Reagan vs Obama

[Sallow]

Treason, the only crime defined in the Constitution, Art. III section 3... read it.


The great man fought against communism, and did what no other pol could do....defeat the Soviet Union.

Further, I note that you have scurried away from the anti-American nature of the the actions of fascist Democrat- Clinton-Reno-Holder attack on Elian Gonzalez in the service of the Communist Dictator Fidel Castro?

A wise move, since it is indefensible.

Here it is..

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Let's sum up.

Prior to becoming President, Reagan promised the Iranians supplies in exchange for holding the hostages until the election was over. Then he used money from that deal to support the Contras. THAT was the crux of the Iran-Contra "Affair". It was treason. Pure and simple. And he did very little to "fight" communism except to spend a great deal of money to build weapon systems that never materialized. The Soviet Union was going to throw in the towel regardless of who was President. The only thing that Reagan did do was not to **** that up. And he came pretty damned close to screwing that up as well. Gorbachev nearly walked away from the deal because the United States was so openly hostile, but Reagan managed to convince him that all the saber rattling was for the groundlings. Reagan was a lousy President and committed treason. All the myth making is going to change that.

He did? Was George HW Bush comfy in that SR71?

Are you saying that didn't happen?

 

[Truthmatters]

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

China and Russia (Prior to the break up of the Soviet Union) both have seats in the Security Council. They were and are considered communist. Additionally the law of nations is recognized in the Constitution and there is that little reciprocity thing to consider.

No international LAW supercedes US Law. US Constituion is supreme here.

Go back to school buddy.

So parental rights and American courts mean nothing to you?

You do realise the Scotus also refused toltake up the uncle case right?

 

[Sallow]

Your first mistake is conferring rights to a Communist State. Why did Clinton give in to Castro?

China and Russia (Prior to the break up of the Soviet Union) both have seats in the Security Council. They were and are considered communist. Additionally the law of nations is recognized in the Constitution and there is that little reciprocity thing to consider.

No international LAW supercedes US Law. US Constituion is supreme here.

Go back to school buddy.

The outcome says different.

"Buddy".

 

[MaggieMae]

"...when in fact it's from the right wing American Enterprise..."
What a great opportunity you have to eat crow, Mags....
...you couldn't be more wrong....and the honorable thing would be to apologize.
Now, you're honorable, aren't you?

You really need to clean your specs....or find out what quotation marks mean. The phrase "on the whole it retarded recovery" is a direct quote from Brookings.


And, before your abject apology, you might wish to ruminate over the following:

"In February 1935, Roosevelt asked Congress that the NRA be extended another two years. Congress did vote for an extension, but only for one year because of all the complaints. Despite Richberg’s efforts, opposition to the NRA grew stronger and stronger by the time the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional on May 29, 1935.

Economists at the Brookings Institution reported, “The NRA on the whole retarded recovery.” Roosevelt’s Brain Truster Raymond Moley was among the framers of the NRA who later acknowledged the error of their ways. “Planning an economy in normal times is possible only through the discipline of a police state,” he reflected."
Obama’s Link to “Old Iron Pants” by Jim Powell

And:
"Not only, did the NRA provide fewer advantages than unionists had anticipated, but it also failed as a recovery, measure. It probably even retarded recovery by supporting restrictionism and price increases, concluded a Brookings study."
Hist 221 FDR Bernstein « Gil Troy — Courses

So, it was a statement by the Brookings Institute, wasn't it?

And...did you get the reference to a "police state"... you down with that, too?

Isn't it a wonderful education you get here?


Did I just ruin your evening?

You don't have the capability of "ruining" any part of my day. I'm way beyond allowing anyone to do that. But I figured you'd post more of your selected comments in order to prove your point. It seems that Brookings report generated the needed vehicle for Republicans to fall back on to support their criticism of Roosevelt at the time.

What I find ironic is the same criticisms of Roosevelt's NRA are the same ones made today over Obama's stimulus program. While the free-market ideology always sounds good, looks good in papers produced by academics and think-tanks, no one has yet been able to say for sure what the economy of the 1930's depression era would have resembled if government had NOT infused large amounts of money by way of massive projects that put people back to work. A simple chart pulled from the annals of the time show the dramatic drop in unemployment as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal. And I will continue to maintain that a job is a job is a job, without which people don't have money to buy things that create profits for businesses and ultimately regenerate money back into the Treasury by way of taxes as a result of profits.

