Obama v Reagan

[okalb 104]

For reasons which defy logic, many on the right consider Reagan one of the greatest presidents. I thought this was interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-approval-ratings-economy-link/story?id=11182543

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[JohnRich 4]

Not to worry, in the near future, for reasons which defy logic, many on the left will continue to consider Obama one of the greatest ex-presidents.

[wmw999 2,550]

Interesting article. Some of the commentary is interesting, too -- why can't people think about what they're saying, instead of just reacting based on preconceived notions? Doesn't it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, they don't already know everything they need to?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Interesting article. Some of the commentary is interesting, too -- why can't people think about what they're saying, instead of just reacting based on preconceived notions? Doesn't it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, they don't already know everything they need to?

Wendy P.

The article speaks of complicating factors

This is where the comparisons diverge as Reagan’s policies served to make the economy better. Obama's policies can not and will not do that.

(Or Bush's policies at the end of his term)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,550]

There are people who disagree as to the definition of "better" after Reagan; the increase in the national debt was astonishing and scary. At this point in Reagan's term, the economy was no better than it is for Obama.

Denying that it's even possible that things might change for the better is closing your mind. Really.

Reducing taxes is not the only thing that can make an economy better. If it were, then all of the countries in Europe would be in the toilet, and Somalia (which doesn't have any taxes as it has no government) would be in great shape.

I'm not saying that increasing taxes is the way to go. Just that an open mind is better than one that's bound and determined on a single path.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

There are people who disagree as to the definition of "better" after Reagan; the increase in the national debt was astonishing and scary. At this point in Reagan's term, the economy was no better than it is for Obama.

Denying that it's even possible that things might change for the better is closing your mind. Really.

Reducing taxes is not the only thing that can make an economy better. If it were, then all of the countries in Europe would be in the toilet, and Somalia (which doesn't have any taxes as it has no government) would be in great shape.

I'm not saying that increasing taxes is the way to go. Just that an open mind is better than one that's bound and determined on a single path.

Wendy P.

Twenty years of sustained growth, low un-employment, increased numbers in the middle class are points that are hard to say are not better

On the other end, spending is the problem. No amount of taxation will cover what is being spent today.

And we all can remember Tip O’Neals famous quote about Reagan’s budget can’t we.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,550]

And spending is where I part company with Reagan; he too spent like a drunken sailor.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,080]

>Twenty years of sustained growth, low un-employment, increased
>numbers in the middle class are points that are hard to say are not better

Annual real GDP growth under Carter: 2.6%
Annual real GDP growth under Reagan: .3%
Annual real GDP growth under Bush 1: -1.8%
Annual real GDP growth under Clinton: 2.3%

Gini coefficient when he entered office: .41
Gini coefficient when he left office: .43

(Gini coefficient is basically the "income gap" between rich and poor)

Debt at beginning of Reagan's term (% of GDP): 32%
Debt at end of Reagan's term (% of GDP): 50%

Unemployment when he entered office: 7.5%
Unemployment after 2 years: 10.8%
Unemployment when he left office: 5.4%

(Worst unemployment under Obama: 10.6%)

That being said, I don't think he was one of the worst presidents by a long shot. He kept us out of an overt war with the USSR, which (I think) was both his most important and most difficult job as President.

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

On the other end, spending is the problem. No amount of taxation will cover what is being spent today.

Didn't cover what was spent by Reagan and the two Bushes either, did it? Especially after they CUT taxes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

On the other end, spending is the problem. No amount of taxation will cover what is being spent today.

Didn't cover what was spent by Reagan and the two Bushes either, did it? Especially after they CUT taxes.

Within three years of the tax cuts record revenues came in. BUT, you spending point in more critical.

The gov is too big and spends too much
Period

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Within three years of the tax cuts record revenues came in. BUT, you spending point in more critical.

The gov is too big and spends too much
Period

Reagan, like so many before and after, pledged to reduce government. And like all of the others, he utterly failed to do so. It's easier to say than to do.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Within three years of the tax cuts record revenues came in. BUT, you spending point in more critical.

The gov is too big and spends too much
Period

Reagan, like so many before and after, pledged to reduce government. And like all of the others, he utterly failed to do so. It's easier to say than to do.

And that is the crux of the problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Obama will never be like Reagan. Obama is far too politically correct. Those old enough to remember Ronald "Ray-Gun" Reagan will not forget: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan (said while joking during a microphone check and later leaked to the general populace).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

there was a really good political cartoon (Toles, I think) about how Reagan would have handled Iraq in 1990, rather than the line in the sand. I suspect it was early on in the standoff.

