Reagan vs Obama

Reagan doubled the debt, tripled Carter's deficits, and caused the S&L crisis by recklessly deregulating the financial system.

He exploded the Pentagon budget, but hid it from view w/the favorite Republican trick: emergency spending.

He convinced America that, despite Carter's warnings, we did not need to worry energy or Middle East dependency. He increased our support of Saudi Arabia, and poured money into Hussein's Iraq. We won't mention Iran. Reagan's failure to lead on energy may well be the greatest mistake any president has ever made.

His 1981 tax cuts were acknowledged to be a failure by his own his budget director, which is why he raised them 6 times thereafter.

Reagan's mistakes were less glaring because gas prices were insanely low and the boomers had entered their peak earning years, and a still vigorous entitlement system kept the social system in tact.

Under Reagan America went from the world's lender to the largest debtor nation. American families, who saw their once high wages & benefits get turned into tax breaks for the wealthy, began to accumulate massive debt.

Carter's Fed Chairman Volcker killed inflation by raising interest rates. Reagan hated Volcker for turning off the spicket, so he replaced him with the king of easy money: Alan Greenspan. Greenspan flooded the economy with liquidity for Reagan, Clinton and Bush in order to create artificial prosperity for each president.

Rather than balance the budget, Reagan chose to increase Defense spending well beyond the need for it. His "Star Wars" initiative was insane. Even Nixon told him that well placed Defense cuts could spare future generations from crippling debt. It was clear that Gorbachev wanted to unwind the Iron Curtain (which he eventually did), but Reagan's weapon's build-up delayed this because it gave power to Soviet hard-liners (who hated Gorby). In essence, Reagan prolonged the Cold War so he could use it as a context to expand military bases to vital labor & resource markets in the 3rd world, that is, the Soviet threat was the basis for pulling resource rich nations under America's protective wing. Problem is: we're still paying for Reagan's weapon's build up and military excess.

Reagan handed Bush 41 a big sloppy wet fart - deficits as far as the eyes could see, exploding debt, and a military colossus that was getting harder and harder to pay for. He handed future presidents a middle class without the wages to drive consumption. [Remember: Reagan's chief goal was to give business cheaper labor costs. This is why he busted unions and cut entitlements. He wanted to relieve capital from the burden of an expensive middle class] His policies meant the average consumer had lower wages and fewer benefits, which meant hard working Americans required more and more debt just to keep consuming and drive the economy.

America swallowed poison in 1980.
 
Last edited:
You are an utter moron.

The OP summarized Reagan's policies as:

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

Cutting taxes was an important aspect, but they were accompanied other policies which encourage the private sector to grow - the exact opposite of the Centralized Planning Approach (cf. Epic Fail) of Obamanomics.

And the myth-making continues.

I suppose it's ridiculous to point out the bond market and the financial sector went into full collapse during the Reagan administration which needed a tax-payer funded bailout (Sound familiar?)

This might help..a little.

Silverado Savings and LoanSilverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush, son of then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, was on the Board of Directors of Silverado at the time. Neil Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing.[16]

The U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.[17]

As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners.[citation needed]

Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine, paid for him by Republican supporters.[18] , and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from a guy who goes ballistic when Michelle Obama is the object of the slightest ridicule, let me be the first to congratulate you on bringing hypocrisy to its newest high water mark...:clap2:

Seriously..what are you talking about??

Silverado was one of the biggest shams in history. And the Bushes had their hands all over it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan..the tax payers were stuck with the tab.
 
Iran



Iran–Contra affair[1] (Persian: ماجرای مک*فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan Administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration had been prohibited by Congress.

The scandal began as an operation to free American hostages being held by terrorist groups with Iranian ties. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]

So Reagan worked out a deal to get weapons to anti-communist freedom-fighters....and they won.

Obama worked out a secret deal with the CIA to arm rebels (Al Qaeda) in Libya and Qaddafi is winning. He also helped the Muslim Brotherhood take a large stake in the formation of the new Egyptian government which set into motion a massive series of events that led to $5 gal gas before Summer hits.

