Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

[FactFinder]

Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

Nether works. There is a happy middle ground somewhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Bullshit article from Fox Noise, goes in the manure pile.

Coming from you, that is high praise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

If you study Keynes none of that matters, what matters is that government spending exceed a certain percentage of GDP in order to stimulate the economy in a recession. The reason Reagan's stimulus worked is that the government ran a deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, government spending fueled the Reagan recovery.

Obama took that belief to heart, despite hiring an economic adviser that actually wrote a paper proving that it was bunk. (For some reason she later decided that what we needed is exactly what she said would not work, but that is neither here nor there.) He has spent a rates that, according to Keynesian theory, should have propelled the economy into record growth, despite the fact that we were facing a record recession. The best anyone has been able to say is that this is somehow different, just like you just did.

By the way, Reagan actually managed to end the Cold War, which some might say was actually just an armed truce that resulted after WWII "officially" ended. He might not have had to fight two wars, but he won the most expensive war in American history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neo Conservatives have become the most dishonest scammers in American Political History.

Whatever happened to Reagan's God's honest truth of placing Country over politics.

President Reagan must be rolling over in his grave watching what NeoCons have done to the grand ol' party he rebuilt.

Shame!

What makes you an expert on Reagan?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The national debt is an indicator of the economy..
Wars are not a national indicator of the economy, although Reagan inherited the Cold War, which was far more costly. One he won, btw.
reagan inherited 15% inflation. Obama inherited about 2%. Reagan inherited tons of problems with industries that had been protected from competition for too long and were inefficient. Obama inherited years of economic growth and a mild recession.
The UE rate was never as low under Obama as the day he took office.
After 3 years Reagan had solved the inflation problem and UE was back to where it was when he took office.

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

Repeating something doesnt make it true.

Sure it does, just ask Lenin.

 

[FactFinder]

One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. A

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

If you study Keynes none of that matters, what matters is that government spending exceed a certain percentage of GDP in order to stimulate the economy in a recession. The reason Reagan's stimulus worked is that the government ran a deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, government spending fueled the Reagan recovery.

Obama took that belief to heart, despite hiring an economic adviser that actually wrote a paper proving that it was bunk. (For some reason she later decided that what we needed is exactly what she said would not work, but that is neither here nor there.) He has spent a rates that, according to Keynesian theory, should have propelled the economy into record growth, despite the fact that we were facing a record recession. The best anyone has been able to say is that this is somehow different, just like you just did.

By the way, Reagan actually managed to end the Cold War, which some might say was actually just an armed truce that resulted after WWII "officially" ended. He might not have had to fight two wars, but he won the most expensive war in American history.

Well you lived up to your windbag moniker in that one. I think comparing Reagan to Obama is injustice. If anything a comparison to FDR may be closer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape, wars do have an impact on the economy and Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war and disagree it cost more. It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

Repeating something doesnt make it true.

Kinda like your saying "Reagan won the cold war" which is absolute bullshit.

Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War

.

All that says is that Reagan got lucky, and everyone gave him credit for happenstance.

Guess what, life is not fair. Luck makes a difference, which is why some gamblers make money despite the fact that the odds are against them. That does not change the fact that the gamblers that actually make money know the odds are against them, and they play accordingly, and they take advantage of the statistical flukes.

Reagan played knowing the odds were against him, and got a few breaks. He also improved the economy using supply side economics, which Keynesians still insist does not work. I have seen people in this forum try to argue that Reagan was an economic dunce, and that he left this country in worse shape than when he took office.

Funny how these are the same people that keep telling me Obama has made this economy better, and that he knows what he is doing. I am still waiting for some empirical evidence that I, or even most of the country, is better off know than they were when Obama started to fix things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obamanomics worked great- averted ANOTHER Pub Great Depression and began a recovery. What HASN"T worked is total Pub obstruction since 1/2010, and fear mongering forever. "Common sense austerity" pffffft!!

Prove it.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was in worse shape

That's not true at all. Just curious, how old are you? I lived through the stagflation of the Seventies. The idea that the current recession is the worst since the Great Depression is leftist media folderol, cover for the imbecilic Obama Administration.

