Comparing the economic legacies.
It’s not really fair, though. One president knew how to allow the economy to create wealth. The other only knows about, and cares about, redistributing it.
[Friday-morning update]
Post recession, one third of Americans think they’re worse off.
Pretty sure the polling wouldn’t have indicated that in 1986. Of course, the Obama defenders will say that those deluded people have false consciousness.
[Bumped]
One wanted all citizens to prosper
One wants to punish come citizens
One understood the destructive nature of too much welfare
One glories in that destructive nature and uses it to succeed.
oops that was to be “punish SOME citizens”
One increased the deficit, one cut it.
One increased payroll taxes, one reduced them (at least for a while).
One increased government payrolls, one shrank them.
Both wanted to offer citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, one managed to do it.
“One increased payroll taxes, one reduced them (at least for a while).”
…and then increased them and a million other taxes such that the rates of all payers of taxes has gone up. Not only that the secondary effect of taxing businesses and (e.g.) medical suppliers also filters down to consumers as they always will and so the overall tax burden direct and indirect is much higher under Obama.
Spin as you might, people with real common sense know a crummy economy, and policies foreign and domestic when they see them.
The difference between the 80’s and today is stark, unequivocal and in no way in Obama’s favor.
You really want us to believe that Obama cut the debt? It has ballooned 7 trillion. The only reason this monstrosity isn’t higher is because a Republican House was able to kick in the sequester.
Democrats live under the myth that Reagan is responsible for the deficits of the 80s. He proposed cuts which a democrat Congress was unwilling to do. (Neither did a Republican Congress in 2002-2006 either, which is why you can trace the origins of the Tea Party to this time period.)
You really want us to believe that Obama cut the debt?
Not the debt, the deficit. The deficit is annual, the debt is cumulative. Reagan increased the deficit, Obama cut it. Reagan and Obama both increased the debt. Bill Clinton was the last president to reduce the debt as a fraction of GDP, Harding was the last to reduce it in absolute dollars.
Democrats live under the myth that Reagan is responsible for the deficits of the 80s. He proposed cuts which a democrat Congress was unwilling to do.
Every budget he sent to Congress had bigger deficits than what he inherited. When Congress wouldn’t go along with the (relatively modest) spending cuts he proposed, instead of paring back his programs he went right ahead with his spending increases and tax cuts. Like George W. Bush after him, he cared more about his spending programs and his tax cuts than he did about the deficit. As Dick Cheney put it, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.
Obama only decreased the debt because sequester kicked in. He didn’t like it, but hey, he can say he is responsible for it.
Reagan increased the deficit, Obama cut it. Reagan and Obama both increased the debt. Bill Clinton was the last president to reduce the debt as a fraction of GDP, Harding was the last to reduce it in absolute dollars.
Reagan — democrat house/deficit increase
Clinton — republican house/deficit decrease
Bush (last 2 years when deficit soared): — democrat house/deficit increase
Obama (first 2 years) — democrat house/deficit increase
Obama (after 2010) — republican house/deficit decrease
I think spending might have something to do with the House of Representatives and the party in power?
Obama only decreased the debt because sequester kicked in.
Obama decreased the deficit, not the debt, and it was decreasing before the sequester began. Most of the decrease is due to the economy improving.
Reagan — democrat house/deficit increase
Clinton — republican house/deficit decrease
Bush (last 2 years when deficit soared): — democrat house/deficit increase
Yes.
Obama (first 2 years) — democrat house/deficit increase
No, the deficit started falling in those two years.
You left out:
Clinton (first 2 years) — democratic house/deficit decrease
Bush Sr. — democratic house/deficit decrease
Bush (first 6 years): — republican house/deficit increase
I think spending might have something to do with the House of Representatives
No argument there, but the pattern isn’t as simple as Democratic House increases deficit, Republican House decreases it.
Every budget he sent to Congress had bigger deficits than what he inherited.
But Obama hasn’t sent that many budgets to Congress.
Actually, the 2009 Deficit was the largest and it was Obama who signed that budget.
Bush did not sign a budget for FY09.
One increased the deficit, one cut it.
One had a Democrat House, the other a Republican one. Presidents don’t increase or decrease deficits by their lonesomes.
one cut it.
Maybe… maybe not:
“The Obama administration failed to properly account for how it spent nearly $619 billion, according to a watchdog audit of the main federal website meant to track where taxpayer money is going.
The report from the Government Accountability Office picked apart the website USASpending.gov, and the agencies feeding information to it.”
Half a trillion here, half a trillion there, and very soon your talking about real money.