Wow!! 7 years and unemployement still 18% quite an accomplishment..


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

It was during a depression, moron, which followed the stock market crash of 1929. You expected unemployment should miraculously rise by 90 points during that time? Oh nevermind. It's easy to see you're one of those who thinks that the current fiscal mess should have been entirely resolved at least by the spring of 2009, too, if only a different person was sitting in the White House.

Your linked information is an opinion based on a set of what-if scenarios. The reality of the depression is that there were BREAD LINES. People had no money and no jobs and were unable to buy anything in order to maintain economic stability (as your own quoted portions confirm). We could use the same convoluted logic by saying that if only no government stimulus had occurred in 2009 and wages remained the same as they were in 2008, everything would be fine. Obviously, with the entire credit bubble crashing to earth, that was a complete impossibility.

In 1929 there was a stock market crash which sent everyone scrambling for their cash; in 2008 there was a financial institution crash which sent everyone scrambling for their cash. Jobs are what took the hit in BOTH situations.

 

[MaggieMae]

The UCLA study uses an incomplete data set which underestimates the number of jobs created during the New Deal.

Exactly.

 

[MaggieMae]

let me make a statement here on comparisons etc. Lets try a different way of looking at it;


Clinton had a dem. congress for 2 years, in 94 the house flipped, and so did the Senate. ( edit- he had a hostile congress)
He presided over some pretty good economic times.

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.


Reps say they deserve credit for the Clinton years because they drove the agenda, dems say hey Clinton was the President, in the long term Clinton gets the nod, no one remembers or cares who had congress really ( though this does count in the short term especially). Reagan? He carrys the whole load, good OR bad.

It is what it is.

They both stamped their era with their persona, good bad or indifferent and they each at the end of the day are responsible for what occured on their watch.



Reagan got handed a shitty deal, Clinton got a mild recession, Obama got a really shitty deal. Obama had what neither had, a supra majority and a reconciliation majority. He didn't need to compromise and looking back at Clinton and Reagan, maybe this was a bad thing.

No matter what happens it is the President that stands on their own in the eyes of history as the delineating factor of the year they occupy the WH.

We elect or 'pay' and grant accolades for performance, come what may. Its their job to mesh the exec., the house and senate and govern.

There for it is curious to me that Reagan barely gets a break from some, Clinton at least in my eyes gets the breaks ( and deserves too), and people scream if Obama doesn't get them all..... If Reagan and Clinton are responsible for their terms, so is Obama.

You can throw it all against the wall, in 81 it seemed like the end of the world, I remember well the doldrums, the shitty economy, rampant inflation, lack of jobs, crushing interest rates , for a wake up call; how would you like to finance a home at 15% interest?

Reagan dealt with his, Clinton dealt with his and Obama must deal with his, each had their own unique set of challenges........at the end of the day we pay them to get the job done.

Very reasonable comments. The problem is the blame game that continues. If yours ^ had been the opener, I think the commentary would have been much more agreeable. But something that starts right out of the box as an implication that Reagan=Great, Obama=Sucks, you're gonna get a lot of defensive people chiming in, like me.

 

[MaggieMae]

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.

Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no ******* reason to impeach, and did.

Get it?

I wouldn't say Reagan had a "hostile" congress either. After all, it's well known that he and Tip O'Neill hammered out a lot of controversial issues and were able to COMPROMISE. Something foreign these days, although I do see signs of that changing finally.

 

[MaggieMae]

The UCLA study uses an incomplete data set which underestimates the number of jobs created during the New Deal.

And the current levels of unemployment levels in reported by the government use an incomplete data set which underestimates the numbers of people who have GIVEN uP LOOKING BECAUSE THERE ARE NO JOBS.

And quite obviously the UCLA report didn't use that measurement either, since they used numbers from 1929 for their estimated projections.

 

[MaggieMae]

Reagan did not defeat the SU.

Elian Gonzales was a parents right issue.

No country is allowed to keep a persons child for political purposes.



If you think Reagan ended the cold war than you are a complete partisan.

"No country is allowed to keep a persons child for political purposes."