Obama had more to do with the victory in Libya than Reagan did in the cold war. . . .

It took Reagan 4 years to improve the unemployment rate, which went as high as 10.8%.

So? Like I said, the economy was in worse shape; interest rates were staggeringly high, and the unemployment rate was climbing as Reagan took office and had not yet reached its zenith due to certain chronic trends endemic of the Keynesian policies that his administration discontinued. It was under 8% by 1984, and the country was at full employment statistically before the end of his term, approximately 5.5%. And then . . . almost twenty years of bada-bing-bada boom! Under Obama unemployment has gone up and is stuck on up. It ain't going down because Obama doesn't know how to make it go down. Indeed, this imbecilic administration has employed the very same kind of policies that the Reagan Administration had to rescind in order to get things under control!

For more on Obama's economic incompetence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...r-just-more-govt-spending-14.html#post4032301

unemployment wasn't climbing when Reagan took office it fell from 7.8 in July 1980 to 7.2 in December 1980.

 

[FactFinder]

Obamanomics worked great- averted ANOTHER Pub Great Depression and began a recovery. What HASN"T worked is total Pub obstruction since 1/2010, and fear mongering forever. "Common sense austerity" pffffft!!

Prove it.

Well I don't know that Obama did anything to make things better, but I do know that GW and the ole GS Treasury Secretary left one 'hell of a mess'!

 

[theliq]

Incentivize....what let big business send all the jobs overseas...you really are a stupid bugger Rabbi or is that Buggerer...I'm theliq and I kick ASS because I can and I do.

One succeeded, the other failed. From this AM's WSJ. More at the source.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.



The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's start out with the first assertion

Nation Debt Reagan started with 850 billion
National Debt Obama started with 10+ Trillion plus defered debt from wars and Tax breaks

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Reagan started with a fairly steady unemployment rate
Obama started with a uneployment rate that was falling of a cliff.

If you study Keynes none of that matters, what matters is that government spending exceed a certain percentage of GDP in order to stimulate the economy in a recession. The reason Reagan's stimulus worked is that the government ran a deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, government spending fueled the Reagan recovery.

Obama took that belief to heart, despite hiring an economic adviser that actually wrote a paper proving that it was bunk. (For some reason she later decided that what we needed is exactly what she said would not work, but that is neither here nor there.) He has spent a rates that, according to Keynesian theory, should have propelled the economy into record growth, despite the fact that we were facing a record recession. The best anyone has been able to say is that this is somehow different, just like you just did.

By the way, Reagan actually managed to end the Cold War, which some might say was actually just an armed truce that resulted after WWII "officially" ended. He might not have had to fight two wars, but he won the most expensive war in American history.

Well you lived up to your windbag moniker in that one. I think comparing Reagan to Obama is injustice. If anything a comparison to FDR may be closer.

I didn't compare them, I just pointed out how absurd the comparison is.

By the way, Obama likes to compare himself to Reagan. Is he being unjust to Reagan, or himself?

 

[FactFinder]

If you study Keynes none of that matters, what matters is that government spending exceed a certain percentage of GDP in order to stimulate the economy in a recession. The reason Reagan's stimulus worked is that the government ran a deficit of 5% of GDP. In other words, government spending fueled the Reagan recovery.

Obama took that belief to heart, despite hiring an economic adviser that actually wrote a paper proving that it was bunk. (For some reason she later decided that what we needed is exactly what she said would not work, but that is neither here nor there.) He has spent a rates that, according to Keynesian theory, should have propelled the economy into record growth, despite the fact that we were facing a record recession. The best anyone has been able to say is that this is somehow different, just like you just did.

By the way, Reagan actually managed to end the Cold War, which some might say was actually just an armed truce that resulted after WWII "officially" ended. He might not have had to fight two wars, but he won the most expensive war in American history.

Well you lived up to your windbag moniker in that one. I think comparing Reagan to Obama is injustice. If anything a comparison to FDR may be closer.

I didn't compare them, I just pointed out how absurd the comparison is.

By the way, Obama likes to compare himself to Reagan. Is he being unjust to Reagan, or himself?

