Reagan v. Obama Recessions

[editec]

It's amazing that the media has intentionally done a "media black-out" of the 1981-1982 recession that Ronald Reagan defeated without engaging BIG GOVERNMENT spending/programs.

We always hear about the Great Depression. Why? Because it involved a recovery that involved excessive government spending and the creation of new bureaucracies.

The "politicized" media won't ever compare the successful policies of Reagan to that of Obama.

Read:

Stimulus 101: Obama Vs. Reagan:
Stimulus 101: Obama Vs. Reagan - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

The recession that Reagan faced was no nearly so bad as the one that Bush II was, and, now, Obama is facing.

Things have gotten much much worse since Reagan's time.

The FED ended the stagflation that Reagan faced by increasing the prime rate until inflation was crushed.

That then set the stage for the recovery that naturally followed.

OBVIOUSLY that was not a solution available to Bush II or Obama.

The problems facing us now are not the same kind of economic problems that we faced in 1980.

For example Reagan wasn't dealing with 50 trillion dollars worth of dereivative overhang.

For example, we weren't nearly so deindustrialized then as we are now.

For example, our balance of trade wasn't nearly so fucked up as it is now.

For example, he was facing inflation, we are facing DEflation.

For example the percentage of energy we imported then is nearly so high as it is now.

For example, the difference between incomes of the very rich wasn't nearly so different than the average Americans then.

For example the ratio of nation debt V GNP wasn't nearly so vast as it is now.

We've been applying the Reagan solution so long, now, that the Reagan solution (tax cuts to the rich and increasing national debt) has BECOME the problem.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The stagflation myth - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

The economic legacy of Gerald Ford - Dec. 27, 2006

Clearly you were brain dead both then and now. No worries though, I'm going to get you up to speed. Really? You posted a libtard blog to support your libtard statement? Why not just go with your own thoughts? It has the same weight. That is to say, none.

The origins of stagflation are obvious, LBJs Great Society and the Vietnam war and the massive explosion in government spending that went with it. How did he pay for it? He cut taxes. This had the effect of super-heating the economy and causing massive inflation.

Still nothing from the braindead one? Egads those Reagan rose colored glasses must distort your three or four brain cells. Krugman's piece counters your point above, and I left the piece on President Ford so people with more brain cells than you can check out the facts. "But where is the Great Society in all this? Nowhere. The claim that stagflation proved the badness of liberal ideas is pure propaganda, which not even conservative economists believe." But you do - LOL.

All presidents from FDR forward were more or less liberal. Both Eisenhower and Nixon wanted UHC. And Eisenhower recognized clearly the worsening of corporate control. Today that corporate control controls not only Washington but also knotheads like you.

Nixon was liberal and if he weren't an insecure paranoid, he may have been a better president. But LBJ was a great president for his 'great society' created real change. "Making poverty a national concern [he] set in motion a series of bills and acts, creating programs such as Head Start, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, which still exist today. The programs initiated under Johnson brought about real results, reducing rates of poverty and improved living standards for America's poor." Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty : NPR

Johnson did delay the needed tax hikes during Nam but he did so because he knew the programs that helped people would suffer most. Carter was our only moral president, he actually thought people could accept information given in an honest straightforward way, weird he still does. But most people are like you they believe in voodoo and voodoo they get, notice the recent economy crash by any chance or you still asleep?

Reagan began our slip into third world status, social Darwinism, greed economics, and corporate control. He started the destruction of the middle class and the working class. Sad man given his start in life. I advise those with a brain to check the links above.

But in the end the facts won't convince braindead corporate tools as that is your reality, it is all you know, and there are lots of corporate think tanks and revisionist reactionary historians out there. But here is the big but - somethings do work and somethings do change.

The Hoover administration screwed up badly - FDR, usually ranked as the greatest president, changed that.

Reagan and Bush JR made us debtor nations with increases in poverty and a lower standard of living - except for wealthy.

Clinton in spite of his immorality also did better than any recent republican president.

The New Deal and The Great Society accomplished things that no republican even comes close to in achievement. These policies did things they were real. Social Security alone has helped more Americans live decent lives than any voodoo economic greed scheme.

The republican reductions in regulation brought us S&L, Enron, corporate outsourcing, lower standard of living, and finally a major economic collapse.

The years from FDR till Reagan are considered the golden age for America. Your party, your politics failed, failed, and failed again and yet you have the nerve to twist reality. Sad people, glad you're gone from power, hope it stays that way for another 50 years.