Great job Mr President.
 
Iran



Iran–Contra affair[1] (Persian: ماجرای مک*فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan Administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration had been prohibited by Congress.

The scandal began as an operation to free American hostages being held by terrorist groups with Iranian ties. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]

So Reagan worked out a deal to get weapons to anti-communist freedom-fighters....and they won.

Obama worked out a secret deal with the CIA to arm rebels (Al Qaeda) in Libya. He also helped the Muslim Brotherhood take a large stake in the formation of the new Egyptian government which set into motion a massive series of events that led to $5 gal gas before Summer hits.

Great job Mr President.

Exactly. Obama has failed being an American, much less an American POTUS.
 
Really? They aren't? Why so many layoffs? Why is the unemployment rate so high?

*Try Again*

There is a lack of demand. This is a demand side problem, not a supply side one.

It is a supply problem. There is too much supply. There is always too much supply after a recession induced by the collapse of an asset bubble.

The *current* problem is an oversupply of labor and an oversupply of inventories.

But that's because the *current* problem is too much preference for money and a nasty demand-side contraction from the income effect as housing continues to slide.
 
Iran



Iran–Contra affair[1] (Persian: ماجرای مک*فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, senior Reagan Administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] Some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration had been prohibited by Congress.

The scandal began as an operation to free American hostages being held by terrorist groups with Iranian ties. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]

So Reagan worked out a deal to get weapons to anti-communist freedom-fighters....and they won.

It was in direct violation of the laws of the United States...and it was funding a terrorist group from the sale of weapons to a terrorist-sponsoring nation.

Obama worked out a secret deal with the CIA to arm rebels (Al Qaeda) in Libya and Qaddafi is winning. He also helped the Muslim Brotherhood take a large stake in the formation of the new Egyptian government which set into motion a massive series of events that led to $5 gal gas before Summer hits.

Great job Mr President.[/QUOTE]
 
There is a lack of demand. This is a demand side problem, not a supply side one.

It is a supply problem. There is too much supply. There is always too much supply after a recession induced by the collapse of an asset bubble.

The *current* problem is an oversupply of labor and an oversupply of inventories.

But that's because the *current* problem is too much preference for money and a nasty demand-side contraction from the income effect as housing continues to slide.

And Obama expects to FORCE them to move ahead? WHY when Obama and what he is doing is uncertain with punitive policies?

What's Obama to do but Penalize for NOT doing his will as he is already doing?

Obama has painted his policies into a corner with NO way out.
 
It is a supply problem. There is too much supply. There is always too much supply after a recession induced by the collapse of an asset bubble.

The *current* problem is an oversupply of labor and an oversupply of inventories.

But that's because the *current* problem is too much preference for money and a nasty demand-side contraction from the income effect as housing continues to slide.

And Obama expects to FORCE them to move ahead?

No, he doesn't.
 
It is a supply problem. There is too much supply. There is always too much supply after a recession induced by the collapse of an asset bubble.

The *current* problem is an oversupply of labor and an oversupply of inventories.

But that's because the *current* problem is too much preference for money and a nasty demand-side contraction from the income effect as housing continues to slide.

And Obama expects to FORCE them to move ahead? WHY when Obama and what he is doing is uncertain with punitive policies?

What's Obama to do but Penalize for NOT doing his will as he is already doing?

Obama has painted his policies into a corner with NO way out.
What the heck are you going on about?
 
The *current* problem is an oversupply of labor and an oversupply of inventories.

But that's because the *current* problem is too much preference for money and a nasty demand-side contraction from the income effect as housing continues to slide.

And Obama expects to FORCE them to move ahead? WHY when Obama and what he is doing is uncertain with punitive policies?

What's Obama to do but Penalize for NOT doing his will as he is already doing?

Obama has painted his policies into a corner with NO way out.
What the heck are you going on about?

Something that zoomed right over your pointed ears Dawg.
 
Ah..so you hate Clinton and love Reagan..

