Who is more conservative - Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama?

If you think that's an absurd question, you're not alone. We had this discussion on The Dylan Ratigan Show when I was filling in for him on MSNBC and both of my guests thought it was absurd. A conservative website led with the headline that it was absurd (though they did not present one single fact to back up their claim). Except as it turns out, based on the facts, it is a really hard question to answer. And it would be absurd to claim otherwise.

Ronald Reagan:

-Gave Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants
-Negotiated with Terrorists (Traded Arms for Hostages with Iran)
-Raised Taxes on a Large Scale Four Times (After Initially Lowering Them)
-Negotiated with the "Evil Empire" without Pre-conditions
-Made a Decision to "Cut and Run" From Lebanon After Our Troops Were Attacked
In fact, as you look at the Reagan list, it seems he is the exact opposite of what conservatives now claim they want. It looks like the caricature of what they think liberals do. There is no way that even Dennis Kucinich would be able to do all of those things; he certainly wouldn't negotiate with terrorists the way Reagan did.
Of course, Reagan also took the country further right in many ways but our political spectrum has moved so far to the right that he looks left behind by comparison. So, let's go to Obama and see what that "socialist" is up to.

Barack Obama:

-Escalated the Afghanistan War (Added 30,000 More Troops)
-Has Ordered Drone Strikes (Assassinations) on US Citizens Outside the Country
-Gave Drug Companies Near Monopoly Power by Barring Imports, Extending Patents and Not Allowing the Government to Negotiate Better Prices
-Funneled Billions into the Biggest Banks in the Country After They Crashed the Economy
-Stacked Deficit Commission with Fiscal Conservatives
-Lowered Taxes Significantly (Stimulus Bill)
-Ordered Increased Offshore Drilling Before BP Spill

The Obama team would argue that they did a lot of this because the Republicans made them do it. First, that's entirely untrue because the Republicans didn't make them pass any bills. The GOP also didn't give most of this legislation a single yes vote, so they could have been entirely ignored if Obama had the courage to do that. And many of the items on the list are executive actions, which the Republicans have no control over.

Second, conservative is as conservative does. If you implement this many conservative positions, are you really sure you're not one?

Now, people will cry and scream that we had the most historic health care reform and will soon have the most historic financial reform ever. Isn't that progressive enough?! No, that's nonsense. They are called historic only because the White House called them that. Financial reform is a joke that still leaves the big banks in charge and has failed to end "too big to fail." And yes, health care reform actually covers more people if they ever get it (maybe in 2014) and if they can afford it (depends on what private insurance decides to charge them), but it still leaves the health care system exactly as it was before. This is the progressive change people voted for?

The bottom line is that, no matter what the reason, Obama seems to be in some important ways significantly to the right of Reagan on the political spectrum. If Reagan ordered the execution of US citizens abroad, he might have been impeached. If Obama tried to give undocumented immigrants blanket amnesty the way Reagan did, he might be impeached.

I don't think Obama is a hard right-winger. It's just that the political establishment in this country has moved so far to the right (though not the public, according to polls on specific issues) that as a natural politician when he goes to appease them, he is solidly center-right on the spectrum.

And the political line has moved so far that if Reagan tried to run as a Republican now he would be the laughing stock of the party. Rush Limbaugh would tear him to shreds and Bill Kristol would say he is Neville Chamberlain. He would be run out of town as a tax-raising, amnesty giving, terrorist negotiating, cut and run no-good lib who hates the troops.

And anyone who claims otherwise is being absurd. As Reagan once said, "Facts are stubborn things."

Source (with 11 minute video of the debate):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/who-is-more-conservative_b_638947.html

I agree that at face value the question is absurd, but the article does bring up some very good points. I guess that in the long run, politics isn't always black and white (so-to-speak).

alland wrote:I agree that at face value the question is absurd, but the article does bring up some very good points. I guess that in the long run, politics isn't always black and white (so-to-speak).

They never are, as much as people would like them to do. That's why it's absurd to call Obama a Socialist or Communist, because there are plenty of stages between small government and Socialism, it's all in the shades of gray.

Still there is a pont where one crosses over and I can't help but wonder if he has.

Well, the Regaen list are liberal things he did, whereas the Obama list consists of conservative things he did. If one would make a list of Conservatives things Regaen did, I'm sure they'd heavily outnumber the liberal things he did. The same goes for Obama, just vice versa.

That's the whole point of the article... proving that Obama is drifting towards socialism....

