Reagan vs Obama

[Trajan]

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.

because missile threats did not go away, hello, Nor Korea et al.

The ussr was bankrupt. they could not keep up which is what a large part of their platform counted on. We spent them over the edge. FORCING the ussr to deal with the missile shield is whats paramount, forcing them to have to account for it. Utilizing resources they did not have.

Mathias Rust should get kudos too, a small seemingly insignificant incident had HUGE effect.

it was a team effort but we were the prime movers.

 

[editec]

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

What a load of carefully contrived nonsense.

One cannot compare these two events because the economies are not the same at all.

What was the primary thing that brought the economy down (and crushed inflation, too?) when Regan was first in office?

Determined to wring inflation out of the economy, Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker slowed the rate of growth of the money supply and raised interest rates. The federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, rose to 20% by June 1981. The prime interest rate, a highly important economic measure, eventually reached 21.5% in June 1982.[3][9]

Now to BLAME Reagan for that economy is ignorant.

And to credit Reagan for tyhe recover of the economy as the prime started going down is EQUALLY missing the point.

Presdient do not CONTROL the economy, folks.

You partisans need to read a forking book or two because this constant attempt to blame a POTUS or credit him for the economy is ignorant as hell.

Yes they can have SOME effect on an economy, but their effect won't be instanteous which is apparently what many of you think.

In fact the effect a POTUS might have on the economy generally (assuming congress goes along with the president's plans) is more likely to show up with the NEXT administration than during his.

Clinton, for example, benefitted in large part thanks to the good poliicy of George Bush I, who RAISED TAXES (and lost his second bid for office...that's the act of a PATRIOT, I note) thus making it possible for Clinton to have somethaing approaching a BALANCED BUDGET during his two terms.

Wake up and smell the economic reality, kids.

Presidents are NOT KINGS, they are not magicians, they do not have complete (or even much) control over the economy.

 

[MaggieMae]

Certainly not FDR.


1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” Articles & Commentary


I understand that this bit of remediation will not change neither your thinking nor your posts, but I appreciate the fact that we, therefore, make a dynamite pair.

You go on fudging the truth, and I'll go on correcting you!

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

"...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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

Oh, and here I thought Clinton made some secret deal with Castro or something that almost brought the entire country to its knees. You know, you could have just SAID what you were talking about, and we could have cleared that up immediately. You also could haved posted a link to any one of hundreds of articles assessing the Brookings analysis, rather than one by a blatantly far-right organization as a teaser. But nooooooooo, it's not your style. You just love to toss out little crumbs hoping to hook a sucker. When or when will I learn your MO?

 

[MaggieMae]

"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%?

It would have been nice if corporate America had also stepped up to the plate, but instead it hoarded profits, continued paying outrageous salaries and bonuses, all the while laying off people.

Paid Off for Layoffs: CEOs at Pink Slip Leaders Earned 42% More in 2009 - DailyFinance

The "pain" was only felt by the unemployed, small businesses who were forced to close, and eventually taxpayers who are responsible for government intervention to try to make sure the economy didn't tank any further. I have never seen any outrage expressed by any conservative over the behavior of the corporate elitists. Why didn't the private sector ever try to work WITH the government?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Ah, so you admit that there's a carryover from one administration to another. Finally. So here we have the truth:

Carter screws up economy (mainly over energy prices).

Reagan tries to fix Carter's screwups; leaves massive deficit.

Bush 41 inherits Reagan's screwups; raises taxes.

Clinton tries to fix Bush/Reagan screwups; raises tax rates.

Bush 43 decides Clinton's budget "fix" should be returned to taxpayers; lowers tax rates but also spends too much.

Obama tries to fix Bush 43's no-tax-spending spree but is also hit with an entirely NEW problem when major investment banks suddenly come up empty which threatens the economy of the entire world.

Funny how that all works, eh?

 

[MaggieMae]

off camera?

When they're not aggrandizing for cable news. Watch the real action on C-Span, or when they forget their assigned daily talking points and say what they really mean.

Speaker Boehner Admits Oil Companies Don't 'Pay Their Fair Share' | Political Correction

At a time of skyrocketing gas prices and near-record profits for oil companies, House Speaker John Boehner made a major concession today: Congress should consider cutting multi-billion dollar subsidies to oil companies.

"Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and, frankly, they've got some part of this to blame," the Ohio Republican told ABC News today.

"It's certainly something we should be looking at," Boehner said. "We're in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share."

Two whammies in one breath: Admitting we have a "revenue" problem, and also the massive subsidies to the oil companies should be cut off.

 

[8537]

Yep. Paul Krugman is an idiot...

******* 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?

you, sir, are a Great American! And fancy yourself smarter than Paul Krugman.

And the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[Truthmatters]

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

What a load of carefully contrived nonsense.

One cannot compare these two events because the economies are not the same at all.

What was the primary thing that brought the economy down (and crushed inflation, too?) when Regan was first in office?

Determined to wring inflation out of the economy, Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker slowed the rate of growth of the money supply and raised interest rates. The federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, rose to 20% by June 1981. The prime interest rate, a highly important economic measure, eventually reached 21.5% in June 1982.[3][9]

Now to BLAME Reagan for that economy is ignorant.

And to credit Reagan for tyhe recover of the economy as the prime started going down is EQUALLY missing the point.

Presdient do not CONTROL the economy, folks.

You partisans need to read a forking book or two because this constant attempt to blame a POTUS or credit him for the economy is ignorant as hell.

Yes they can have SOME effect on an economy, but their effect won't be instanteous which is apparently what many of you think.

In fact the effect a POTUS might have on the economy generally (assuming congress goes along with the president's plans) is more likely to show up with the NEXT administration than during his.

Clinton, for example, benefitted in large part thanks to the good poliicy of George Bush I, who RAISED TAXES (and lost his second bid for office...that's the act of a PATRIOT, I note) thus making it possible for Clinton to have somethaing approaching a BALANCED BUDGET during his two terms.

Wake up and smell the economic reality, kids.

Presidents are NOT KINGS, they are not magicians, they do not have complete (or even much) control over the economy.

For the most part you are right.

Under Bush and the republicans there were things they could have done to avert this economic disastor and instead of trying to avert it they allowed it to build into a huge mess because the only reason their economic numbers were not miserable was the housing boom.

I agree pappy Bush did a patriotic thing when he did the right thing instead of the poltically expediant thing and raised taxes.

Carter also made a simular sacrafice during his term.


Bush and the republicans did what was good for them for the momment, they in turn allowed the country to build into a huge bubble that bit the whole world.

Monetary policy by the government is very critical to how our capitalistic democracy works.

We are running out of time to correct the vast messes that now plauge our country.

The republicans and the right keep wanting MORE of the policy that helped create two huge crashes in one lifetime.


They keep pretending their economic policy worked when history shows it doesnt work.


Constant boom and bust is not good for a democracy, its what the republican policies bring this or any country.


It has to be stopped.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

"...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.

But...but...but....you suggested that either I fibbed in stating that the Brookings Institute, after careful analysis, stated that FDR 'retarded' rather than solved the Depression....

In fact, you said "But then you go on to post a link trying to prove that "conclusion" came from Brookings when in fact it's from the right wing American Enterprise Institute dated 2007!!!"

When, in fact I was totally correct as far as the Brookings' statement, and you were totally wrong to accuse me of fobbing off the AEI report as the words of Brookings...


...and all I get in the way of apology is "It seems that Brookings report generated blah blah blah...."

I'm wounded! Wounded to the quick!