I’m so proud to be a newly-minted far Left Progressive, and be learning from the master Jim. Only he, with a straight face, could assert that Obama cut the deficit and get away with it unchallenged! The largest deficit under Bush was $412 billion, and the smallest under Obama was $679 billion. In 2009-2012, the deficit was well over $1 trillion.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2015-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2015-TAB-1-1.xls
The largest deficit under Bush was $412 billion
Not according to the spreadsheet you linked to:
2008: $459B
2009: $1,413B
ARRA was passed and signed by Obama as part of FY2009, also this was a time of a Congress completely run by Democrats. One more reason not to vote Democrat during this next Congressional election.
Shall we consult the actual facts?
Yes. Let’s.
Under Reagan the deficit increased very modestly, over his 8 years the deficit as a percentage of GDP increased by 12% (from 2.6% to 2.9%). Meanwhile, under Reagan the economy grew tremendously, seeing 22% GDP growth per capita (all these figures are for inflation adjusted dollars, by the way). What about Obama’s track record? Currently the deficit sits at 3.7% of GDP, an increase of 21% since Obama took office (and only 6 years, not 8). Meanwhile, the economy grew at a paltry 3% GDP growth per capita.
But that actually vastly under reports Obama’s poor performance with the deficit since it omits his middle years where it was wildly out of control. On average, under Reagan’s administration the deficit added around 3.5% of GDP to the federal debt per year. For Obama that figure is 6.1%. All the more remarkable because, as mentioned above, per capita GDP has been essentially flat throughout the current administration.
Reagan came in after most of the recession had done its course. It started back when Nixon was President remember? The main cause was the OPEC cartel raising oil prices as US oil production shriveled to a trickle. How long ago was the 2007-8 Financial Crisis?
If you want to compare with someone in the same time period you have to compare him against Carter.
Lemme guess… you were born in the years after the events?
No, no, grasshopper. Things were bad, really bad, into midway through Reagan’s first term. The Democrats were asking, how long do you get to blame Carter? When does it become Reagan’s economy? They didn’t have very long to ask.
You would have to have lived it to really know the emotional toll. The country was in a deep funk, losing economic ground, losing the Cold War, losing on just about every front. Then Reagan came along. Words just cannot describe the change. It truly was ‘Morning in America’, after a long and dismal night.
No, Godzilla, the comparison is still good to make (especially as Gregg has bottom-lined it, mainly because it shows what a jerk the Red Diaper Baby in the White House is.
(By the way, if the recession had run its course, as you say, by the time Reagan came to office, what had caused it to lose steam?)
But a comparison with Carter is equally useful because it shows what jerks in general “liberals” are (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators”). My favorite Carter quote was when he told an interviewer how productive it was to discuss things and work with dictators–or as Carter phrased it, “these people we call ‘dictators”.
“Reagan came in after most of the recession had done its course.”
Absolutely and totally false. Reagan and Volker caused the recession – they kicked it into being. Reagan didn’t want to but it was the right move. Volker convinced him that it was the only way to squeeeze out inflation. It didn’t help Reagan politically while the recession was underway (it was a tough one). But it dealt with inflation, eliminated inefficiencies (as recessions usually do – though not Obama’s) – and et up the roaring recovery.
The Energy Crisis Recession: (January 1980 – July 1980)
Duration: 6 months
Magnitude:
GDP decline: 1.1%
Unemployment Rate: 7.8%
Reasons and Causes: Inflation had reached 13.5% and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates and slowed money supply growth, which slowed the economy and caused unemployment to rise. Energy prices and supply were put at risk causing a confidence crisis as well as inflation.
January 1980 – July 1980
Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981, after the end of the recession period you listed
Oops you’re right. I posted the wrong dates:
—————————-
According to the accepted arbiter of the economy’s ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980 — lasting only six months — and a short period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.
In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future. A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months. Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse. The public also smiled on the newly elected president. In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administration’s economic policies would make their family’s financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%). Just 37% said Reagan’s policies would make their family finances worse.
A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy. A 54%-majority said Reagan’s policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better. But even as the economy reached its nadir, the public did not lose all confidence in Reagan: In an October survey, a 40%-plurality said that over the long run the president’s policies would make their economic situation better, while a third said they would make things worse and 15% volunteered they would stay the same.
Even as the jobless rate remained above 10% and the public experienced added economic pain, those predicting improvement in their finances greatly outnumbered those who anticipated a further weakening. In November 1982, more said their financial situation had gotten worse (37%) than better (28%) over the last year, but Americans believed their personal financial situation would improve over the next year by a 41%-to-22% margin. In March 1983, nearly half (46%) said their personal financial situation had gotten worse in the past 12 months, but the better-to-worse margin for the year ahead remained 45% to 22%.
———————————
The point is that the Reagan Recession had NOT run it’s course. Reagan and Volker kicked it off.
You’ve mixed the players. Carter brought in Volcker. Volcker squeezed the money supply under a reluctant Carter.
If Reagan was the primary beneficiary of economic policies of a decade prior to his terms in office, then certainly Clinton was the primary beneficiary of economic policies of a decade prior to his terms in office.
