Reagan vs Obama: Raw Numbers of the 1st two years

[amrchaos]

There is something everyone is missing.

How long does a President policies come into effect?

I doubt tax cutting or deficit spending have the kind of immediate effects that everyone is surmising here. Reagan's policies did not kick in until about 1983(84 at the very latest) and it is highly doubtful that the results of Obama's Keyesian policies did anything immediate except stopping some banks and the auto-industry from falling.

In other words, the first two years is no more than the results of the previous administrations policies and what effects the new policies are doing to turn it around.

Inshort, the stage of the economy after two years should be a turning point statistic.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

 

[Stephanie]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

lol, and he and his "significant legislation" is the reason for the HISTORIC ass kicking the Democrats took in November.
carry on though

 

[Trajan]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

do you even read posts...at all?I just showed that that is a sham, and the 2 year thing is crap,its a number, a benchmark YOU set, because you have nothing else....period.

its how long after the 'recession' is over till the economy comes back is whats paramount but, because obama has been one big fail with a supra majority to boot, ( and thats according to his own experts too, Romer, Summers Orzag), you'll just ignore that because fantasy is a womb....and reality sux. What color is it in there?

 

[rightwinger]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

lol, and he and his "significant legislation" is the reason for the HISTORIC ass kicking the Democrats took in November.
carry on though

Obama did better than Reagan his first two years

We will see how he does after eight

 

[rightwinger]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

do you even read posts...at all?I just showed that that is a sham, and the 2 year thing is crap,its a number, a benchmark YOU set, because you have nothing else....period.

its how long after the 'recession' is over till the economy comes back is whats paramount but, because obama has been one big fail with a supra majority to boot, ( and thats according to his own experts too, Romer, Summers Orzag), you'll just ignore that because fantasy is a womb....and reality sux. What color is it in there?

Two years is the only benchmark we have...time

You can't ignore the collapsing economy during Reagans first two years

 

[Stephanie]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

lol, and he and his "significant legislation" is the reason for the HISTORIC ass kicking the Democrats took in November.
carry on though

Obama did better than Reagan his first two years

We will see how he does after eight

whatever your crystal ball thinks.

 

[uscitizen]

It is just that Reagan does shine when compared to most republican preaidents in recent history.
Slim pickings for the right wingers.

 

[Trajan]

Obama did better economically the first two years, he is more popular than Reagan in the first two years and he passed more significant legislation

do you even read posts...at all?I just showed that that is a sham, and the 2 year thing is crap,its a number, a benchmark YOU set, because you have nothing else....period.

its how long after the 'recession' is over till the economy comes back is whats paramount but, because obama has been one big fail with a supra majority to boot, ( and thats according to his own experts too, Romer, Summers Orzag), you'll just ignore that because fantasy is a womb....and reality sux. What color is it in there?

Two years is the only benchmark we have...time

You can't ignore the collapsing economy during Reagans first two years

sorry, you don't get to define the debate to make yourself right or give yourself an out...its been 18 months since the recession ended, where is the growth? wheres the jobs? wheres the dollar? wheres inflation?

and you apparently have not read my prior posts , gee surprise surprise do I need to repost them all? No where did I ignore the economy in 81 and 82, I SAID it was Reagans recession, he owned it. You see, unlike you, I don't gloss over the inconvenient and factual to back my dog in a fight, it is what it is......try it some time.

gee how much time would like, oh say lets use your heros benchmark, FDR, so, what?another 5 years of this? oh sure why not. Obama will be successful one day. just give him more timmmmeeee.......

do you want to explore the Krugman commentary on Reagan then, when he made it?? using his yardstick then obama should be king of the world and we should be zipping along at plus 6% growth and unemployment ( wiht nio loss of labor participation) should be dropping, and inflation flat-lined with record federal revenue........

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry pal

Reagan was responsible for the entire period of office including the 10.8 percent unemployment. Arbitrarily cherry picking only the period once the recession ends is deceptive

Look at two years of Obama vs two years of Reagan and Obama wins hands down. If you want to look at three years or four years ...we can do that to..when the time comes

 

[boedicca]

Obama is No Reagan.

Begin with the economy. Reagan and Obama both inherited deep and brutal recessions. But the first six recovery quarters look completely different for each president.

So far, real gross domestic product has averaged only 3 percent annually for Obama. Employment as defined by nonfarm payrolls has increased by a paltry 121,000.

On the other hand, going back to Reagan's first six recovery quarters, real GDP averaged 7.7 percent annually, while nonfarm payrolls rose by 5.3 million.

No two situations are exactly alike. Reagan inherited massive double-digit inflation with 20 percent interest rates. Obama was left with a colossal financial meltdown. But Reagan's economic vision put private-sector free enterprise at the center. Obama has chosen a massive expansion of government power.

These are huge differences. One succeeded, while thus far the other has not.

While Obama's first act was an $800 billion government-spending package, one of Reagan's first decisions was a near $50 billion domestic-spending cut ($100 billion in constant dollars today). Obama went for a nationalized health care plan, energy cap-and-tax-and-trade and pro-union card check. Reagan ended wage and price controls, deregulated all energy prices, terminated the Synthetic Fuels Corp. and fired the striking air-traffic controllers. Big differences.

Drawing from the work of Arthur Laffer and Robert Mundell, Reagan saw the economic-growth benefits of limited government, lower tax rates and a dollar as good as gold. Gold prices plunged as Reagan and Paul Volcker worked to vanquish inflation. Ever-soaring inflation was the cruelest tax hike of all. But in the Reagan years, the inflation rate dropped from near 13 percent to as low as 2 percent -- a huge disinflation tax cut. Accompanied by lower marginal tax rates, the Reagan policies sparked a powerful recovery in business and jobs.