This speaks volumes.

I love posting it.
YouTube - President Ronald Reagan - Address on Iran-Contra
YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speech about Iran-Contra (Part 2 of 2)

He committed treason and lied about it.

Is this like that thousandth time you've posted that and called it "treason"? Is it not treason to take bags of cash from chinese monks or are you just a hyper partisan faggot?...........

No and no.

But thanks for playing.

There are door prizes.

No thanks, you can keep your Michael Moore dvd collection and your copy of Rules for Radicals..........
 
And the myth-making continues.

I suppose it's ridiculous to point out the bond market and the financial sector went into full collapse during the Reagan administration which needed a tax-payer funded bailout (Sound familiar?)

This might help..a little.

from a guy who goes ballistic when Michelle Obama is the object of the slightest ridicule, let me be the first to congratulate you on bringing hypocrisy to its newest high water mark...:clap2:

Seriously..what are you talking about??

Silverado was one of the biggest shams in history.

silverado was one among hundreds, it was top 10, so? how about manufactures trust, Hanover,Midwest fed.?



And the Bushes had their hands all over it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan..the tax payers were stuck with the tab.


I am sorry, I missed the part where GEORGE BUSH daddy or son had anything to do with it..BushS don't cut it.

you know, do you even think before you type? at all? what is so special about the gov. picking up the tab for banking bullshit ? Take a look around.
 
Reagan doubled the debt, tripled Carter's deficits, and caused the S&L crisis by recklessly deregulating the financial system.

He exploded the Pentagon budget, but hid it from view w/the favorite Republican trick: emergency spending.

He convinced America that, despite Carter's warnings, we did not need to worry energy or Middle East dependency. He increased our support of Saudi Arabia, and poured money into Hussein's Iraq. We won't mention Iran. Reagan's failure to lead on energy may well be the greatest mistake any president has ever made.

His 1981 tax cuts were acknowledged to be a failure by his own his budget director, which is why he raised them 6 times thereafter.

Reagan's mistakes were less glaring because gas prices were insanely low and the boomers had entered their peak earning years, and a still vigorous entitlement system kept the social system in tact.

Under Reagan America went from the world's lender to the largest debtor nation. American families, who saw their once high wages & benefits get turned into tax breaks for the wealthy, began to accumulate massive debt.

Carter's Fed Chairman Volcker killed inflation by raising interest rates. Reagan hated Volcker for turning off the spicket, so he replaced him with the king of easy money: Alan Greenspan. Greenspan flooded the economy with liquidity for Reagan, Clinton and Bush in order to create artificial prosperity for each president.

Rather than balance the budget, Reagan chose to increase Defense spending well beyond the need for it. His "Star Wars" initiative was insane. Even Nixon told him that well placed Defense cuts could spare future generations from crippling debt. It was clear that Gorbachev wanted to unwind the Iron Curtain (which he eventually did), but Reagan's weapon's build-up delayed this because it gave power to Soviet hard-liners (who hated Gorby). In essence, Reagan prolonged the Cold War so he could use it as a context to expand military bases to vital labor & resource markets in the 3rd world, that is, the Soviet threat was the basis for pulling resource rich nations under America's protective wing. Problem is: we're still paying for Reagan's weapon's build up and military excess.

Reagan handed Bush 41 a big sloppy wet fart - deficits as far as the eyes could see, exploding debt, and a military colossus that was getting harder and harder to pay for. He handed future presidents a middle class without the wages to drive consumption. [Remember: Reagan's chief goal was to give business cheaper labor costs. This is why he busted unions and cut entitlements. He wanted to relieve capital from the burden of an expensive middle class] His policies meant the average consumer had lower wages and fewer benefits, which meant hard working Americans required more and more debt just to keep consuming and drive the economy.

America swallowed poison in 1980.

carters warning on the ME? wtf?:cuckoo::lol:
 
Reagan doubled the debt, tripled Carter's deficits, and caused the S&L crisis by recklessly deregulating the financial system.

He exploded the Pentagon budget, but hid it from view w/the favorite Republican trick: emergency spending.

He convinced America that, despite Carter's warnings, we did not need to worry energy or Middle East dependency. He increased our support of Saudi Arabia, and poured money into Hussein's Iraq. We won't mention Iran. Reagan's failure to lead on energy may well be the greatest mistake any president has ever made.

His 1981 tax cuts were acknowledged to be a failure by his own his budget director, which is why he raised them 6 times thereafter.

Reagan's mistakes were less glaring because gas prices were insanely low and the boomers had entered their peak earning years, and a still vigorous entitlement system kept the social system in tact.

Under Reagan America went from the world's lender to the largest debtor nation. American families, who saw their once high wages & benefits get turned into tax breaks for the wealthy, began to accumulate massive debt.

Carter's Fed Chairman Volcker killed inflation by raising interest rates. Reagan hated Volcker for turning off the spicket, so he replaced him with the king of easy money: Alan Greenspan. Greenspan flooded the economy with liquidity for Reagan, Clinton and Bush in order to create artificial prosperity for each president.

Rather than balance the budget, Reagan chose to increase Defense spending well beyond the need for it. His "Star Wars" initiative was insane. Even Nixon told him that well placed Defense cuts could spare future generations from crippling debt. It was clear that Gorbachev wanted to unwind the Iron Curtain (which he eventually did), but Reagan's weapon's build-up delayed this because it gave power to Soviet hard-liners (who hated Gorby). In essence, Reagan prolonged the Cold War so he could use it as a context to expand military bases to vital labor & resource markets in the 3rd world, that is, the Soviet threat was the basis for pulling resource rich nations under America's protective wing. Problem is: we're still paying for Reagan's weapon's build up and military excess.

Reagan handed Bush 41 a big sloppy wet fart - deficits as far as the eyes could see, exploding debt, and a military colossus that was getting harder and harder to pay for. He handed future presidents a middle class without the wages to drive consumption. [Remember: Reagan's chief goal was to give business cheaper labor costs. This is why he busted unions and cut entitlements. He wanted to relieve capital from the burden of an expensive middle class] His policies meant the average consumer had lower wages and fewer benefits, which meant hard working Americans required more and more debt just to keep consuming and drive the economy.

America swallowed poison in 1980.

carters warning on the ME? wtf?:cuckoo::lol:

Also

Gorbachev later said that he realized that the USSR could not keep up with US defense spending, which was one reason why he started Glasnost. Conservatives over-state Reagan's role in the end of communism, but to say that he wanted to prolong the Cold War is ridiculous.

It's also pretty silly to say that "once high wages were turned into tax breaks for the wealthy." Wages are significantly higher today than they were in 1980.

Except for a few years after the end of the Vietnam War, military spending to GDP was the lowest it had been since WWII at the highest levels under Reagan.

And I'm not sure what he means by "vigorous entitlement system." I'm not sure what has changed from the 70s, other than Clinton's welfare reform in the 90s.

Returns on capital under Reagan were lower than they were under Kennedy. Profit margins hit record highs in the mid-00s but were fairly pedestrian in the 1980s.
 
you know, do you even think before you type? at all? what is so special about the gov. picking up the tab for banking bullshit ? Take a look around.

It was George HW Bush's fucking son.

Are you really this obtuse in RL?

And yeah..here's your link.

Ex-CEO Linked to Neil Bush Is Indicted : S&L: Michael R. Wise is accused of falsifying the books of a Colorado thrift to hide the diversion of $458,000 for his own use. The firm eventually failed. - Los Angeles Times

What's so special about it? Aw geez.
 
*ahem* the passage of time has not helped you.....you reacted becasue I made reference to your reactions when the spouse of the pres. is ever mentioned, you continue to bury yourself....you also need to read what I write not see what you wish, read again.


Trajan
Seriously..what are you talking about??

sallow
Quote:
Silverado was one of the biggest shams in history.


trajan
silverado was one among hundreds, it was top 10, so? how about manufactures trust, Hanover, Midwest fed.?


sallow
Quote:
And the Bushes had their hands all over it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan..the tax payers were stuck with the tab.


Trajan
I am sorry, I missed the part where GEORGE BUSH daddy or son had anything to do with it..BushS don't cut it.

you know, do you even think before you type? at all? what is so special about the gov. picking up the tab for banking bullshit ? Take a look around.

________________________________________________________________________________
if you wish to imply that fathers and brothers are responsible for their son and bothers actions, or guilt so as to be used for props as associative derision, hey, have it just don't whine when its used vis a vis obama.
 
Last edited:
*ahem* the passage of time has not helped you.....you reacted becasue I made reference to your reactions when the spouse of the pres. is ever mentioned, you continue to bury yourself....you also need to read what I write not see what you wish, read again.


Trajan
Seriously..what are you talking about??

sallow
Quote:
Silverado was one of the biggest shams in history.


trajan
silverado was one among hundreds, it was top 10, so? how about manufactures trust, Hanover, Midwest fed.?


sallow
Quote:
And the Bushes had their hands all over it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan..the tax payers were stuck with the tab.


Trajan
I am sorry, I missed the part where GEORGE BUSH daddy or son had anything to do with it..BushS don't cut it.

you know, do you even think before you type? at all? what is so special about the gov. picking up the tab for banking bullshit ? Take a look around.

________________________________________________________________________________
if you wish to imply that fathers and brothers are responsible for their son and bothers actions, or guilt so as to be used for props as associative derision, hey, have it just don't whine when its used vis a vis obama.

This is completely shocking.

George HW Bush was the VICE PRESIDENT when his son, Neil, THE FUCKING CEO OF SILVERADO, ran that bank to the ground..and THEN got bailed out by the government.

And you get all dismissive?

Gosh.:doubt:
 
*ahem* the passage of time has not helped you.....you reacted becasue I made reference to your reactions when the spouse of the pres. is ever mentioned, you continue to bury yourself....you also need to read what I write not see what you wish, read again.


Trajan
Seriously..what are you talking about??

sallow
Quote:
Silverado was one of the biggest shams in history.


trajan
silverado was one among hundreds, it was top 10, so? how about manufactures trust, Hanover, Midwest fed.?


sallow
Quote:
And the Bushes had their hands all over it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan..the tax payers were stuck with the tab.


Trajan
I am sorry, I missed the part where GEORGE BUSH daddy or son had anything to do with it..BushS don't cut it.

you know, do you even think before you type? at all? what is so special about the gov. picking up the tab for banking bullshit ? Take a look around.

________________________________________________________________________________
if you wish to imply that fathers and brothers are responsible for their son and bothers actions, or guilt so as to be used for props as associative derision, hey, have it just don't whine when its used vis a vis obama.

This is completely shocking.

George HW Bush was the VICE PRESIDENT when his son, Neil, THE FUCKING CEO OF SILVERADO, ran that bank to the ground..and THEN got bailed out by the government.

And you get all dismissive?

Gosh.:doubt:

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home
 
*ahem* the passage of time has not helped you.....you reacted becasue I made reference to your reactions when the spouse of the pres. is ever mentioned, you continue to bury yourself....you also need to read what I write not see what you wish, read again.


Trajan
Seriously..what are you talking about??

sallow
Quote:
Silverado was one of the biggest shams in history.


trajan
silverado was one among hundreds, it was top 10, so? how about manufactures trust, Hanover, Midwest fed.?


sallow
Quote:
And the Bushes had their hands all over it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan..the tax payers were stuck with the tab.


Trajan
I am sorry, I missed the part where GEORGE BUSH daddy or son had anything to do with it..BushS don't cut it.

you know, do you even think before you type? at all? what is so special about the gov. picking up the tab for banking bullshit ? Take a look around.

________________________________________________________________________________
if you wish to imply that fathers and brothers are responsible for their son and bothers actions, or guilt so as to be used for props as associative derision, hey, have it just don't whine when its used vis a vis obama.
:lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top