Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

[Trajan]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

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

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

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

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

reagan had to create his own recession to fix what was broke you boob, so we have been out of the recession for 2 years, and? ......as the article alludes, when we came out of the reagan recession....well? does obama need another recession to set things straight? apparently not since we have been in a summer of recovery for 2 summers....he may have prevented any further sinking, and? where to now? and looking at the remarks of the then big guys in economics, we should be zooming by now......

 

[code1211]

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!

Shame? Are you a Wisconsin Union Demonstrator?

And you're right. Reagan would have gagged on the idea of a Neo-Con. What that means is a Liberal who goes to Church. It's BS in terms of Conservative Principles.

Cut spending. Diseminate power to the levels closest to the people and give to the states all responsibilities that are not enumerated specifically in the Constitution. Simplify the tax code and reduce the burden of regulation on individuals.

Neo-Cons and Liberals share the same bed and screw the same population.

 

[grunt11b]

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

How dare you bomb the liberals with economic facts!!!You sir must be reigned in and silenced!!

 

[grunt11b]

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'd like to know what phenomenally positive things you are talking about. Unless of course you are talking about the clower and piven tactics he is using to bring down our economy and how well it is working of course.
Also, when a president is elected that is business friendly and businesses start to hire again, that doesn't count as being due to Obamas policies, we know how you on the left like to destroy jobs, and when businesses feel comfortable with a conservative president and start hiring again you claim it was from a previous presidents policies. Wont work this time, the people are paying too much attention now.

 

[code1211]

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.

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%.

It's hard to tell exactly how well the Big 0 will end up having done at this point in time.

Reagan carried 49 states in his re-election bid. He missed carrying Minnesota, home state of his opponent, by 0.18%.

I wonder how well your man will do...

 

[grunt11b]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

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

If you're saying it is not factually based because it originated on fox news, please feel free to back your argument up with your facts that prove it is all a lie or incorrect. Until you can do that you wont be taken seriously in this thread.

 

[grunt11b]

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

Thought terminating statement. It's from a Murdoch owned paper, therefore it's lies. Aaaaaaallllll lies...

...therefore I don't have to think about anything it says.

Fox Nation doesn't think why should I have to...?

At least fox breaks news and tells the truth about things, it doesn't make up stories and edit them like Msnbc and Chris Mathews/Rachel Madcow. Like I said before, if you cannot use facts to debunk the article, then you have no credibility here.

 

[shintao]

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.

Obama started with all of the problems you mention and either did nothing to improve them or actively made them worse.

Reagan started with problems that you ignor and corrected them.

It's not whether you get knocked down. It's whether you get back up.

Right now, we're flat our our collective back and the Big 0 is helping us to roll into a grave.

Pretty hard to fight recession when faced with 50% of Congress stuck on "Do Whatever it takes," and the "Party of NO." That is what Treason is. But I do oppose Obama for supporting the corporations over the people. That is is inexcusable.

 

[grunt11b]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics - WSJ.com

Let's start out with the first assertion

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

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

So what's Obama do? He adds 4.5 trillion to the debt in less than 2-1/2 years with a failed stimulus package that was only designed to stimulate the pockets of his donors.

Reagan started with Zero wars
Obama started with 2 wars

Two wars we might not be in today had clinton gave the go ahead to kill bin laden on the multiple times his head was offered up.
Also, would you have stood back and allowed terrorists to kill 3000 Americans and do nothing in return?

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

Not true, unemployment was at 6% and did not start to go down until AFTER Obama started with the big spending and the socialist healthcare bill.

It's sickening how those on the left give this man a free pass while he is sitting there destroying YOUR country and the country your children/grandchildren will inherit.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

So if I shot you in the ass with a 357 magnum and noone tells you that you are a victim that would make you not a victim? Maybe I misunderstood you.

 

[grunt11b]

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?

I know right? If there was anything positive happening it would be all over the news almost 24/7, but last I checked they have been talking about Hurricane Irene for the last week or so.

 

[grunt11b]

Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

Nether works. There is a happy middle ground somewhere.

No there's not, one DID work, the other is a miserable failure, no middle ground...only the fact of the matter.

 

[grunt11b]

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

Prove it.

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

So instead of trying to fix said mess Obama doubled down on it, and you guys give him a free pass on it while blaming it all on Bush? Does that make any damn sense at all?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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!