Reagan slashed tax rates across the board for individuals, investors and businesses. At the margin, his reforms lowered the top personal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. And he left a simple two-bracket tax code that cut thousands of pages of IRS rules and regulations.

And while the top individual tax rate was slashed under Reagan, individual income-tax revenues increased from roughly $300 billion to $450 billion. In other words, the Laffer curve worked. With surging economic growth, the incentives from lower tax rates actually raised tax revenues.

Obama Equal Reagan? So Far, It Ain't Even Close - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Avorysuds]

As far as the numbers go, Obama is looking significantly better than Reagan.

Now, I'm not Reagan bashing here, personally I kind of liked him, but it just seems odd to me that the same people who idolize Reagan are loud critics of Obama's performance so far.

I need to understand this... Are you trying to show how Regan and Obama are similar?

I mean, outside of the simple fact that Obama did massive stimulus and bailouts and so on what can you show in your incredibly unscientific "use of numbers" here. We have two different time periods with much different settings. Also Reagan’s goal was not to change shit overnight, it was a give get strategy. There is a simple reason you and many liberals compare the very early years of Reagan to “stuff” rather than his total presidency, it’s called cherry picking.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's apples and oranges.

The economy was vastly different, the population was much smaller etc etc.

You people talk as if the president actually controls the unemployment rate. You would think Obama's failure to keep his 8% promise would have shown you the light.

 

[Avorysuds]

Sorry pal

Reagan was responsible for the entire period of office including the 10.8 percent unemployment. Arbitrarily cherry picking only the period once the recession ends is deceptive

Look at two years of Obama vs two years of Reagan and Obama wins hands down. If you want to look at three years or four years ...we can do that to..when the time comes

Did Reagan do a near trillion dollar stimulus with bail outs to save the US for the Great Depression 2.0? Funny how he had it "worse" but didn't have to do things like Obama or hahah Bush to fix the probelems...

Of course you don't have to ben even half way smart to know these are 2 very different time periods and to compare random numbers is outright fucking moronic.

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama is No Reagan.

Begin with the economy. Reagan and Obama both inherited deep and brutal recessions. But the first six recovery quarters look completely different for each president.

So far, real gross domestic product has averaged only 3 percent annually for Obama. Employment as defined by nonfarm payrolls has increased by a paltry 121,000.

On the other hand, going back to Reagan's first six recovery quarters, real GDP averaged 7.7 percent annually, while nonfarm payrolls rose by 5.3 million.

No two situations are exactly alike. Reagan inherited massive double-digit inflation with 20 percent interest rates. Obama was left with a colossal financial meltdown. But Reagan's economic vision put private-sector free enterprise at the center. Obama has chosen a massive expansion of government power.

These are huge differences. One succeeded, while thus far the other has not.

While Obama's first act was an $800 billion government-spending package, one of Reagan's first decisions was a near $50 billion domestic-spending cut ($100 billion in constant dollars today). Obama went for a nationalized health care plan, energy cap-and-tax-and-trade and pro-union card check. Reagan ended wage and price controls, deregulated all energy prices, terminated the Synthetic Fuels Corp. and fired the striking air-traffic controllers. Big differences.

Drawing from the work of Arthur Laffer and Robert Mundell, Reagan saw the economic-growth benefits of limited government, lower tax rates and a dollar as good as gold. Gold prices plunged as Reagan and Paul Volcker worked to vanquish inflation. Ever-soaring inflation was the cruelest tax hike of all. But in the Reagan years, the inflation rate dropped from near 13 percent to as low as 2 percent -- a huge disinflation tax cut. Accompanied by lower marginal tax rates, the Reagan policies sparked a powerful recovery in business and jobs.

Reagan slashed tax rates across the board for individuals, investors and businesses. At the margin, his reforms lowered the top personal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. And he left a simple two-bracket tax code that cut thousands of pages of IRS rules and regulations.

And while the top individual tax rate was slashed under Reagan, individual income-tax revenues increased from roughly $300 billion to $450 billion. In other words, the Laffer curve worked. With surging economic growth, the incentives from lower tax rates actually raised tax revenues.

Obama Equal Reagan? So Far, It Ain't Even Close - Rasmussen Reports™

Holy fuck thank you... thumbs up for you.

 

[boedicca]

5.3M new jobs > 121K new jobs

And that is why Reagan was a much better President than Obama can ever hope to be.

 

[Jeremy]

Here's an idea. Let's compare NFL running back stats from 2010 and 1983. Numbers don't lie. Facts are facts. Spin is spin.

 

[rightwinger]

5.3M new jobs > 121K new jobs

And that is why Reagan was a much better President than Obama can ever hope to be.

Clinton had 21 million new jobs

Guess that makes him the greatest president of our generation

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm no Reagan fanboy, but watching liberals go HA HA, Obama is like Reagan, don't you "righties" just HATE that?

Then to see those VERY same liberals rip Reagan apart and claim he was a horrid president is just amazing. No amount of trying to point out just how fucking moroinc they look when saying Obama/Reagan are the same then attacking Reagan while telling us all how wonderfull Obama is seems to help.

 

[Avorysuds]

5.3M new jobs > 121K new jobs

And that is why Reagan was a much better President than Obama can ever hope to be.

Clinton had 21 million new jobs

Guess that makes him the greatest president of our generation

he also had the .com bubble and he helped make the housing bubble... Well, him and his Republican congress. And anyways, are we talking jobs per year, term month?