When Reagan came into office, there was a new phenomenon called stagflation. This was contrary to the economic theory that inflation and unemployment are inverses of each other. The only way to end it was to raise interest rates into the 20% region, lower taxes and cut spending. Reagan was not liked for this, but he had principles and stuck to his guns.
We are now suffering from stagflation, thanks to the destructive economic policies of Obama. Our current President is doing everything contrary to what Reagan did. He has raised taxes, spent money and kept a loose monetary policy (which causes money supply expansion which leads to inflation).
It wasn’t Reagan who raised interest rates, it was Paul Volcker, who started doing so before Reagan took office.
We are now suffering from stagflation
The inflation rate in 1981 was 10.35%. The inflation rate in 2013 was 1.47%. The situations aren’t at all similar.
Our current President is doing everything contrary to what Reagan did. He has raised taxes
Not nearly as much (as % of GDP) as Reagan did.
spent money
Not nearly as much (as % of GDP) as Reagan did.
and kept a loose monetary policy (which causes money supply expansion which leads to inflation).
1) Monetary policy is the province of the Federal Reserve, not the President, and 2) inflation has been very low the last six years, in spite of what you term loose monetary policy.
“Not nearly as much (as % of GDP) as Reagan did.”
You are conveniently ignoring the myriad of indirect taxes and boondoggles inflicted upon us by Obama which Reagan didn’t do.
And since Reagan cut taxes how do you figure he raised them?
And….how do you calculate a tax increase as a % of GDP anyways?
More befuddled nonsense….
ignoring the myriad of indirect taxes and boondoggles
I am ignoring hand-waving.
And since Reagan cut taxes how do you figure he raised them?
He cut income tax rates in 1981. Then he raised some of those rates back in 1982, along with a corporate rate hike. In 1983 he jacked up payroll tax rates. As a result, a middle income family in 1988 was paying a higher total tax rate (income + payroll) than in 1980.
Considering how much he increased spending, it was smart for him to raise taxes. But it cuts against the legend of his being a great tax cutter.
“1) Monetary policy is the province of the Federal Reserve, not the President, and ”
If you think Volker acted independently of Reagan…in fact if you think any Fed chairman acts independently of the President you are only demonstrating, for the zillionth time, your abject ignorance….
“2) inflation has been very low the last six years, in spite of what you term loose monetary policy.”
Here you graze the truth..Fed pumping is there expressly to keep inflation down. But it’s beginning to rise now, anyways. – a fact you conveniently choose to ignore. And the side effect of borrowing all that money form China to do this pumping puts us in several binds on other policy realms (e.g. foreign).
Again: how can you ignore 7 years of the greatest growth the world had ever seen (Reagan) vs 7 years of bumbling destruction, recession and lethargy THANKS to Obama?
“The Federal Reserve board led by Volcker raised the federal funds rate, which had averaged 11.2% in 1979, to a peak of 20% in June 1981. The prime rate rose to 21.5% in 1981 as well. Thus, the unemployment rate climbed up over 10%. The economy was restored since the tight-money policy was over in 1982. According to William Silber [15] “His policy of preemptive restraint during the economic upturn after 1983 increased real interest rates and pushed Congress and the president to adopt a plan [the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill] to balance the budget. The combination of sound monetary and fiscal integrity sustained the goal of price stability.””
Note well the words: “…..pushed Congress and the president….”
As I said to Godzilla – Volker convinced Reagan it was the right way to go and Reagan took the political hit to do the right thing.
Obama?
A clown who will do the wrong thing to polish his political dreck
If you think Volker acted independently of Reagan…
He acted before Reagan even took office.
Note well the words: “…..pushed Congress and the president….”
That’s Volcker pushing Reagan, not the other way around. You can’t give Reagan credit for Volcker’s tight money policy, a policy that was begun before Reagan took office. You can give Reagan credit for re-appointing Volcker in 1983, after the worst of the pain had passed (and at a time when it would have shaken the markets to do otherwise).
It wasn’t Reagan who raised interest rates, it was Paul Volcker, who started doing so before Reagan took office.
Gee, no kidding. Nice way to twist what I said. But the 20% rate happened under Reagan? Why? Probably because Carter said no, but I’m not sure. We know the Fed is not independent of the President.
The inflation rate in 1981 was 10.35%. The inflation rate in 2013 was 1.47%. The situations aren’t at all similar.
Have you been to the grocery store lately? Seen any price drops anywhere? We are suffering from inflation and our unemployment rate has not fallen, people are merely dropping out of the work force.
I hope you’re not using the infamous CPI, known for hiding inflation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/perianneboring/2014/02/03/if-you-want-to-know-the-real-rate-of-inflation-dont-bother-with-the-cpi/
I’ll even give you a liberal rag to peruse: http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/
Our current President is doing everything contrary to what Reagan did. He has raised taxes
Not nearly as much (as % of GDP) as Reagan did.
What figures are you using?
Not nearly as much (as % of GDP) as Reagan did.
Good heavens, you’re crazy.
1) Monetary policy is the province of the Federal Reserve, not the President, and 2) inflation has been very low the last six years, in spite of what you term loose monetary policy.
Again, you are wrong. The President influences monetary policy. And we are experiencing high inflation. But you’re one of the rich people so you don’t notice what the poor and working class are experiencing.
It isn’t any wonder that food is no longer part of the inflation equation.
Have you been to the grocery store lately? Seen any price drops anywhere?
Asking people if they feel like things are getting more expensive would be a ridiculous way to measure inflation. Fortunately there are better ways, like the Billion Prices Project, which independently corroborates the CPI.
we are experiencing high inflation
Tinfoil-hat crazy talk. If you don’t accept the CPI you can’t talk sensibly about the economy, much less make comparisons between today’s economy and Reagans (since any such comparisons are CPI-adjusted).
When the fed started quantitative easing a number of economists on the right predicted rampant inflation. It hasn’t happened. The legitimate ones have retracted their predictions or gone silent, while the nut jobs have tried to defend their failed predictions by postulating an invisible inflation that isn’t detectable in the economic statistics. They’re just making excuses for failed models.
Billion Prices Project, which independently corroborates the CPI.
BPP is higher than CPI.
The inflation rate in 1981 was 10.35%. The inflation rate in 2013 was 1.47%. The situations aren’t at all similar.
The formula for CPI was different in 1981 than it was in 2013. If Obama gets his way, it will be even worse in hiding inflation.
Obamas increased taxes and spending at a faster rate with a Democrat Congress, but the GOP managed to slow him down when they took over the House. The fiscal responsibility will be even better when the GOP takes over the Senate.
I think this is related to some of the discussion above:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/07/european-states-of-america-startups-dwin
Succinctly and aptly put:
“America with Obama at the helm — like one of those horrible cruise ships that lose power, lose the ability to steer, lose sanitation — is a floating, sad mess to its inhabitants.”
– Ben Stein
It’s very odd for someone of Stein’s politics to liken America to a ship that teeters one bad captain away from descent into chaos and filth. Ships’ captains have autocratic powers, because centuries of seagoing experience and tradition suggest that the alternative is disaster. The U.S., by contrast, was founded on the notion that our society did not require a dictator.
Stein should know better. He and his dad worked for Nixon, and in those days the U.S. survived a war, a totalitarian nuclear superpower, and an oil embargo, while sending most of the White House senior staff to prison. Things today are positively rosy by comparison.
Definitely rosy, for sure. Gotta love a Department of Justice that won’t investigate or prosecute.
That was back in the day when government officials didn’t have blanket immunity from prosecution.
“The U.S., by contrast, was founded on the notion that our society did not require a dictator.”
Evidently Obama begs to differ with you
“Things today are positively rosy by comparison.”
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Russia, South America, and many other countries all beg to differ.
Obama’s policies are directly related to the rise of ISIL, their war in Syria, and their expansion into Iraq where they are committing genocide against our ally.
“It’s very odd for someone of Stein’s politics to liken America to a ship that teeters one bad captain away from descent into chaos and filth.”
Unlike yourself, Stein (not an ultra right winger) is willing to see things as they are rather than cling bitterly to delusions.
He cut income tax rates in 1981. Then he raised some of those rates back in 1982, along with a corporate rate hike. In 1983 he jacked up payroll tax rates.
Hand waving indeed! From here The bills didn’t raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through “base broadening” — that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
Anything after 1986 came from the compromise with a democratic congress. Something your side doesn’t understand today.
” If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.”
Ronald Reagan
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’….”
Obama
Excellent quotes. They really show the differences in caliber and character between the two Presidents.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.”
“We must ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more [in taxes]. “
“Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.”
“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,”
“If the federal government had been around when the Creator was putting His hand to this state, Indiana wouldn’t be here. It’d still be waiting for an environmental impact statement.”
On April 18, 2014 the Obama administration announced that the review of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline has been extended indefinitely,
“We can not play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.”
“But the best thing we can do for Ukraine is to try to get back on a political track.”
Sending a cake and a bible to the Ayatollah isn’t “playing innocents abroad”?
That was stupid. Fortunately, unlike Obama, it was notable for its stupidity, rather than chronically so.
For Obama, it would just be another day at the officer…er…golf corse!
Should we mention that the things Obama has sent foreign leaders like recordings of himself speaking, busts of Churchill, and reset buttons? No President has alienated our allies and emboldened our enemies more than Obama, not even Bush. Even when Bush was unpopular due to our media’s negative reporting on Iraq, he could still get our allies to help there and in many other places. Obama can’t marshal international support for anything other than strongly worded letters. Obama struggles just to get partial support for weak sanctions against countries no one likes.