But, every cloud has a silver lining...and perhaps you've learned your lesson.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Oh, and here I thought Clinton made some secret deal with Castro or something that almost brought the entire country to its knees. You know, you could have just SAID what you were talking about, and we could have cleared that up immediately. You also could haved posted a link to any one of hundreds of articles assessing the Brookings analysis, rather than one by a blatantly far-right organization as a teaser. But nooooooooo, it's not your style. You just love to toss out little crumbs hoping to hook a sucker. When or when will I learn your MO?

So, out of all that verbiage designed to cloud the issue...you seem to admit that Democrat Clinton marched shoulder to shoulder with Communist Tyrannt Fidel Castro....


...I see your improvement already!

 

[percysunshine]

Reagan vs. Obama?

Obama would probably win, Reagan is a dead pile of bones. Although, Obama is dumb enough to lose a thumb wrestling contest with a calcium deposit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

What nonsense.

1. Obama has had 7 quarters of positive GDP growth in his presidency; at this point in the Reagan presidency, he had had only 5.

2. The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Obama took office, it's now 8.8%. The unemployment rate was 7.5% when Reagan took office; at this point in his presidency it was 10.3%

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose no one cares that the OP's propaganda piece juggled the time frames so that Reagan's segment reflects the best part of his presidency.

AND I also suppose that no one cares that the Reagan recovery, this wondrous economic miracle you clowns are touting,

took place after the historic 1982 ROLLBACK of much of the 1981 Reagan tax cut!!

So, LOGICALLY, if Reaganomics is the model, you Reaganoids should have supported a partial ROLLBACK of the Bush tax cuts.

Eh?

Funny things, those facts.

 

[Truthmatters]

Reagan vs. Obama?

Obama would probably win, Reagan is a dead pile of bones. Although, Obama is dumb enough to lose a thumb wrestling contest with a calcium deposit.

Obama is smarter than any republican who has held office in thrity years.


To pretend that the man is not intelligent is a cheap partisan lie.

You can disagree with him if you wish but to spew lies out of pure hate makes you as dumb as a post.

 

[bripat9643]

Who is calling for 70 or 90% top tax rates? How about just rolling them back to pre-Bush levels?

How about leaving them where they are? One thing is certain, no matter where tax rates are, libtards like you will be insisting they need to be increased.

It's time government learned to live within it's means.

 

[bripat9643]

Reagan vs Obama is kind of like saying Almighty God vs Jesus isn't it?

You're comparing Obama to Jesus?

 

[Trajan]

off camera?

When they're not aggrandizing for cable news. Watch the real action on C-Span, or when they forget their assigned daily talking points and say what they really mean.

Speaker Boehner Admits Oil Companies Don't 'Pay Their Fair Share' | Political Correction

At a time of skyrocketing gas prices and near-record profits for oil companies, House Speaker John Boehner made a major concession today: Congress should consider cutting multi-billion dollar subsidies to oil companies.

"Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and, frankly, they've got some part of this to blame," the Ohio Republican told ABC News today.

"It's certainly something we should be looking at," Boehner said. "We're in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share."

Two whammies in one breath: Admitting we have a "revenue" problem, and also the massive subsidies to the oil companies should be cut off.

what they really mean? you are aware he is , they are all politicians. its not news we have a revenue problem, this was a secret? As far as boehner saying so, of course he did, hes maneuvering going into the budget talks and the debt ceiling as congress re-adjourns next week.......why is this a surprise when a republicans do this? ...Hes also called or knocking done taxes to gain greater tax revenues, thats the whole point, take in mor, e spend less, drive down the deficit, if he is now on board with ending Oil tax breaks ( those are tax breaks btw not subsidies) I think thats short sighted but hey, he said so whats the argument?

 

[Trajan]

Reagan vs. Obama?

Obama would probably win, Reagan is a dead pile of bones. Although, Obama is dumb enough to lose a thumb wrestling contest with a calcium deposit.

Obama is smarter than any republican who has held office in thrity years.

.

link please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes for the 1st 3 years of the Reagan presidency averaged just under 19% of GDP. Taxes for the Obama presidency have averaged under 15% of GDP.