So let's see your reactionary nonsense, but in the end if there is any judgment on who accomplished something positive, something long term, something that still helps, it sure as hell ain't Hoover, Reagan, or Bush Jr.

No point in talking to you. You've drowned in the Kool-Aid. You clearly think you and and everybody else will be much better off when you are controlled by governmental elites who understand much better than you how you are supposed to live your life.

Well, you can have it. I'll not take part.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It's amazing that the media has intentionally done a "media black-out" of the 1981-1982 recession that Ronald Reagan defeated without engaging BIG GOVERNMENT spending/programs.

We always hear about the Great Depression. Why? Because it involved a recovery that involved excessive government spending and the creation of new bureaucracies.

The "politicized" media won't ever compare the successful policies of Reagan to that of Obama.

Read:

Stimulus 101: Obama Vs. Reagan:
Stimulus 101: Obama Vs. Reagan - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

The recession that Reagan faced was no nearly so bad as the one that Bush II was, and, now, Obama is facing.

Things have gotten much much worse since Reagan's time.

The FED ended the stagflation that Reagan faced by increasing the prime rate until inflation was crushed.

That then set the stage for the recovery that naturally followed.

OBVIOUSLY that was not a solution available to Bush II or Obama.

The problems facing us now are not the same kind of economic problems that we faced in 1980.

For example Reagan wasn't dealing with 50 trillion dollars worth of dereivative overhang.

For example, we weren't nearly so deindustrialized then as we are now.

For example, our balance of trade wasn't nearly so fucked up as it is now.

For example, he was facing inflation, we are facing DEflation.

For example the percentage of energy we imported then is nearly so high as it is now.

For example, the difference between incomes of the very rich wasn't nearly so different than the average Americans then.

For example the ratio of nation debt V GNP wasn't nearly so vast as it is now.

We've been applying the Reagan solution so long, now, that the Reagan solution (tax cuts to the rich and increasing national debt) has BECOME the problem.

The primary problem is that Reagan, due to political circumstances on the ground, was only able to get part of his program through. He cut a deal with Tip O'Neill (not cuz Tip was such a push over, but because Reagan kept going on TV and putting the heat on Congress.) Reagan, therefore got the increases he asked for, but not the cuts.

This set up an unsustainable future, and at the end of the day, only magnified the problem that Reagan beat Carter about the head and shoulders with during the debates in 1980. The soaring national debt. Some of the growth was contained by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and some revenue was obtained by TAFRA 1986, but REAL cuts were needed in Federal expenditures and he was never able to get the those cuts enacted.

Unfortunately, people have forgotten that CUTS were part of Reagan's program because he didn't get them in the end. As an economic plan, Reagan's formula only really works when there are cuts. Without cuts, it's just bullshit.

 

[Toro]

second term of jimmy carter i doubt it more like the third term of george w. bush.

How so? Bush was a profligate spender, but Obama has made him look like a mere piker. Carter brought us hyper inflation just as Obama will. Even Buffet is beginning to say it, though nothing quotable. If you watched his latest interview on CNBC, when Becky put the question to him, he tacitly agreed that it's coming but he focus on the time between now and then.

Carter never brought us hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is very high inflation, i.e. 50%, 100%, 10,000%. That never happened under Carter.

Carter did not bring us inflation. The inflation of the 1970s occurred because of the policies of the 1960s, as government spending on the Vietnam War and LBJ's Great Society, structurally higher commodity prices, Nixon killing Betton-Woods as nations were demanding payment of US dollars in gold as the US ran large current account deficits, and an incompetent Fed lead to the creation of inflation. Carter's policies in dealing with inflation however, except one, were inept. The one exception was that he appointed Paul Volcker, perhaps the greatest central banker in the history of the United States.

Volcker was the one who is deserves the greatest credit for breaking the inflationary cycle and who laid the groundwork for the expansion in the 1980s. Volcker drove interest rates sky high to break the back of inflationary expectations, which brought down inflation and interest rates. The recession under Reagan had nothing to do with Reagan as the recession was caused by punishing interest rates. But also, though Reagan's pro-growth policies helped, the primary reason why growth started again was because interest rates began coming down. Thus, the guy who should get the most credit is Paul Volcker.

Interestingly, Reagan fired Volcker and hired Greenspan, the man who arguably is most responsible for the credit crisis we are now in.

Reagan's policies did help. He deregulated much of the economy. He cut taxes. He also ran large deficits, which are stimulative. It some ways, it is sort of amusing to hear conservatives argue that the recession under Reagan was not cured by Big Government when in fact, Reagan's policies were stimulative in a manner Keynes would have approved. Deficits are stimulative to the economy, and Reagan ran large deficits. In this sense, Reaganism was Keynesianism in drag.