It also bears to point out that Reagan had a Democrat controlled House of Representatives for his whole 8 years. He had Dem control of the Senate for 2 of those 8. But the House (as i've said before in other posts) are the body that appropriates spending. There's many ways to maneuver around certain things. I read his autobiography (an Xmas Gift) and pointed out that you have to compromise on certain issues when dealing with the other party. This is where he had to do X, Y and Z on different issues. Obama has huge majorities (for now) and can get most anything passed. He had a better chance when he had a filibuster proof Senate. He's one vote shy of that.

Anyway (drifting off), people like to point out the bad things Reagan did as a conservative but not point out the good things. People like to point out the good things Obama has done but leave out the bad things. Both sides are guilty of it.

Yet Regaen is the one who mainly pushed the policies.

Regaen was a smart fella (not a fart smella ) he did wonders in the Cold War, but his whole "government is the problem" approach to business did not do the middle class/average American any good.

"Conservative" and "Right Wing" are not inherently tied together. Don't forget that "Conservative" at its most base level means 'preservation'. A staunch Stalinist in Communist Russia might consider himself "Conservative" in that respect.

Angela Merkel's Party the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union) are conservative but still committed to Social Democracy. When we refer to "the right" we talk about the NPD, the "Nationalist Party Deutschlands" aka the WWII gov't leftovers and when we say "the left" we mean the party called "Die Linken" (translated: The Leftists) aka the leftovers from former East-Germany.

I've known for probably twenty years or more that I'm very liberal when it comes to social policies. It's how I was brought up and how I've lived. And I'm certain it's for that reason that I consider myself a "liberal". But apparently I do have some "conservative" tendencies too - at least if you go by media definitions. One biggy in particular is the death penalty, which is supposedly a conservative ideal. Well, I'm in support of it. Of course there needs to be a hell of a good reason to use it, but I definitely think that sometimes circumstances warrant using it. As for "money" issues, I really haven't thought about it much. But I will say that I think that governments should live within their budgets, especially seeing as that's what the people have to do... But having said that, I think those budgets could be reduced in much different ways than the "conservatives" like doing it. Instead of cutting social programs (that people need), why can't we just slash defense spending? I mean the US (supposedly) spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. That's why I have no sympathy for those (especially "righties") who scream about over-spending. If they don't like over-spending, then don't do it!

BubbleBliss wrote:
Yet Regaen is the one who mainly pushed the policies.

Regaen was a smart fella (not a fart smella ) he did wonders in the Cold War, but his whole "government is the problem" approach to business did not do the middle class/average American any good.

All presidents push their policies. All of them. It's up to them to talk congress into implementing it. In Reagan's case, he had to work with Dems in the House for 8 years. Bush had GOP control for 6 of 8 so he was able to ram his shit thru. Same with Obama for most of his administration (till Scott Brown).

That bit is debatable on the middle class. It's funny on how the economy took off like a wildfire after his 2nd year.

i_luv_miley wrote:I've known for probably twenty years or more that I'm very liberal when it comes to social policies. It's how I was brought up and how I've lived. And I'm certain it's for that reason that I consider myself a "liberal". But apparently I do have some "conservative" tendencies too - at least if you go by media definitions. One biggy in particular is the death penalty, which is supposedly a conservative ideal. Well, I'm in support of it. Of course there needs to be a hell of a good reason to use it, but I definitely think that sometimes circumstances warrant using it. As for "money" issues, I really haven't thought about it much. But I will say that I think that governments should live within their budgets, especially seeing as that's what the people have to do... But having said that, I think those budgets could be reduced in much different ways than the "conservatives" like doing it. Instead of cutting social programs (that people need), why can't we just slash defense spending? I mean the US (supposedly) spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. That's why I have no sympathy for those (especially "righties") who scream about over-spending. If they don't like over-spending, then don't do it!

Can you read your quote?

Most people aren't stuck in an ideology like most paint others to be (on left and right). I have certain views that don't even go to either side. As you all know, i'm big on the constitution. If government were accordance with the US Constitution, none of us would really care much which president got elected, because it wouldn't impact our lives that much.

Conservatively speaking, i'm big on fiscal issues. I'm big on budgets like you, Miley. I feel a good defense is necessary also. I'm a fan of laws being followed. Since we regular Joe's have to follow the law, politicians should be beholden even more so.

Liberally, i feel like gays should have the right to marry if a state wants to make it law. But at the same time, i feel that this issue will end up at the USSC someday and they will rule it constitutional because of the Equal Protections clause in the constitution. But for now, any state that wants to legalize it, should.