Issues such as amnesty are decided via the judicial system in democratically principled nations, as opposed to gunpoint, as in fascist nations....

Which is exactly what happened under the fascist-Democrat-Clinton-Reno-Holder government.....Elian Gonzalez was kidnapped at gunpoint prior to the decision of a panel of judges, who might have allowed Elian Gonzalez the right of every human being fleeing homicidal dictatorships.

a. Rather than allow a judge to decide, the Clinton administration ordered a predawn armed raid. The Gonzalez family had committed no crime, was in violation of no court order…but was subjected to “…frightening image of a Border Patrol agent pointing his machine gun at Elian… "We got Maced, we got kicked, we got roughed up", Cuban-born NBC camera man Tony Zumbado told MSNBC. He said that as the incursion began, federal agents kicked him in the stomach and yelled, "Don't move or we'll shoot." Zumbado added on NBC's" Dateline: "My sound man got hit with a shotgun butt on the head, dragged outside.” [CTRL] JACKBOOT JANET STOMPS NBC NEWS CREW WHILE MAJOR MEDIA

b. Both liberal jurists Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence Tribe denounced the raid as illegal and unconstitutional. But the press was satisfied. So, it seems, were you Leftists, thrilled to support the wishes of Castro, who viewed any 'escape'' from the prison nation as a crime.

An aside: I am so glad that you are on the board to present the liberal-fascist point of view, so that I may present the freedom-liberty side!
Folks like Sally, it seems, is smart enough to avoid defending the fascist-Democrat-Clinton-Reno-Holder government.

Oh my, that account of the removal of Elian almost looks like a movie trailer. How exciting. How HORRIBLE. Those big bad INS agents. Of course the textbook interpretation reads a little less like an adventure novel but more like a recitation of facts. From the Wiki entry, where you can always go to THEIR footnoted sources if you have a bias for that source.

Attorney general Janet Reno ordered the return of Elián to his father and set a deadline of April 13, 2000, but the Miami relatives defied the order. Negotiations continued for several days as the house was surrounded by protesters as well as police. The relatives insisted on guarantees that they could live with the child for several months and retain custody, and that Elián would not be returned to Cuba. Negotiations carried on throughout the night, but Reno stated that the relatives rejected all workable solutions. A Florida family court judge revoked Lázaro's temporary custody, clearing the way for Elián to be returned to his father's custody. On April 20, Reno made the decision to remove Elián González from the house and instructed law enforcement officials to determine the best time to obtain the boy. After being informed of the decision, Marisleysis said to a Justice Department community relations officer, "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."[14][15]

Elián González is removed at gunpoint from his relatives' home in Miami.
In the pre-dawn hours of April 22, pursuant to an order issued by a federal magistrate, eight SWAT-equipped agents of the Border Patrol's elite BORTAC unit as part of an operation in which more than 130 INS personnel took part[16] approached the house; they knocked, and identified themselves. When no one responded from within, they entered the house. Pepper-spray and mace were employed against those outside the house who attempted to interfere. Nonetheless, a stool, rocks, and bottles were thrown at the agents.[17] In the confusion Armando Gutierrez called in Alan Diaz, of the Associated Press, to enter the house and entered a room with Elián, his great uncle's wife Angela Lázaro, her niece, the niece's young son, and Donato Dalrymple (one of the fishermen who had rescued him from the ocean). They waited in the room listening to agents searching the house. Diaz took a widely publicized photograph of a border patrol agent discovering Dalrymple and the boy hiding in a closet.

INS also stated in the days after the raid that they had identified as many as two dozen persons who were "prepared to thwart any government operation," some of whom had concealed weapons while others had criminal records.[18][19] The INS noted reported statements made by members of the Lázaro family that they were prepared to deal with any intrusion on their property by force if authorities attempted to take Elián without their consent.

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Antiderivative]

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.

More rw kook historical revisionism at its finest.

 

[MaggieMae]

“Nearly ten years ago Friedman stated his real motives for all the world to read. For the record, Tom Friedman is walking excrement. Let’s not forget how he responded to the thuggish actions of Billy Jeff and Janet Waco with their attack on the Constitution and common decency:

“Yup, I gotta confess, that now-famous picture of a U.S. marshal in Miami pointing an automatic weapon toward Donato Dalrymple and ordering him in the name of the U.S. government to turn over Elian Gonzalez warmed my heart.”- Thomas Friedman , April 2000
Infidel Bloggers Alliance: Tom Friedman: Standard Issue Liberal Fascist

How did I KNOW you would bring up Waco?