The recession of the early 80s and today are very, very different, and thus, the policy prescriptions should be very different. The recessions of the 80s was due to high interest rates following the high inflation of the 70s, which had their genesis in policies of the 60s. Stimulative spending in the early 80s would not have helped much, and probably would have hurt since it would have been inflationary in a time of high inflation, which would have been met by higher interest rates. That's pointless. Today, the recession is more like the 30s as we've had a credit implosion and deflation. Thus, rock-bottom interest rates and increased government spending - both of which are inflationary - is the right response.

For those keeping score, since politics means so much to people here, under Clinton, the economy grew faster than it did under Reagan and more people took part in the expansion. Under Reagan - and unsurprisingly, under Bush II - the primary gains accrued to the top of the income scale. Under Clinton, the middle class and the poor gained faster. That is not entirely fair, given that economic trends are often independent of what the government does, but since people are keeping a political scorecard, thems the facts.

 

[mal]

It's amazing that the media has intentionally done a "media black-out" of the 1981-1982 recession that Ronald Reagan defeated without engaging BIG GOVERNMENT spending/programs.

We always hear about the Great Depression. Why? Because it involved a recovery that involved excessive government spending and the creation of new bureaucracies.

The "politicized" media won't ever compare the successful policies of Reagan to that of Obama.

Read:

Stimulus 101: Obama Vs. Reagan:
Stimulus 101: Obama Vs. Reagan - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives

First of all, it's not Honest for the "Free Press" to NOT Include what happened Economically from about 78 on...

Reagan Inherited a Shit Economy and when he Left, it had Peaked @ over 10% Unemployment, but then come down to 5%ish when finally bailed.

Anyway...



peace...

 

[Bfgrn]

Still a brainless shithead, aren't you?

THAT would mean that, in reality, Obama has inherited the NEGATIVE consequences of BUSH'S tax cuts and deregulation!

Do try to keep up, will ya?

Brainless shithead? Actually it is a culmination of the philosophy of Reaganomics; starve the beast, compounded by Bush's irresponsible bloating and castration...Bush took Reagan's "government is the problem" and MADE IT the problem...

Look.... Everyone KNOWS that Bush didn't have the intelligence or the balls to do shit. You've all been telling us that for years now, so don't go trying to pull the IQ card on me now, okay?

I hear The Tank wants ya back. The village needs all their idiots....

Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary...

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

 

[DamnYankee]

Brainless shithead? Actually it is a culmination of the philosophy of Reaganomics; starve the beast, compounded by Bush's irresponsible bloating and castration...Bush took Reagan's "government is the problem" and MADE IT the problem...

Look.... Everyone KNOWS that Bush didn't have the intelligence or the balls to do shit. You've all been telling us that for years now, so don't go trying to pull the IQ card on me now, okay?

I hear The Tank wants ya back. The village needs all their idiots....

Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary...

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Now that didn't hurt a bit did it? Provin' my point, that is?
ROTFLMAO!

 

[Bfgrn]

Look.... Everyone KNOWS that Bush didn't have the intelligence or the balls to do shit. You've all been telling us that for years now, so don't go trying to pull the IQ card on me now, okay?

I hear The Tank wants ya back. The village needs all their idiots....

Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary...

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Now that didn't hurt a bit did it? Provin' my point, that is?
ROTFLMAO!

Don't know what's so funny about a presidency that almost destroyed our country...but stay on the floor where your IQ level is...

“I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything.”
David Frum - Bush speechwriter

 

[DamnYankee]

Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary...

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress. But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Now that didn't hurt a bit did it? Provin' my point, that is?
ROTFLMAO!

Don't know what's so funny about a presidency that almost destroyed our country...but stay on the floor where your IQ level is...

“I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything.”
David Frum - Bush speechwriter

YOU are most funny. Told ya not to play the IQ card, which you desperately attempted to do, only to screw yourself by agreeing with me. You really don't pay attention, do ya? If ya did, you wouldn't be insulting my intelligence. But then, you haven't the intelligence to focus, so you run around makin' an ass of yourself. Now, like I said, The Tank needs all it's idiots.... And have a nice evening....

 

[SwingVoter]

The only people he beat up or attacked were the unions/labor.

And we're all very thankful for that.

Maybe if your state stopped bowing down to unions, your residents would stop skipping town for pro-business states like Texas and Georgia.

 

[SwingVoter]

His drunken sailor spending created trouble

if you're against "drunken sailor" spending, you must really hate Obama