Do you really want to do this again?

 

He cut taxes. He spent money and won the cold war . People had more money in their pockets in the 80s. He cut a lot of domestic programs and domestic income taxes. He also had a democrat led congress that demanded spending increases as a compromise.

 

 

Reaganomics in its pure fiscal conservatism led to two decades of economic and job growth.

 

Just trying to figure out how you define fiscal conservative.

I like Senator Paul more, but think Gov. Christie's got the personality/makeup for the POTUS. Don't see myself voting for any ® other than Senator Paul. Just don't think I can align my views enough with any others. :idunno:

 

I like Rand Paul & would vote for him, but I think his chances are slim in a general election.

How many budgets were balanced during his 8 years? What percentage of the debt rose during his 8 years?

 

First Question - 0

 

 

The Federal Debt was 994 billion when he took office and was 2.7 trillion when he left. He raised the debt ceiling more than any President in history.

 

Fiscal Conservative?

 

Do the Math.

 

The Reagen period was the last period of responsible spending when the actual numbers are examined. That is not to say he or his predecessors (Carter, Ford) were directly responsible for keeping this managable trend going. It is also not say that H, Clinton or W were directly responsible for the escalating (and damaging in terms of budget control) spending. After all, Congress sets budgets. As much as we refer to eras in terms of Presidents when it comes to fiscal management one should look at the control of Congress as well.

 

In the Clinton era the notable escalator in the budget was Medicare. Its started its rise above historical trends at this time. As did Social Security. The difference is that Social Security is mostly 'off budget' since it is not part of the general government budget and has its own pool of monies. Medicare is mostly 'on-budget', it is included in the general budget. And it has been on upward and escalating trend since the late 1980s. The reason is simple - the aging baby boomers. Not only are they extracting from the off-budget Social Security fund in greater numbers, they also were going onto the Medicare roles - thus driving Medicare spending at ever increasing rate.

 

During the Clinton years this increase and escalating increase was contained - mostly via the post cold war 'peace dividend'. Military spending was dramatically cut. So that action helped absorb the increasing Medicare costs. But also another factor helped get to the only balanced budgets in recent history - a constantly rising and strong stock market. Capital gains tax revenues were very strong during the Clinton era as the economy grew, the market rose and capital gains taxes rolled into the tax coffers. So along with the 'peace dividend' revenues grew and the impact of the constantly increasing Medicare cost were mostly absorbed.

 

Then came 9/11. This curtailed the increasing tax revenues since the market sustained a mini-crash and then took a long to get back. And since then it has grown slowly - much slower than during the Clinton era. Additionally, military spending increased post 9/11. Another negative impact in terms of Federal spending. All during this time Medicare spending was growing - and increasing its rate of growth.

 

The spending elephant in the room is Medicare - period. And it started its increasingly upward trend in the 1990s. Does that make it 'Clinton's fault' or make 'Regan a hero'. Not at all - it is what it is. And it has been what it is regardless of who is President and regardless of who control Congress. This should not be unexpected. The entire population goes onto Medicare at age 65. And people are living longer. So the burden placed on this program is universal and growing. Yet the funding source - the tax on our payrolls - has remained constant and the only growth has been with increasing earned-income payrolls. It is here that the math simple 'does not work'.

 

Reagan, were he alive and vibrant today, and his policies of the early 1980s would not save us. The Medicare monster is now, apparently, completely uncontrollable. No President, no party has the will to address it. And so it remains with no solution. The new monster in the Federal budget is interest on the debt. Except for the couple of years of surpluses in the Clinton era this has been building. But it also was on a manageable trend line. This changed in 2008 with the economic downturn and escalated with the 'stimulus package'. It will become the second largest part of the Federal budget in the near future. And it is growing at rates that no other budget element has ever done - including Medicare.

 

The point is that spending in the near future will be dominated by the two elements of Medicare and interest. In fact, all other budget line items are projected to actually decrease in the future - not that that has ever happened in history. The final point is that this all completely unsustainable. As you posted - DO THE MATH. If you do you will find it does not work. Something has to give.

 

The chart below graphically shows the points above.

 

 

Sorry for the long post.

To see the chart above (based on actual CBO numbers) right click and click 'show image'.

Christie is very electable, he is a fiscally conservative (in some sense) democrat/progressive, I don't know if he is a true Republican - I'll admit the party is so fractured I don't think anyone knows what one is.

 

 

He is a flip flopper on issues - Gun Control, abortion, immigration, and Obamacare.

 

 

I like him but I don't like him....weird.

but I think his chances are slim in a general election.

 

I agree. I think Rand could win in the Primary but would lose in the Gen Election and Christie could win in the Gen Election but probably will not make it through the primary so we will end up with Hillary as pres......................blah.