Bush was a better foreign policy President than Obama and that is saying something. And Reagan? Dwarfs both of these men.
Reagan even understood our Beloved Jim:
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”
Obama’s Syrian Red Line vapor-ware
Is that the Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon?
Because Lebanon then was totally exactly like Iraq today, right? Idiot.
Pulling out of Lebanon told Hezbollah that the price of aggression is cheap.
No one has claimed that Reagan was perfect. Just orders of magnitude better than Obama. Admittedly, of course, a low bar.
“Pulling out of Lebanon told Hezbollah that the price of aggression is cheap.”
Doesn’t look like Obama learned that lesson yet. Democrats at large certainly haven’t learned it.
Reagan’s main geopolitical enemy was the Communist Bloc, armed with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the US on hair trigger alert with literally millions of conventional forces staged just outside the borders of the Western world. Reagan confronted that enemy on the battlefield, in rhetoric, and on the geopolitical landscape. Reagan won that battle (not alone, but he won). Comparatively, the threat of fundamentalists and terrorists, largely operating from the confines of failed states, was a geopolitical side show. Today that side show is the main show, for now, and yet the current administration has made little but negative progress against it.
“I know in my heart that man is good.
That what is right will always eventually triumph.
And there’s purpose and worth to each and every life.”
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Gregg, these comparisons are gems.
Are people here really trying to say that Obama is better than Reagan? These are the same people claiming that everything positive under Reagan is due to past Presidents while at the same time saying everything bad is directly due to Reagan. But funny how Obama is responsible for nothing except good news.
Reagan was one of the best Presidents we have ever had. It isn’t arguable. Obama is one of the worst. Also, not arguable.
The 80’s were a great time for our country politically, economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally. America was at the top and our arts and culture reflected this. Our leadership championed this. America is not at the top now and our President doesn’t want us at the top.
One President held us up as a shining city on a hill that is a role model for the world and the other thinks the hill was stolen, the city uses too much electricity, and the bright light hides people condemned by the color of their skin to be a permanent underclass. The differences between the two Presidents are stark and clear.
I can’t believe the left delusions about Reagan but I guess they are right that all political opposition to Obama is based on race because no one has ever had to deal with political opposition even decades after they left office.
Those are some rosy-colored memories of the Reagan era. I voted for him and was glad he was elected (and re-elected), and there was a lot to like about the 80s, as we shook off Vietnam and Watergate and stagflation, and it was the Soviets’ turn to struggle with economic stagnation and a military quagmire.
But we also had fiascos like the Beirut bombing, supporting Saddam Hussein while he gassed Iranians and Kurds, sending weapons (and a cake and a bible) to the Ayatollah, a bunch of HUD, EPA, Interior and White House officials convicted of a variety of crimes, the S&L crisis, another bunch of White House aides convicted in Iran-Contra, Reagan himself only protected by forgetfulness, and Nancy Reagan trying to guide the White House by astrology.
My focus at the time was the Soviets, and the end of the Cold War put everything else in a better light. But it isn’t as if that other stuff wasn’t there.
Every presidency has its issues. In fact, you brought up the problems in the Reagan administration because the public was made aware of them. And that happened because the press was doing its job.
The press is no longer doing its job. There are plenty of Obama scandals such as Fast and Furious. (Of course you’ll say that we are just making up these scandals, because you’re a true believer.) But if the press were doing its job, the problems in the Obama administration would overwhelm Reagan’s.
Reagan had dozens of people charged with and/or convicted of crimes. And not just low-level people: cabinet secretaries, two National Security Advisers, a White House Chief of Staff. They put up bigger numbers than even Clinton.
But if the press were doing its job, the problems in the Obama administration would overwhelm Reagan’s.
So there’s an alternate reality where the Obama administration is more corrupt than Reagan’s, but the press is shielding it from us? That argument can be used to “prove” anything. “Democrats practice ritual human sacrifice, but the press isn’t doing its job.” There are more than enough journalists who want to pin a big scandal on the White House. Some have gone so far as to make stuff up (see: 60 Minutes on Benghazi). Not to mention that the House has spent the last three years in all-out investigation mode. If the Obama administration was as criminal as Reagan’s, we’d know all about it.
If Obama had an AG with any integrity, there’d be prosecutions left and right. Hack.
” But we also had fiascos like the Beirut bombing,”
How was that Reagan’s fault?
” supporting Saddam Hussein while he gassed Iranians and Kurds,”
We have always supported some unsavory people because they advance our interest against other unsavory people. Even now, we support regimes around the world that don’t hold views compatible with American ideals and who are committing barbarous acts. Obama armed, trained, and flew close air support for Islamic militants in Libya. There is also Obama’s support for the tyrant in Yemen. But I guess you don’t follow what goes on in these countries so you are not aware of the atrocities there.
” a bunch of HUD, EPA, Interior and White House officials convicted of a variety of crimes,”
We currently have EPA, DOJ, IRS, NSA, NPS, and other government agencies acting as political weapons of Obama and the Democrats. No one is being held accountable for abusing American citizens and Democrats are so deep into cult of personality they blame the victims and cheer these actions on. Then there are scandals like the VA, where we may find more vets died from being refused treatment than died in Iraq.
“the S&L crisis”
We had Obama’s mishandling of TARP, printing and giving money to donors, and preferential treatment for Corzine just to name a few.
” another bunch of White House aides convicted in Iran-Contra,”
And Obama has been arming and training Islamic militants, some of whom are cutting off the heads of Iraqi children.
I never said Reagan was perfect, just one of the best Presidents we have had. We can go over all the flaws of every President and Reagan will still be near the top. Apply that same treatment to Obama and he will be at the bottom. Remember when Obama sided with communist a coup in Honduras? Obama is a disgrace.
” supporting Saddam Hussein while he gassed Iranians and Kurds,”
As Obama supported the Iranians as they gunned down and brutally suppressed the Green Revolution in Iran……
As Obama supported the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt……
As Obama ran guns to Mexican Drug cartels……
As Obama smiles as gangbangers, drug dealers, murderers, rapists and Islamic Jihadists casually step across our border in ever increasing numbers.
As rather than stop the killings and beatings of American Citizens on our own side of the border, Obama put up signs waring AMERICAN CITIZENS to stay away from the border…..
It’s one thing when you have to pick from one of two murderous thugo-cracies to support in an international situation, and another when you pick murderers rapists and iihadists against your own countrymen.
As Obama supported the Iranians as they gunned down and brutally suppressed the Green Revolution in Iran
That’s ridiculous. Did Obama send weapons and supplies to the Iranian government? Did he send them billions in aid? Did he train their soldiers? Reagan did all those things for Saddam.
As Obama supported the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt……
He “supported” them in the sense that he recognized their election, and then didn’t lift a finger when they were overthrown.
As Obama ran guns to Mexican Drug cartels……
Like Bush, he added a trickle to the torrent of weapons headed over the border, in an ill-advised sting operation. The operation made no material difference to the cartels’ capabilities.
As Obama smiles as gangbangers, drug dealers, murderers, rapists and Islamic Jihadists
Nobody has deported more of those people. Nobody has tightened border security as much, or seen border crossings fall as much. You have a cartoon Obama in your imagination that does not match the real one.
“Reagan did all those things for Saddam.”
No, he didn’t.
Nobody has deported more of those people. Nobody has tightened border security as much, or seen border crossings fall as much.
Jim, how about we agree your comment is based on cooking the books. Even the LA Times called Obama out on the “more deportations” BS:
Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called “voluntary returns,” but which critics derisively termed “catch and release.” Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation statistics.
From Washington Times, Congressional testimony by the head of Homeland Security:
“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.
“Correct,” [Homeland Security Secretary Jeh] Johnson confirmed.
I know, Vox claims Obama deported over 2 million, which surpasses Bush, but using LA Times estimates, that would be only 2 years worth of “catch and release” during the 90s. Obama should have numbers closer to 10 million, if he was really doing what Vox claims. But Vox is written by stupid people saying stupid things.
” But we also had fiascos like the Beirut bombing,”
How was that Reagan’s fault?
So Obama sends the CIA and diplomats into Libya, four are killed, and it’s his fault. But Reagan sends the Marines into Lebanon, 240 are killed, and it isn’t his fault?
I forget, did Reagan ignore warnings about security at the barracks, and repeatedly refuse requests to beef it up? Did the barracks bombing occur on the anniversary of a significant date in the annals of such attacks? Did the Reagan administration repeatedly lie about it being caused by a VCR being distributed in the Middle East for weeks afterward in order to maintain an election narrative?
Just wondering.
“But Reagan sends the Marines into Lebanon, 240 are killed, and it isn’t his fault?”
Did Reagan arm, train, and act as close air support for Islamic Militants to help them overthrow the government in Lebanon only to have the militias turn on him and bomb the barracks?
Yes, there were warnings before the Beirut attack. No, Obama didn’t lie about the video (as even the Republican House Intelligence committee now admits).
No, it doesn’t.
“No, Obama didn’t lie about the video”
OK that’s just a straight-up lie. Was Susan Rice a loose cannon on all those Sunday talk shows? Do you take us for fools?
We didn’t support Saddam so much as oppose Iran. Contrary to Left Wing myths, we did not provide his chemical weapons – Europeans did. We didn’t train his soldiers. What we did do was provide him information on where Iran was massing its troops. Because a victory by Iran in that war would have been bad.
We don’t always have the luxury of choosing between Good and Bad. Instead, we must choose between Bad and Worse.
