Reagan vs Obama

[Truthmatters]

Historical Top Tax Rate

 

[Truthmatters]

Reagan was from 81 to 89


Note he left the lowest tax revenues for the next guy to deal with.

Do you remember Bush has to raise taxes.

 

[CRStar]

It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Geo Metro.....Obumba being the Geo Metro.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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?

To the worshippers of Reagan and Obama, I'd say this is a great comparison.

 

[boedicca]

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)

So what you've posted shows that 10.8M jobs were created during Reagan's terms and the benefits of his policies continued through the 1990s. And so far, Obama has lost 3M.

Thanks!

 

[Truthmatters]

Only when you use no facts to do it with

 

[PoliticalChic]

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).

Did you miss post #19?

....on purpose?

 

[MaggieMae]

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!

You are really just too funny, PC. You cite a 1935 Brookings Institution report (the series of economic programs called "The New Deal" took place over three years, through 1936, so any "conclusion" by Brookings would have been premature.) But then you go on to post a link trying to prove that "conclusion" came from Brookings when in fact it's from the right wing American Enterprise Institute dated 2007!!!

 

[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)

So what you've posted shows that 10.8M jobs were created during Reagan's terms and the benefits of his policies continued through the 1990s. And so far, Obama has lost 3M.

Thanks!

Only in ONE of his terms and Carter nearly matched it and Clinton blew his doors off.

His first term he got his ass kicked by Carter and Clinton.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now look at the last number which is jobs per year.
reagan gets his ass whipped by both Carter and Clinton

 

[boedicca]

What matters to most Americans are JOBS and INFLATION, which is why the Misery Index is a good measure of the effectiveness of policies and leadership.

Reagan became President in an era of double digit inflation. Interest rates were raised to tame inflation, causing a recession. Tax rates and spending reforms then propelled economic growth.

Obama has had a virtually free money policy accompanied by massive spending increases. The results are anemic GDP performance, high structural unemployment, and inflation...IOW STAGFLATION.

Misery Index By Year:

The United States Misery Index By Year

 

[MaggieMae]

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.
That was fine, but following the demise of the Cold War and no imminent threat from the Soviets any longer, Reagan should have began reducing the Pentagon budget, not continue to increase it.

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.

Oh bull. Did Clinton establish diplomatic or trade relations with Castro? Do you just make stuff up as you go along?

 

[Truthmatters]

Stagflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Explaining the 1970s stagflationFurther information: Nixon Shock
Following Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls on August 15, 1971, an initial wave of cost-push shocks in commodities was blamed for causing spiraling prices. Perhaps the most notorious factor cited at that time was the failure of the Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972, a major source of livestock feed.[16] The second major shock was the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) constrained the worldwide supply of oil.[17] Both events, combined with the overall energy shortage that characterized the 1970s, resulted in actual or relative scarcity of raw materials. The price controls resulted in shortages at the point of purchase, causing, for example, queues of consumers at fueling stations and increased production costs for industry.[18]

 

[Truthmatters]

Nixon Shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

TMN,

Please explain in your own words what Post #53 means.

 

[beowolfe]

Voodoo economics raising it's head again? When will you repugs learn? It doesn't work!!

 

[MaggieMae]

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)

So what you've posted shows that 10.8M jobs were created during Reagan's terms and the benefits of his policies continued through the 1990s. And so far, Obama has lost 3M.

Thanks!

That 3 million includes a carryover of 1.9 million lost in the final quarter of 2008.

Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million - Jan. 9, 2009

A sobering U.S. Labor Department jobs report Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December and 1.9 million in the year's final four months, after the credit crisis began in September.

And her Obama figures show a projection into 2013.

 

[Truthmatters]

TMN,

Please explain in your own words what Post #53 means.

I think you can grasp what the EXPERTS say just fine.

 

[DiamondDave]

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?

Then best make it across the board on every dollar earned... and not some selective 'vilify the rich' scam...

Funny.. think you'll lose a lot of support for tax hikes then, when everyone has the same % stake in the game

 

[MaggieMae]

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).

Did you miss post #19?

....on purpose?

Uh no? Your point? Did post #19 discuss in any way the fact that the labor landscape today doesn't resemble what it was in the 80's? The obvious reason unemployment remains high today is because many of the lost jobs will never be coming back, as they did when the economy recovered in the 80's. Is there something you don't get about that?