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

Wrong. . . .

U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statisticshttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt​

1980-01 to 1980-03: 6.3%

1980-04: 6.9%

1980-05: 7.5%

1980-06: 7.6%

1980-07: 7.8%

1980-08: 7.7%

Obviously, Reagan's policies had nothing to do with that trend, and then it went down a bit and up a bit in a fluctuating fashion, again, clearly, before Reagan's policies could have possibly had any real effect one way or the other.

1980-09 to 1980-11: 7.5%

1980-12: 7.2%

1981-01: 7.5%

1981-02 to 1981-03: 7.4%

1981-04: 7.2%

1981-05 to 1981-6: 7.5%

1981-07: 7.2%

1981-08: 7.4%

1981-09: 7.6%

1981-10: 7.9%

And so on from there. . . .

1982-11 to 1982-12: 10.8%

1983-01 to 1983-02: 10.4%

1983-03: 10.3%

1983-09: 9.2%

1984-09: 7.3%

And so on. . . .

1988-12: 5.3%

The pattern toward the end of Carter's term:

1978-10: 5.8%

1978-11: 5.9%

1978-12: 6.0%

1979-01 to 1979-02: 5.9%

1979-03 to 1979-04: 5.8%

1979-05: 5.6%

1979-06 to 1979-07: 5.7

1979-08 to 1979-12: 6.0%

Rising again . . . but what was really killing us during Carter's term was an entrenched recession with staggeringly high interest rates, which Reagan's policies had clearly corrected by the end of the first quarter of 1984, with unemployment dropping back down rapidly as a result of a resurging economy. Hence, his landslide victory in November of that same year. Bottom line: Reagan inherited a multiple, negative-trend, economic disaster that had yet to do its worst in terms of unemployment. With the underlying causes of economic ill-health corrected, unemployment dropped.

 

[grunt11b]

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

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

We compare actual results, and use what works.

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

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

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

One could, but that one would be bullshitting themselves with said argument.

 

[Cuyo]

Prove it.

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

So instead of trying to fix said mess Obama doubled down on it, and you guys give him a free pass on it while blaming it all on Bush? Does that make any damn sense at all?

If you think the economy is worse today than it was when Obama took office by any metric, you are just stuck on stupid my friend.

The entire globe was in fucking free-fall. Gripe all you want about how sluggish the recovery is and how you believe a different approach would have worked faster or better... But it's worse? There is just no basis in fact for that angle. This wasn't the little pissant 2000 recession. The walls were coming down fast. What we're looking at today is rock solid by comparison.

 

[Cuyo]

We compare actual results, and use what works.

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

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

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

One could, but that one would be bullshitting themselves with said argument.

Actually, one would be spot-on.

 

[grunt11b]

If the economy we had was like the economy that Reagan had when he came into office our recession would be long over.

It isn't, so comparisons like these just show us how ignorant some of us really are about all things macro-economic.

The Reagan years achieved their 'growth' through cheap energy and a consumer credit bubble...

Clinton years - Stock bubble...

Bush years - Housing bubble...

Unfortunately, with cheap energy gone (probably for good), the only way to see comparable growth is the find the next bubble, and there's some intellectual disagreement about whether inflating it would be the right thing to do, even if we could locate and guide the inflation of said bubble.

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

Are you high?

I think they are, I just came across this picture of him.

 

[Cuyo]

If the economy we had was like the economy that Reagan had when he came into office our recession would be long over.

It isn't, so comparisons like these just show us how ignorant some of us really are about all things macro-economic.

The Reagan years achieved their 'growth' through cheap energy and a consumer credit bubble...

Clinton years - Stock bubble...

Bush years - Housing bubble...

Unfortunately, with cheap energy gone (probably for good), the only way to see comparable growth is the find the next bubble, and there's some intellectual disagreement about whether inflating it would be the right thing to do, even if we could locate and guide the inflation of said bubble.

Cheap energy does not have to be gone, if the moratoriums where lifted and drilling allowed in this country again. Again, the leftists have the stranglehold on America in this area also. Blame Obama and the communist environmentalists for more expensive energy, noone else.

Don't be stupid. Oil will never be as plentiful, low-hanging and cheap as it once was. Never-ever. Cheap energy will one day come in the form of an entirely new source, probably fusion. Until then oil will be a bumpy plateau trending up, up, up.