However, a 1990 Bureau of the Census study revealed that all income groups realized gains from 1980 to 1989. Average real income rose by 15%. Average household income for the lowest fifth was $6,836 in 1980 and $7,372 in 1989.
Median Household Income Is Down $2,000 during the “Recovery.” As of May 2014, U.S. median household income is down by $2,061 from June 2009, when the Obama “recovery” began.
US Ways and Means committee report
“Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.”
“You didn’t build that!”
Asking people if they feel like things are getting more expensive would be a ridiculous way to measure inflation. Fortunately there are better ways, like the Billion Prices Project, which independently corroborates the CPI.
Anecdotal evidence is evidence. But we don’t need anecdotal evidence because the links I gave you quantify it.
Tinfoil-hat crazy talk. If you don’t accept the CPI you can’t talk sensibly about the economy, much less make comparisons between today’s economy and Reagans (since any such comparisons are CPI-adjusted).
Nonsense. To say the CPI is the end all and be all is foolish and frankly, tin foil crazy talk. It’s been known for decades the CPI is adjusted down so congress doesn’t have to pay COLAs.
When the fed started quantitative easing a number of economists on the right predicted rampant inflation. It hasn’t happened. The legitimate ones have retracted their predictions or gone silent, while the nut jobs have tried to defend their failed predictions by postulating an invisible inflation that isn’t detectable in the economic statistics. They’re just making excuses for failed models.
So you’re equating me with the talk of a few economists? I never said we’d have rampant inflation that they predicted, because those economists don’t take credit into their models (I do). But we still have inflation. And it’s hurting the economy. Only a few nut job economists believe that it isn’t hurting our economy.
But then, you never went to the links I showed you.
But we don’t need anecdotal evidence because the links I gave you quantify it.
You can’t be serious. Did you actually read those links? The Forbes contributor writes things like “It doesn’t make sense that the BLS’s measurement of inflation was only 1.5% last year, while at the same time, monetary inflation grew 4.9%.*”, indicating that she has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about (for a real scare she should check out how much M2 grew in 2008!). The Time writer thinks it’s interesting to observe that inflation would be different if we were on the gold standard, or if the only things we spent money on were Big Macs, gasoline, or ink jet cartridges. That isn’t a serious critique of the CPI, or the Billion Prices Project. The nature of an average is that you can always find examples that are above the average.
It’s been known for decades the CPI is adjusted down so congress doesn’t have to pay COLAs.
Then why does the Billion Prices Project match the CPI so well?
Then why does the Billion Prices Project match the CPI so well?
Except the Billion Prices Project says inflation is an entire percentage point higher than the CPI. Earlier this year, BPP was twice as high as CPI.
If the CPI says 1.5%, and BPP says 2.5%, can we agree that inflation is low?
People who can’t afford food and fuel because their prices have skyrocketed don’t care if “inflation is low.”
BPP had 3% inflation as the economy contracted in 2Q. I’m failing to see the positive for the consumer in that situation. I believe the phrase is “double whammy!”
Inflation requires that people have money to spend. Despite all the stimulus money, they don’t. Why? Where did the money go? Do you know? Ask yourself, who is doing well these days?
Clinton (first 2 years) — democratic house/deficit decrease
Bush Sr. — democratic house/deficit decrease
Bush (first 6 years): — republican house/deficit increase
My point was that the House has an enormous role in the deficit. You have been prattering on like all democrats that it is the president’s responsibility. I’ve read a number of times how you give Clinton responsibility for the surplus and blame Reagan for the deficits. You were wrong and now you’re trying to change the subject.
The thing to remember about the House back then was the Boll Weevil Caucus, Southern Democrats that were social and economic conservatives, but were still Democrats because of historical reasons, while their chosen party got farther and farther away from what they stood for. This caucus was what Reagan used and was primarily responsible for his legislative victories.
The caucus continued that way for some time and Bush Sr. could have used it in the same way had he wanted to try. It was the first two years of Clinton, mostly gays in the military and attempts at universal health care, that finally pushed these guys over the edge to switch parties and that was the main reason for the Republican sweep of 1994. This is when Clinton then moderated his policies and “triangulation” became a national buzzword.
So, what I am saying is that it is really not worth trying to compare parties over a thirty-year gap. They really were different then. History changes things. In 1890, for instance, the Republicans were the party of consolidating government power and Democrats stood for individual and state’s rights.
The Democrats first and foremost believe in the rule of common folk, for their own good, by their enlightened betters. Chattel slavery was merely an extreme form of this policy. The means of effecting their goals have changed, but the basic Party beliefs have endured. The Democrats are still the Party of Slavery.
Reagan got a tax cut passed when Democrats had majorities in both the House and Senate. Tip O’Neil fought hard against them. Reagan worked Congress and won.