I don't think we should compare ourselves to any other. We either stand on our own or fail. We are unique and uncomparable. If you believe the comparison is absurd, I agree. A totally different planet with differing variables prevail in both time periods. There is no comparison.

Now how do we make things better? It may help if we get off the divide. That just makes things very cyclical.

 

[Oldstyle]

Obama likes to compare his approval numbers to Reagan's. It's how he fools himself into thinking that everyone will love him again. You see at this point in their presidencies those approval numbers are actually rather similar. The problem for Barack is that Ronnie had already done the work to turn things around and the economy started coming back with a vengeance. That's what got him a landslide victory for his second term.

Unlike Ronald Reagan who had a plan going in...Barack Obama doesn't have a clue how to turn this economy around. You only have to look at the latest CBO numbers to see that four more years of Obama is going to mean four more years of a stagnant economy and high unemployment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well you lived up to your windbag moniker in that one. I think comparing Reagan to Obama is injustice. If anything a comparison to FDR may be closer.

I didn't compare them, I just pointed out how absurd the comparison is.

By the way, Obama likes to compare himself to Reagan. Is he being unjust to Reagan, or himself?

I don't think we should compare ourselves to any other. We either stand on our own or fail. We are unique and uncomparable. If you believe the comparison is absurd, I agree. A totally different planet with differing variables prevail in both time periods. There is no comparison.

Now how do we make things better? It may help if we get off the divide. That just makes things very cyclical.

We compare actual results, and use what works.

Reaganomics produced unprecedented growth lower unemployment, and general prosperity. Obamanomics produced flat growth, higher unemployment, and general economic loss.

You can prove that you are actually looking for facts by speaking up and saying you prefer good results to bad ones, or you can prove you are a hack by insisting that things are different know,m and we have to keep trying something that does not work.

 

[FactFinder]

I didn't compare them, I just pointed out how absurd the comparison is.

By the way, Obama likes to compare himself to Reagan. Is he being unjust to Reagan, or himself?

I don't think we should compare ourselves to any other. We either stand on our own or fail. We are unique and uncomparable. If you believe the comparison is absurd, I agree. A totally different planet with differing variables prevail in both time periods. There is no comparison.

Now how do we make things better? It may help if we get off the divide. That just makes things very cyclical.

We compare actual results, and use what works.

Reaganomics produced unprecedented growth lower unemployment, and general prosperity. Obamanomics produced flat growth, higher unemployment, and general economic loss.

You can prove that you are actually looking for facts by speaking up and saying you prefer good results to bad ones, or you can prove you are a hack by insisting that things are different know,m and we have to keep trying something that does not work.

One could argue that Reagonomics just introduced the 'bubble era'.

 

[Lakhota]

Stephen Moore? That's funny...

Stephen Moore Gets His Ass Handed to Him on Health Care Reform on Real Time | Video Cafe

Stephen Moore Claims He's Never Seen Any Guns or Swastikas at the Tea Bag Protests | Video Cafe

Economist's View: Is Stephen Moore "That Stupid"?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Lmao........Lib's just hate when their Ineptness In Chiefs failures are fully exposed.

Not that he needs exposing. All americans are experiencing his abject ineptness.

But don't tell the Obamabot fools that, because they're too fuckin' stupid to understand.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Obama likes to compare his approval numbers to Reagan's. It's how he fools himself into thinking that everyone will love him again. You see at this point in their presidencies those approval numbers are actually rather similar. The problem for Barack is that Ronnie had already done the work to turn things around and the economy started coming back with a vengeance. That's what got him a landslide victory for his second term.

Unlike Ronald Reagan who had a plan going in...Barack Obama doesn't have a clue how to turn this economy around. You only have to look at the latest CBO numbers to see that four more years of Obama is going to mean four more years of a stagnant economy and high unemployment.

All one has to do to see the greatness of Ronald Reagan, is look at how many dem's proclaimed themselves 'Reagan Democrats" as his presidency moved forward.

 

[Lakhota]

All one has to do to see the greatness of Ronald Reagan, is look at how many dem's proclaimed themselves 'Reagan Democrats" as his presidency moved forward.

You mean Blue Dog Democrats, formerly Yellow Dog Democrats, like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and the NASCAR bubbas...

Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election.

Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia