Reagan vs Obama

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Certainly not FDR.


1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” Articles & Commentary


I understand that this bit of remediation will not change neither your thinking nor your posts, but I appreciate the fact that we, therefore, make a dynamite pair.

You go on fudging the truth, and I'll go on correcting you!

 

[Meister]

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

 

[Truthmatters]

File:U.S. Federal Tax Receipts as a Percentage of GDP 1945

spin these facts

 

[Truthmatters]

Reagan is a myth.

the real Reagan was not what the republicans have built up in their minds.

Facts , cold hard facts prove this.

 

[MaggieMae]

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..

Bingo. People should have believed H.W. when he claimed Reagan's fiscal proposals were "Voodoo Economics." He (Bush41) was ultimately forced to renege on his "read-my-lips" promise and attempted to clean up after Reagan, which cost him political capital. Unfortunately for him, people grasped "It's the economy, stupid" better, and Clinton beat him.

 

[beowolfe]

You continue to celebrate your economic illiteracy. Reagan cut taxes overall.

And those rates were still much higher than todays.

 

[boedicca]

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..

Further proof that you are a BLITHERING IDIOT.

Reagan's policies led to one of the most successful economic expansions and period of job creation in history.

 

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


that was clinton silly

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan is a myth.

the real Reagan was not what the republicans have built up in their minds.

Facts , cold hard facts prove this.

While the Leftists attempt to separate the economic realities of the Reagan presidency from the realpolitik, the truth is that the military costs that President Reagan subscribed to purchased freedom for the United States and the free world.

The irony is that the Reagan presidency, specifically the Reagan-Greenspan Commission, provided the 'trust funds' that the Left-leaning Clinton used to make his budgets look better while he was bowing to the wishes of the Dictator Fidel Castro.

 

[DiamondDave]

You continue to celebrate your economic illiteracy. Reagan cut taxes overall.

Cut them to what? What were the top rates? Should we go back to the rates under his administration?

And an ever consistent call for selective equal treatment...

"Higher taxes on the rich.. higher taxes on the rich...." sounds like a goddamn parrot, and about as bright as one

And I'll take the top bracket tax rates in 88 under Reagan, any day... as long as the rest of you fuckers start paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned as well

And lest we forget the levels and availability of itemized deductions, before you ignorant lefties keep continuing with a call for 70 or 90% tax rates

 

[boedicca]

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..

Further proof that you are a BLITHERING IDIOT.

Reagan's policies led to one of the most successful economic expansions and period of job creation in history.

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove it

 

[boedicca]

File:U.S. Federal Tax Receipts as a Percentage of GDP 1945

spin these facts

No spin required. It's quite clear that the U.S. economy has a tolerance for tax receipts as a percent of GDP in the 18-19% range. What the graph doesn't show is the corresponding GDP growth. Period of lower taxes lead to higher economic growth. Although the tax receipt % of GDP may still hover along the trend line, the absolute amount grows because the economy is growing.

This is why Obama increasing the size of the federal government by 25% is a FRELLING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISASTER.

 

[Truthmatters]

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 80,692 91,031 +10.3 +3.2%
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 91,031 96,353 +5.3 +1.5%
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 96,353 107,133 +10.8 +2.7%
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 107,133 109,725 +2.6 +0.6%
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 109,725 121,231 +11.5 +2.6%
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 121,231 132,469 +11.2 +2.3%
George W. Bush R 2001–2005 132,469 132,453 +0.0 -0.0%
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 132,453 133,563 +1.1 +0.1%
Barack Obama D 2009–2013 133,563 130,515 (Feb. 2011) -3.05 (Feb. 2011)

 

[boedicca]

Prove it

One cannot explain the concept of the sun to a blind worm at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[RDD_1210]

You continue to celebrate your economic illiteracy. Reagan cut taxes overall.

Cut them to what? What were the top rates? Should we go back to the rates under his administration?

And an ever consistent call for selective equal treatment...

"Higher taxes on the rich.. higher taxes on the rich...." sounds like a goddamn parrot, and about as bright as one

And I'll take the top bracket tax rates in 88 under Reagan, any day... as long as the rest of you fuckers start paying the exact same rate on every dollar earned as well

And lest we forget the levels and availability of itemized deductions, before you ignorant lefties keep continuing with a call for 70 or 90% tax rates

Who is calling for 70 or 90% top tax rates? How about just rolling them back to pre-Bush levels?

 

[kwc57]

This looks like a fun game, how do you play?

I'd like to see Nixon Vs Clinton. "I'm not a crook" VS "I did not have sex with that woman."

Reagan vs Obama is kind of like saying Almighty God vs Jesus isn't it?

 

[RDD_1210]

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..

Further proof that you are a BLITHERING IDIOT.

Reagan's policies led to one of the most successful economic expansions and period of job creation in history.

So you support his tax rates?

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove it

One cannot explain the concept of the sun to a blind worm at the bottom of the ocean.

I just proved you wrong about the reagan jobs.

and this is how you face facts.

 

[MaggieMae]

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:

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.

Yeah, those damned pesky facts just always get in the way. This is in direct response to the Investors Daily piece:

Reagan Recovery vs. Obama Recovery « Commentary Magazine

The two economies are not exactly comparable, of course. Manufacturing jobs, to which workers can be quickly summoned back, make up a much smaller percentage of the total jobs today. Inflation fell sharply in and after the ’81–’82 recession, while it is increasing today. Housing prices had not suffered nearly the hit they have taken in recent years, adversely influencing people’s perception of their ability to spend money. The microprocessor revolution was much less advanced then than now, when firms contemplating expansion are more likely to look to investing in new technology than in new employees (although the new technology will create more jobs in the long run).