"Eat Sand, Saddam!"

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

Quote

On the other end, spending is the problem. No amount of taxation will cover what is being spent today.

Didn't cover what was spent by Reagan and the two Bushes either, did it? Especially after they CUT taxes.

Within three years of the tax cuts record revenues came in. BUT, you spending point in more critical.

As usual you completely ignore reality. Maybe you have never heard the term "inflation".

After allowing for inflation there were no record revenues after all. Just spending outpacing revenues.

The Reagan cuts led overall to a real revenue shortfall of about $87B in constant (1987) dollars. The Bush cuts are even worse, with about $50B/year revenue shortfall in inflation adjusted dollars.

In 2000 (end of Clinton admin) federal revenue was $2.03T
In 2008 (end of Bush 2 admin) federal revenue was $2.52T
An increase of 24.1%

The CPI went from 515.8 (2000) to 644.4 (2008), a 24.8% increase

In constant dollars, revenues decreased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

For reasons which defy logic, many on the right consider Reagan one of the greatest presidents. I thought this was interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-approval-ratings-economy-link/story?id=11182543

The two president's popularity comparisons are the only thing that can be paired. Reagan inherited a flat but stable economy so he and Volkers contracted the money supply to lower interest rates/inflation, it drove unemp from 7.5% to 10.8%. Obama inherited a skyrocketing unemp rate that increased 3.4% the year preceeding his taking office, Obama instituted a 787B stimulus to save industries and save families. Reagon doesn't give a fuck about people, Obama panders to suffering people.

THis is also BS:

"I think that presidents as a whole get more credit than they deserve and more blame than they deserve," said Kaufman, referring to presidential approval and the economy.

Consider the issue of unemployment. Early in Reagan's tenure, it was over 10 percent, as it was for Obama.

It's the policies that drive these issues and the expected results; Reagan could only expect people to be hurting if you contract the money supply, whereas Obama could only expect people to do better if saves the auto industry, institutes stimulus, etc. Guess what? The exact results occurred with Reagan's / Volkers' plan; it drove up unemployment.

I agree that the Republican-made mess is now being thrown at Obama as, "how could you?" Meanwhile the Repubs are shrugging their shoulders saying, "what did we do?"

"Reagan had one advantage in that he had a clear ideology, so his supporters would vote for him because he represented their values," Pfiffner said. "Obama, on the other hand, despite accusations of being a socialist, etc., is a moderate who has made many compromises that have hurt him with his base."

Right, all the ideologues rally behind Reagan, Obama is moe unknown and more flexible, so that may hurt him. Reagan and his electorate were impervious to data that reflected his works, he just clammered, "tax cuts my friends" until the cows came home w/o actually understanding or caring what the outcome was.

Obama will ultimately be judged on whether the things he does to help the economy actually work, Kaufman said. He doesn't think they will and predicts that Obama will be a one-term President.

Even Clinton, who inherited a recovering economy, took until the start of his 2nd term to turn teh corner; GHWB took the hit for Reagan's economy and subsequent needed tax increase. Obama inherited an economy still nosediving, had to spend a lot to stop the bleeding and won't turn the corner until mid 2nd term if he is elected. It is possible that Obama is a 1-term president due to this, idiot Americans want years of depression formation to be cleared in months. It is a shame that the senile turd, "tax cuts my friends" wasn't elected, we would be in total depression now, but would have 5+ terms of consecutive D's coming, just as with the first depression.

There is no similarity between what Reagan did to help the ailing economy in the early 1980s versus what Obama did between 2008 and 2010. Reagan cut taxes. Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars to kick start the economy.

Since primarily the rich pay taxes, this supports what I was saying about Reagan pandering to the rich, Obama the poor and MC.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Not to worry, in the near future, for reasons which defy logic, many on the left will continue to consider Obama one of the greatest ex-presidents.

In the present, Siena has Obama ranked as #15, your fascist leader at #18 and falling. As the debt becomes more of an issue, your hero will fall more and more.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/07/01/Obama-No-15-in-presidential-rankings/UPI-29711278023634/

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Interesting article. Some of the commentary is interesting, too -- why can't people think about what they're saying, instead of just reacting based on preconceived notions? Doesn't it ever occur to them that maybe, just maybe, they don't already know everything they need to?

Wendy P.

The article speaks of complicating factors

This is where the comparisons diverge as Reagan’s policies served to make the economy better. Obama's policies can not and will not do that.