O’Neil called Reagan and congratulated him on his win.
Obama dismisses Congress; whines that Congress does nothing. Obama disdains Congress. Obama had to bribe Dem Congresscritters to vote for Obama-cide, and the critters knew it was a stupid vote.
As John K Berntson notes above, the parties weren’t as ideologically cohesive then. There were lots of very conservative Democrats, and there were a fair number of liberal Republicans. That made it easier to fashion bipartisan coalitions. Today the most liberal Republican is well to the right of the most conservative Democrat.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if many of those “about the same”‘s didn’t stop to consider the loss of buying power they have suffered as a consequence of Obamanomics
In addition:
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reveals that an all-time record of 76% of Americans do not believe their children’s lives will be better than their own. Almost as many respondents, 71%, believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, as compared to 63% only one month ago; 60% believe that direction is plunging downward.
A significant 70% of respondents credit their gloomy outlook to Washington politicians rather than the torpid economy, and 79% dislike the American political system.
As Rand says, I doubt whether these would be the poll results in 1984-88.
“If you have $400 to spare, count yourself lucky: Half of Americans would have trouble raising that amount in an emergency, according to a new report that suggests that many U.S. families face surprising financial difficulties.”
“Only 48 percent said that they could easily handle an emergency expense of $400 without running a balance on their credit card. Almost a fifth said they simply could not come up with the funds, and a similar share said they would have to take on credit card debt. Others said they would either have to sell something (9 percent), ask a family member or friend for help (12 percent), or turn to a payday lender (4 percent) to come up with the money.”
And in the “Why do african-americans keep voting for someone who doesn’t give a good goddam for your success” department:
“The Fed report also uncovered significant differences in perceptions about finances and credit by race and ethnicity. While nearly 60 percent of whites are confident they could qualify for a home loan today, only about 40 percent of blacks and Hispanics felt the same way. The disparities were even worse for other kinds of loans.”
Funny – at this point in Reagan’s Presidency everyone was doing much much better than this……
Asking people to ignore what’s happening before their eyes when they go to vote, is beyond ridiculous.
Well put.
.
Yes, President Reagan was a good president, and unlike Rand, I am proud to have voted twice for him. I also voted for Senator McCain, who despite his poor choice of running mate, would have made a much better president than President Obama, especially on foreign policy which was always seen as the key Constitutional role for a president.
Right… And, Obama’s choice of a running mate was just stellar. And, Obama himself is such a genius. Pffttt…
It wasn’t stellar but it did follow the basic rules for improving your chances to win, which is first to pick someone from a different part of the nation. Second, to pick someone who will follow your orders and not try to outshine you.
“Second, to pick someone who will follow your orders and not try to outshine you.”
Any parakeet can do that.
And while that’s the rule to follow to help you get elected, it is oftn NOT the rule to follow to help insure the survival of the nation should the President become incapacitated.
And of course the good of the nation (and the Constitution and the nation’s founding principles) should be uppermost in any politician’s mind. Voters too.
[[[Any parakeet can do that.]]]
You just accurately described the job of the Vice-President.
But sometimes parakeets become Eagles, consider the cases of President Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman 🙂
Also you seem to forget the history and reason for the Twelfth Amendment…
“But sometimes parakeets become Eagles,….”
Sorry I left out a letter in the word meant to be “often”…
….the omission must have made you blind to the word.,…..
And you seem to love bringing up non sequiturs.
Here’s another difference: Reagan read Von Mises and Hayek* while Obama thinks “Hayek” refers to Salma Hayek and says “I hate von Mises to pieces!”
*according to a REASON interview he did back in the 1970s, as I recall.
Ah remember the Glorious Obama Economic Idea:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/09/obamas-economy-in-action-data-shows-cash-for-clunkers-was-an-epic-debacle/
“According to the findings of three Texas A&M University economics professors, “Cash for Clunkers” ultimately caused auto industry revenue to shrink by about $3 billion in less than a year
The professors issued the results of their research last month in a National Bureau of Economic Research-sponsored working paper entitled “Cash for Corollas: When Stimulus Reduces Spending.”
“This highlights how — even over a relatively short period of time — a conflicting policy objective can cause a stimulus program to instead have a contractionary net effect on the targeted industry,” the trio of economists wrote, according to The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch.
…………………….
For one month, the nearly-$3 billion program increased the sales of tiny, low-profit-margin vehicles. In the next few months, though, all sales faded rapidly.
Overall, the Obama administrative initiative produced exactly no net increase for the number of automobiles Americans purchased.
“In this particular case, environmental objectives undermined and even reversed the stimulus impact of the program,” the professors wrote, according to Market Watch.
In October 2013, researchers from the Brookings Institution came to a similar conclusion, notes The Washington Post.”
Oh that was a crafty idea that Cash for Clunkers………another Glorious Economic Adventure!
“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’