Reagan and Bush I were so large, the deficit surpluses only made a small dent in the DEBT.


Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015
(in millions of dollars)

Total
Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(−)

1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968
1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977
1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802
1984 666,438 851,805 -185,367
1985 734,037 946,344 -212,308
1986 769,155 990,382 -221,227
1987 854,288 1,004,017 -149,730
1988 909,238 1,064,416 -155,178
1989 991,105 1,143,744 -152,639
1990 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 [-269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241
Unrealized budget "surplus" do not a surplus make. Each of those years you put in blue we increased debt and overspent the budget.

One can make a budget that says one thing, but if they outspend it and borrow money they are not in a surplus no matter what the budget said.
 
Unrealized budget "surplus" do not a surplus make. Each of those years you put in blue we increased debt and overspent the budget.

One can make a budget that says one thing, but if they outspend it and borrow money they are not in a surplus no matter what the budget said.

They are in surplus for that fiscal year instead of in deficit for that fiscal year. BUT...the debt accumulates from previous years.
 
You don't understand debt vs. deficits...

Debt vs Deficit

The government takes in revenues, or receipts, through income taxes, social insurance taxes, etc. The government also spends money every year (also known as outlays) on a variety of different things, including social security, defense spending, etc. etc.

If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits. Each year, the deficit is added to the debt.

If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down.

The debt usually grows year-after-year. With each additional deficit, the debt continues to grow.

Some people think that if a government takes in more money than it spends in one year, then it suddenly doesn't have any debt. This is not the case. This simply means that the government has managed to run a surplus (opposite of deficit), but any accumulated debt is still there.

Wow.... you are a genius.

Of course a deficit is reflected by one year and debt is the accumulation of the net result of surpluses and deficits.

Now READ what YOU wrote and try and comprehend.

NO ONE said that if you ran a surplus in a given year that all debt would disappear.

What I stated is.... HOW did the debt go up every single fiscal year if there was a surplus?

Total debt CANNOT go up in a fiscal year when an ACTUAL surplus is run. Total debt would go DOWN if there was an ACTUAL surplus.
 
They are in surplus for that fiscal year instead of in deficit for that fiscal year. BUT...the debt accumulates from previous years.

wrong moron.

You have fiscal year end 1998 total national debt.

To get to fiscal year end 1999 total national debt you either ADD 1999's deficit to the 1998 total national debt OR you subtract 1999's surplus from the 1998 total national debt.

Thus, if 1999's total national debt is HIGHER than 1998, then there was a DEFICIT run.
 
Wow.... you are a genius.

Of course a deficit is reflected by one year and debt is the accumulation of the net result of surpluses and deficits.

Now READ what YOU wrote and try and comprehend.

NO ONE said that if you ran a surplus in a given year that all debt would disappear.

What I stated is.... HOW did the debt go up every single fiscal year if there was a surplus?

Total debt CANNOT go up in a fiscal year when an ACTUAL surplus is run. Total debt would go DOWN if there was an ACTUAL surplus.

In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50 billion. ref
Right off the bat, any annual surplus would have to exceed the interest that is constantly accruing to see a lower debt.
 
Last edited:
In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50 billion. ref
Right off the bat, any annual surplus would have to exceed the interest that is constantly accruing to see a lower debt.

ROFLMAO....

So... instead of looking at the ACTUAL TREASURY numbers.... you instead are going to provide a reference to an article?

Note to moron.... INTEREST is an EXPENSE. When you take REVENUE-EXPENSE... you INCLUDE interest.

When you have an ACTUAL surplus... the national debt GOES DOWN.

Not sure how to spell that out more simply for you... but something tells me I will either have to find a way to do so or simply accept the fact that you are too ignorant with regards to economics to understand a simple concept like debt and how it relates to an ACTUAL surplus or deficit.
 
ROFLMAO....

So... instead of looking at the ACTUAL TREASURY numbers.... you instead are going to provide a reference to an article?

Note to moron.... INTEREST is an EXPENSE. When you take REVENUE-EXPENSE... you INCLUDE interest.

When you have an ACTUAL surplus... the national debt GOES DOWN.

Not sure how to spell that out more simply for you... but something tells me I will either have to find a way to do so or simply accept the fact that you are too ignorant with regards to economics to understand a simple concept like debt and how it relates to an ACTUAL surplus or deficit.

You like to call me a moron, when you haven't even absorbed previous posts. The deficit/surplus and the debt are two different things.

So here is a simple example for morons, so you can ask mommy to explain:
If your manager at the McDonalds you flip burgers at gives you a Christmas bonus, would he give you the money, or would he send it to your trailer park office to pay down the 50 footer?
 
You like to call me a moron, when you haven't even absorbed previous posts. The deficit/surplus and the debt are two different things.

LMAO...

The funny thing is, you ARE a moron.

It is YOU who doesn't comprehend the relationship between a surplus/deficit and the total national debt.

As stated before.... our national debt is the sum total of all surpluses & deficits since our country was founded.

In a year when we have an ACTUAL surplus, the debt goes down year over year.

In a year when we have an ACTUAL deficit, the debt goes up year over year.

WHICH PART OF THAT CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND MORON???
 
How are you defining fiscally conservative?

If its anything like he defined "genocide", Reagan didn't actually have to be fiscally conservative. If we can't explain why he spent what he spent, he would, by definition, be fiscally conservative.
 
LMAO...

The funny thing is, you ARE a moron.

It is YOU who doesn't comprehend the relationship between a surplus/deficit and the total national debt.

As stated before.... our national debt is the sum total of all surpluses & deficits since our country was founded.

In a year when we have an ACTUAL surplus, the debt goes down year over year.

In a year when we have an ACTUAL deficit, the debt goes up year over year.

WHICH PART OF THAT CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND MORON???

Does all the surplus from a fiscal year HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO THE DEBT?
 
Back
Top