Reagan vs Obama

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 12, 2007
59,384
24,019
2,290
I'm putting this in Politics because the economic performance is a function of policy, leadership and politics.

Reagan vs. Obama - A Tale of Two Recoveries

Which policies achieved the better result:


boedicca-albums-more-boedicca-s-stuff-picture3478-rvo.jpg


And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.

How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).

What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.

Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....


Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents - Investors.com
 
Funny how the article makes no mention of what the top tax rates were under Reagan. Perhaps we should revert back to those levels?
 
You continue to celebrate your economic illiteracy. Reagan cut taxes overall.
 
"In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint"

Was the person who wrote this drunk?
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH


they are just so propaganda filled they dont get the implcations of their own propaganda.
 
"In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint"

Was the person who wrote this drunk?

To some extent, Reagan deserves credit for trying to slow spending.

a. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, from the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act, set specific deficit reduction targets, and would have required drastic slashing of defense and domestic spending programs by 1990…except that Congress re-wrote the bill. John Samples, “The Struggle to Limit Government: A Modern Political History,” p. 139.

b. “Ronald Reagan sought- and won- more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last [forty-five] years to cut inflation adjusted nondefense outlays, which fells by 9.7 percent during his first term.” Veronique de Rugy, “President Reagan: Champion Budget-Cutter,” AEI - Papers

c. But…over his two terms, total federal spending increased 22% faster than inflation. On the other hand, if you consider it as a percentage of GDP, since he grew the economy, spending actually decreased from 22.2% to 21.2 %. Historical Tables | The White House

d. On March 25, 1986, The Senate came within one vote of the 2/3 for a balanced budget constitutional amendment...but not even close in the House.
 
Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster. There were not one..but two major bailouts and multiple bank failures. It took the very pragmatic and very sound domestic policies of George HW Bush to steer the United States out of failure. But heck..the mythmaking continues unabated by the right..
 
I'm putting this in Politics because the economic performance is a function of policy, leadership and politics.

Reagan vs. Obama - A Tale of Two Recoveries

Which policies achieved the better result:


boedicca-albums-more-boedicca-s-stuff-picture3478-rvo.jpg


And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.

How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).

What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.

Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither....


Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents - Investors.com

Very important to keep trying to teach them the economic facts....sorry it wouldn't allow me to add a rep.
 
What was the tax on the 1% when Reagan was in office?

How dep was the recession Ronnie dealth with?


Who got us out of the great depression?
 
Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster. There were not one..but two major bailouts and multiple bank failures. It took the very pragmatic and very sound domestic policies of George HW Bush to steer the United States out of failure. But heck..the mythmaking continues unabated by the right..

And the right repaid him for his efforts by making him a one termer
 
"In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint"

Was the person who wrote this drunk?

To some extent, Reagan deserves credit for trying to slow spending.

a. The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, from the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act, set specific deficit reduction targets, and would have required drastic slashing of defense and domestic spending programs by 1990…except that Congress re-wrote the bill. John Samples, “The Struggle to Limit Government: A Modern Political History,” p. 139.

b. “Ronald Reagan sought- and won- more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last [forty-five] years to cut inflation adjusted nondefense outlays, which fells by 9.7 percent during his first term.” Veronique de Rugy, “President Reagan: Champion Budget-Cutter,” AEI - Papers

c. But…over his two terms, total federal spending increased 22% faster than inflation. On the other hand, if you consider it as a percentage of GDP, since he grew the economy, spending actually decreased from 22.2% to 21.2 %. Historical Tables | The White House

d. On March 25, 1986, The Senate came within one vote of the 2/3 for a balanced budget constitutional amendment...but not even close in the House.

Thanks for that, now please provide me a link that shows the budgets he approved during the 8 years of his presidency.

I agree that Obama is a wild out of control spender, but so was Reagan.
 
crash the economy and then blame the guy who has to clean up your mess.

Just a little bit of hisotry repeting
 
Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster. There were not one..but two major bailouts and multiple bank failures. It took the very pragmatic and very sound domestic policies of George HW Bush to steer the United States out of failure. But heck..the mythmaking continues unabated by the right..

"Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster."

I'm so very pleased when you reveal the utter ignorance associated with your Leftist doctrinaire pronouncements.

"Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster."

1. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster."


2. “As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury

"Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster."



3. The benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116



"Reagan's economic policies were an unmitigated disaster."



So.....your post: a joke?
 
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010


As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.



Now realize that that lowest rate was not seen until his last years.

He benifited from the better revenue for several years and then the next guy had to bare the brunt of the lack of funds
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top