Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

[Oldstyle]

It's not over.... and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.

"phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term..."

Are you watching the same economic reports that I am? Not only do I not see any "phenomenally" positive things...I'm not seeing many slightly positive things. We're headed for a double dip recession.

 

[Iridescence]

It's not over.... and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.

Phenomenal? Sure.
Phenomenal spending. Phenomenal debt. Phenomenal erosion of rule of law. Phenomenal unemployment. Phenonemal low labor participation rates. Phenomenal levels of public assistance. Phenomenal lack of confidence in government's ability to make a positive difference. Phenomenal hostility from the White House.
Yup, Obama has done a phenomenal job.

Ohhh I'm sorry... I forgot to mention the idiocy to acknowledge that which is beneath the rubble.

 

[Iridescence]

It's not over.... and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.

"phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term..."

Are you watching the same economic reports that I am? Not only do I not see any "phenomenally" positive things...I'm not seeing many slightly positive things. We're headed for a double dip recession.

Pardon me thar sir... bein' a chancy dumb hick as I may seem... an' all... but a victim is only a victim if it is what they are told to be.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

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

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

One succeeded, the other failed.

Reaganomics ran for....

12 years.

Obama hasn't (even) had 4 years, yet. There's no fair way to compare the two. Even a Teabagger should be able to figure-that-out. David Stockman has BEEN admitting Reaganaomics was a total fuck-up......and, Stephen Moore is still an asshole.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oToYSJQ9tpw&feature=related]Ronald Reagan was wrong! The U.S. debt versus ecomomic growth explained. - YouTube[/ame]

*

​

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not over.... and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.

"phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term..."

Are you watching the same economic reports that I am? Not only do I not see any "phenomenally" positive things...I'm not seeing many slightly positive things. We're headed for a double dip recession.

Pardon me thar sir... bein' a chancy dumb hick as I may seem... an' all... but a victim is only a victim if it is what they are told to be.

You have to have customers to make profits.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

.

Go tell that to the Poles and Germans.
HuffPoo. Seriously? Was there a single documented fact in that entire screed?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term..."

Are you watching the same economic reports that I am? Not only do I not see any "phenomenally" positive things...I'm not seeing many slightly positive things. We're headed for a double dip recession.

Pardon me thar sir... bein' a chancy dumb hick as I may seem... an' all... but a victim is only a victim if it is what they are told to be.

You have to have customers to make profits.

.....And, Stephen Moore is still an asshole.​

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Wait wait wait.... are you trying to claim that before Reagan there was no national debt or deficits?

Are you fucking KIDDING ME??????

There has been a national debt and deficits since WASHINGTON!

This is a pathetic and deceptive inference.

He told you exactly what the debt was when Reagan became president.

 

[Zander]

Don't forget ATM's and the Arab Spring!! Poor Obama. Bush left him two wars and everyone knows that all Republicans are Crazy, Stupid, and Racist.

Did I miss any other convenient excuses?

The fact is Obama has no plans or ideas for growing the economy. Why even bother to campaign? He clearly doesn't want the job. He's now in it for the pension......

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wait wait wait.... are you trying to claim that before Reagan there was no national debt or deficits?

Are you fucking KIDDING ME??????

There has been a national debt and deficits since WASHINGTON!

This is a pathetic and deceptive inference.

He told you exactly what the debt was when Reagan became president.

Except those figures are meaningless by themselves.
Compare them per GDP, which is the only meaningful figure and Obama has done much worse. Much much worse.

 

[Google]

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.

Wait wait wait.... are you trying to claim that before Reagan there was no national debt or deficits?

Are you fucking KIDDING ME??????

There has been a national debt and deficits since WASHINGTON!

This is a pathetic and deceptive inference.

He told you exactly what the debt was when Reagan became president.

Are you seriously this disingenuous? President Reagan never had a Republican Congress--Obama has had, until he lost it, a complicit Democrat-controlled Congress for the first two years of his administration.

Can you understand why this is relevant when discussing the national debt and deficit?

 

[boedicca]

It's not over.... and phenomenally positive things are happening during Obama's term that has not happened during any other's ever mentioned in history. How 'bout we just call this down time of 'his' as timing... so that later when it's an up time the 'bitchers of now' won't have to succumb to admitting to more than it being mere 'timing' then.

I call shenanigans.

What are these Phenomenally Positive Things that are happening during Obama's term and have never ever been Ever Mentioned in history?

 

[boedicca]

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.

Jeebus you are historically illiterate.

Here are some Phenomenal Things your Obamessiah has accomplished:

* Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.

* The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.

* July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

* Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

* Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

* The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

* The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

* The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

* The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

* Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

* During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.

That is to say, Obama has achieved in two-and-a-half years what it took George W. Bush two full terms in office to achieve — and Obama, when he was running for president, slammed Bush’s record as being “unpatriotic.”

* America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.

* Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

* The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

* A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago.

Answering Jonathan Alter’s Challenge « Commentary Magazine

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Don't forget ATM's and the Arab Spring!!

....And....

....S&Ls!!!!!!

 

[Maple]

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

Reagan's worked Obama's flopped, Obama needs to study his keynesian philosophy because it's never worked, not ever, but these Liberals think they are smarter than the last liberal who tried it and surely it will work for them.

Definition of insanity- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

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!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

 

[Mr.Nick]

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

Obamnanomics is destroy what one deems to be "unfair" and replace that structure with equality.....

Little do Marxists understand that they're being "unfair" to those that provide for them.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

The idea that a liberal turd would place the welfare of the country over their sleazy agenda is too hysterical for words.