Reagan vs Obama

[The T]

Because a graduated tax rate is more fair.

To tax people who are barely making it the same as people who are making 400 times that is a receipe for disastor.


It is another load of bull you have been handed and lapped up like so much pablum.


the reason it will never happen is that rational people know simplicity doesnt mean success

So equal LAW for all citizens just goes OUT the window in your world...and along with it LIBERTY, and Free Will...?

 

[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.
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?

"Do you just make stuff up as you go along?"
I make nothing up, nor do I post what I cannot support.

Clinton kissed the hems of Castro's gown in the Elian Gonzalez case....breaking American law and traditon.

Libs talk about warrentless wiretaps and the Patriot Act...but breaking into the home of an American citizen who had broken no laws, and infracted no court order, and kidnapping at gunpoint just to assuage Communist Dictator Fidel Castro is exactly what Democrat Clinton did.

Care to debate this?

 

[boedicca]

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 1970-2010 - Federal State Local

Please compare and contrast allowable deductions, income averaging (or lack thereof), and the level of AMT between then and now.

 

[Trajan]

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

anyone know who said this?

The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.

 

[boedicca]

Because a graduated tax rate is more fair.

To tax people who are barely making it the same as people who are making 400 times that is a receipe for disastor.


It is another load of bull you have been handed and lapped up like so much pablum.


the reason it will never happen is that rational people know simplicity doesnt mean success

So equal LAW for all citizens just goes OUT the window in your world...and along with it LIBERTY, and Free Will...?

Well Hello! You don't expect TMN to grok FREE WILL do you?

I mean, c'mon!

 

[boedicca]

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

anyone know who said this?

The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.

That's gotta be Krugman. He's such a Apologist.

 

[Trajan]

"In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint"

Was the person who wrote this drunk?

Not if you use comparative analysis. what was the debt vs gdp %ratio in 1986?

and some more comparisons;

Reagan never had a supra majority, he never had reconciliation majority, he had the senate for 2 years, the house never, there by granting himself a blank check and the infusions of cash to do with what he pleased ala;


Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We're probably forgetting something.


further-

Imagine if President Obama had introduced his original stimulus in February 2009 with the vow that, 26 months later, GDP would be growing by 1.8% and the jobless rate would be 8.8%. Does anyone think it would have passed?


further-

With deficits this year estimated to hit $1.65 trillion, are we really supposed to believe that more deficit spending will produce faster growth? Would $2 trillion do the trick, or how about $3 trillion? Two years after the stimulus debate began, the critics who said all of this spending would provide at most a temporary lift to GDP while saddling the economy with record deficits have been proven right.

Review & Outlook: The Keynesian Growth Discount - WSJ.com

so, back to the question at hand-

what has all of this money bought us? 1.8%?

 

[Trajan]

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

anyone know who said this?

The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.

That's gotta be Krugman. He's such a Apologist.

bingo.

 

[The T]

Because a graduated tax rate is more fair.

To tax people who are barely making it the same as people who are making 400 times that is a receipe for disastor.


It is another load of bull you have been handed and lapped up like so much pablum.


the reason it will never happen is that rational people know simplicity doesnt mean success

So equal LAW for all citizens just goes OUT the window in your world...and along with it LIBERTY, and Free Will...?

Well Hello! You don't expect TMN to grok FREE WILL do you?

I mean, c'mon!

Of course not...NOR be responsible for decisions MADE from Free will...just more concerned for rewarding failure as they EYE our wallets and demanding they be rewarded.

 

[The T]

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

If ANYONE thinks OBAMA is the better of the two isn't paying attention...but then? They're making Bush they're whipping boy as Obama triples what Bush did...

 

[Nic_Driver]

I'm sure it's been said before in this thread somewhere but the policies of Regan are why we are in the economic disaster we're in right now.

Regan was the beginning of the end.

 

[The T]

I'm sure it's been said before in this thread somewhere but the policies of Regan are why we are in the economic disaster we're in right now.

Regan was the beginning of the end.

Really? Reagan had to recover from CARTER...but then YOU weren't alive then, were you? I'd BET that you weren't.

 

[The T]

anyone know who said this?

The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.

That's gotta be Krugman. He's such a Apologist.

bingo.

Yep. Paul Krugman is an idiot...

 

[8537]

Yep. Paul Krugman is an idiot...

Fucking precious. I give you credit: at least you spelled the words correctly.

 

[The T]

Yep. Paul Krugman is an idiot...

Fucking precious. I give you credit: at least you spelled the words correctly.

And I give YOU credit...at least you have the motor skills to even be here posting...Is your MOMMY helping you Karl?

 

[MaggieMae]

the tax rate was nearly 70 percent under reagans first year.

he then lowered it to 50% for most of his term.

He only lowered it further in his last years.

That lowered revenue caused Bush 41 to raise it back up due to debt

Uh... lowering rates did not lead to losses in revenue under Reagan except in 82 and 83... revenues increased even when the upper rate was put down to 28%...

Problems, much like today, are not revenues.... but increased government spending

It's both. Off camera, even the Republicans say so.

 

[Trajan]

off camera?

 

[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..

Reagan also won the cold war you liberal ass wipe.Saving this nation billions of dollars.

Then why did he need the multi-billion dollar Star Wars missile shield if he ended the Cold War? Also, people tend to forget that if Reagan hadn't been lucky in that his Soviet counterpart was a moderate and not a hard-liner, the demise of the cold war might never have happened. Ronald Regan gets the entire credit, which is dumb.

 

[sinister59]

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

I never under estimate the American public's propensity for being stupid . like it was a gene

reagan sucked as a B rated actor , he sucked as a B rated governor , he blow chunks as a president , but history means nothing in America , hell next time he mite get it right ? ya really .

 

[hipeter924]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=excsQ2Gg5QA]YouTube - It's The Corporatism, Stupid.[/ame]