Religion? I could care less about it as long as they aren't stepping on my toes and trying to make me wear their shoes (like Carlin said). But some of the lawsuits regarding religion (mostly ACLU represented) are stupid. I don't have that much respect for the ACLU myself. The constitution says that the federal gov't can't force a religion on us or not. That's it.

Abortion, i don't care about it on a moral issue. I feel that the USSC's ruling in '73 was wrong based on the fact that it's not a privacy issue since the right to privacy isn't in the constitution. It should be states issue like the death penalty. Those who want it, can have it. Those that don't, don't. Most states would allow it except some of the southern states and Utah.

Welfare is necessary because there will always be people that need help via things that happened that aren't their fault. It needs to be refined more. It's been loosened under this administration after Bill Clinton tightened it down. Too much waste as it is.

Free speech for all. Frree press for all. The religious think porn isn't free speech. They're wrong. How do i know this? I like porn!

All i can come up with off the top of my pointy head.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Yet Regaen is the one who mainly pushed the policies.

Regaen was a smart fella (not a fart smella ) he did wonders in the Cold War, but his whole "government is the problem" approach to business did not do the middle class/average American any good.

All presidents push their policies. All of them. It's up to them to talk congress into implementing it. In Reagan's case, he had to work with Dems in the House for 8 years. Bush had GOP control for 6 of 8 so he was able to ram his shit thru. Same with Obama for most of his administration (till Scott Brown).

That bit is debatable on the middle class. It's funny on how the economy took off like a wildfire after his 2nd year.

How is it debatable? The economy took off but 90% of that growth went to the top 1% of all Americans.

"The Squandering of America" is a book that exlains this in more detail. First chapter summary:

Although the economy on recent decades has had good economic growth on average, the fruits of that growth have been astonishingly concentrated among the top one percent, and more narrowly, the top one-hundredth of one percent. The median American family, adjusting for hours worked, has suffered a decline in living standards over the past three decades, despite a near doubling of GDP. Among the more subtle and insidious dynamics of the hidden depression are:

Families working longer hours to maintain income levels, which is really a reduction in *living standards.
Higher-than-average price increases in the basics that allow people to join the secure middle class - college tuition, health insurance premiums, homeownership.
Eroding retirement protection, as large corporations shift from real pension plans to tax-sheltered savings devices like 401k plans that are grossly inadequate.
A shifting of risks to workers and families once borne by government and large employers - risks of job loss, of inadequate health coverage, or retirement security.

http://www.squanderingofamerica.com/chapters.cfm#2

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.

As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.

As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.

Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.

This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.

The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.

From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.

In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.

Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.

These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.

Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.

Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:

For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;

For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and

For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.

On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:

For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;

For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;

For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and

For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record

William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore
October 22, 1996

Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

* Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute

Like I said, there was growth, but it only went to a certain amount of Americans.

Again....

real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

My wages got better (trucking) during the 80's. They stagnated during the Bush/Clinton/Bush... which means the wage rose and then stayed at the peak i had gotten to. That's the little guy's job, btw. You see, i lived it.

That doesn't mean that it actually grew that way in real families. They got that number by taking the economic increase and dividing it by the number of households.

BubbleBliss wrote:
That doesn't mean that it actually grew that way in real families. They got that number by taking the economic increase and dividing it by the number of households.

You seem to always have to have the last word even when someone points out a fact when they actually lived during those times. You weren't born then... or just a freshly produced commodity at the time.

Trucking isn't a rich man's job by any stretch. Get that? But the wages got very good in the 80s till the mid-90s when they stagnated... and have been that way ever since.

That's trucking... what about the other occupations?

And I don't know if trucking would qualify you on the middle class income level, though I don't know.

No matter if you lived it or not, FACTS say that there has been no real growth in middle class income. On the contrary, education has gotten more expensive, as had childcare and the standard of living in general.

BubbleBliss wrote:
That's trucking... what about the other occupations?

How many other occupations do you want to debate about?

BubbleBliss wrote:
That's trucking... what about the other occupations?

And I don't know if trucking would qualify you on the middle class income level, though I don't know.

No matter if you lived it or not, FACTS say that there has been no real growth in middle class income. On the contrary, education has gotten more expensive, as had childcare and the standard of living in general.

No real growth? Bah. This is from the Census Bureau and the Joint Economic Committee... an arm of the House and Senate.


Naw, there was no growth for families back then.

Median means it's averaged out according to economic growth, it doesn't mean that that's how much every family gained.
It's like saying my dad made $3,000 more so median growth for each of 3 family members is $1,000.