Memo to Trajan: Now THESE are strawmen!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Friedman is a Statist Hack. Just like Obama, he thinks China has a better system.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Op-Ed Columnist - Our One-Party Democracy - NYTimes.com

Of course you wouldn't *get* that Friedman is hardly endorsing China's autocracy, but is merely pointing out that they have a drive based on accurate forecasting of what the requirements and purchasing power of the rest of the world will look like in the future, which of course the United States does not.

 

[MaggieMae]

Friedman is a Statist Hack. Just like Obama, he thinks China has a better system.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Op-Ed Columnist - Our One-Party Democracy - NYTimes.com

Scary shit here...(And Obama and this creep want to make it happen here too)...

So the USA should always be several steps behind so that we're going to depend even more on China's innovations? We should be right up there trying to be FIRST, not last. Sputnik was the swift kick in the ass we needed to get out own space exploration moving forward. But we're now allowing China to run right past us in every endeavor which will greatly affect the future of life on earth. How does that make any sense?

 

[Trajan]

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.

Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no ******* reason to impeach, and did.

Get it?

I wouldn't say Reagan had a "hostile" congress either. After all, it's well known that he and Tip O'Neill hammered out a lot of controversial issues and were able to COMPROMISE. Something foreign these days, although I do see signs of that changing finally.

I don't agree in principal, maybe the term hostile is to...hostile

the fact is they all had to compromise, or nothing would get done, EVERY congress and exec that is not one party, is hostile or see their platforms at cross purposes and fight for what THEY want.

Reagan certainly didn't get everything he wanted and had to swallow changes to his visions of gov. as presented as bills etc. , Clinton certainly didn't get everything he wanted and had to swallow changes to his visions of gov. as presented as bills etc. but, they made it work, if not simply becasue they had too.

My proviso mentioned in that post, on one party having it all applies to them all, dems reop.s, as we saw ala bush years with a simple majority which maybe have been bad enough let alone a supra majority.

 

[MaggieMae]

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.

Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no ******* reason to impeach, and did.

Get it?

I thought Clinton lied under oath in a sworn deposition kinda thingie...?

/maybe it really isn't that simple!

Lying under oath isn't a Constitutional impeachable offense. Only treason is.

 

[Trajan]

Reagan had a hostile congress, he had the senate for 4 ( I was wrong earlier I apologize) years,and he never had the house. By this same point in time after the recession ended, the economy had been ramped up and we were on the mend.

More rw kook historical revisionism at its finest.

so the dems were just as bad? I thought Reagen blew up the budget? and please, find some more nits minus historical context, you do know that the title of that pic is Reagan not congress...(zFacts-Reagan-Not-Congress.png).yet your point is ( and a poor oone) that he got what he wanted?dude...

 

[Truthmatters]

So did Reagan sign the budget?

 

[MaggieMae]

Strawman? I could have sworn the discussion was Reagan v. Obama, particularly comparing recessions, of which the tax situation was a huge part. Hello?

hello, I don't recall making that argument.



this was the OP;

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....


My answers there after and ahead of his addressed the op as broadly as the Op addresses the crux of the matter, we don't have a recovery and where we are are in that context historically.

You implied that any discussion on comparing tax rates/policy was a strawman argument. It isn't. That's all.

 

[MaggieMae]

Funny thing to see the right fighting for an illegal alien to stay.

I know!!! That crossed my mind, too.

 

[Trajan]

Reagan never had a "hostile" congress. They had good reason to impeach him..and didn't. Clinton's congress, had no ******* reason to impeach, and did.

Get it?

I thought Clinton lied under oath in a sworn deposition kinda thingie...?

/maybe it really isn't that simple!

Lying under oath isn't a Constitutional impeachable offense. Only treason is.

and 'reason to' ( ala sallow) doesn't equal proof, I am sure hes to young but I remember very well the iran contra hearings.

For the record, I thought that attempting to impeach clinton not was not a smart move.