(Or Bush's policies at the end of his term)

Oh, show me the policies that Reagn instituted to make things better. Illustrate wheat he inherited and what he did to fix them and of course, the result.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Reducing taxes is not the only thing that can make an economy better.

Come again. Show me where a major federal tax has actually ever made the economy better.

Quote

I'm not saying that increasing taxes is the way to go.

Show me where major federal tax cuts have made teh economy better. When taxes were up the 90% range, in the 40's and 50's, if we were willing to quit the warring, then taxes could be lowered to the 50's-60's, but lower than that it has led to a mess; show me otherwise.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the present, Siena has Obama ranked as #15, your fascist leader at #18 and falling. As the debt becomes more of an issue, your hero will fall more and more.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/07/01/Obama-No-15-in-presidential-rankings/UPI-29711278023634/

Ranking Obama with others in history, 18 months into office, makes as much sense as giving him a Nobel Prize before he took a single action....oh right.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The two president's popularity comparisons are the only thing that can be paired. Reagan inherited a flat but stable economy

and everyone stops reading at this point...

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

That being said, I don't think he was one of the worst presidents by a long shot. He kept us out of an overt war with the USSR, which (I think) was both his most important and most difficult job as President.

What war with the USSR? The Bay of Pigs was over 20 years ago (before FR took office), so I assume you're talking conventional war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/art6-w04.htm

The USSR didn't see an acft carrier until 1975, 3 more by 84 for a total of 4 in the midst of diaper-boy's terms.

In 1975 the USSR commissioned the Kiev, the first of a new class of forty-thousand-ton carriers designed to provide organic fighter cover for the Soviet navy. Between 1978 and 1984 three more Kiev-class carriers were commissioned: Minsk (1978), Novorossiysk (1982), and Admiral Gorshkov (1984). Kiev-class carriers (referred to by the Russians as “heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers”) were conventionally powered and capable of carrying twelve Yak-38 Forger vertical/short-takeoff-and-landing (VSTOL) fighters and twenty helicopters. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the subsequent emasculation of the Russian navy, all four carriers were decommissioned.

For a military to be successful at home, they must have a military designed with tanks and homeland forces. For a military to win away, they must have a massive navy with a lot of acft carriers and the USSR did not.

NOTE TO ADD: The USSR's 4 carriers were pathetic, one held only 12 VTOL acft.

Here I see in the 1960's we had 4 carriers that held 90 runway fighters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Hawk_class_aircraft_carrier

I see here that by the time the USSR had built their first acft carrier, we already had 68 0f them, some sunk, cancelled, scrapped or decommissioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_aircraft_carriers We have been making acft carroers since 1922, the USSR took their first whack in 1975 with a horrible 12-VTOL capacity ship.

So where was the credible conventional threat? And that doesn't address that before FR took office the USSR had deployed their homeland-based military to Afghanistan for FR's entire terms, so they were strung out anyway. And that doesn't address our great contribution of wheat to the USSR eitehr that would have stopped in time of war with them.

The Cold War was merely posturing ideological diffs, there was never a real threat of war, I think we all knew it then, we certainly know it now.

As for Iran, Carter had signed the Algiers Accord the day before diaper-boy took office, that is solely why the hostages were released.

No one was afraid of FR the DB, the Beirut barracks bombings showed us that as Reagan did ZERO.

So let's summarize:

- Reagan was personally a war dodger

- Reagan was not militarily feared

- Reagan ruined the economy/debt

- Reagan pardoned almost as many as Clinton, incl his elitist punk ass buddy Steinbrenner

I'm searching and seartching, I just can't find a positive thing old crusty diaper boy did but to boost Depends stock perhaps.

So Bill, tell me what Reagan did in a positve light for the US.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Within three years of the tax cuts record revenues came in. BUT, you spending point in more critical.

The gov is too big and spends too much
Period

Reagan, like so many before and after, pledged to reduce government. And like all of the others, he utterly failed to do so. It's easier to say than to do.

Spending will increase with inflation and population increases,but the trick is to increase receipts, Clinton's last 3 years and eevn spilled into GWB's first year there was a surplus http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/hist.html Section 1, Table 1.1

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Obama will never be like Reagan. Obama is far too politically correct. Those old enough to remember Ronald "Ray-Gun" Reagan will not forget: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan (said while joking during a microphone check and later leaked to the general populace).

So being a senile, slipped-jawed asshole denotes the sign of a good president? Besides, everyone knew Reagan was militarily a pussy, both personally and as a president.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

there was a really good political cartoon (Toles, I think) about how Reagan would have handled Iraq in 1990, rather than the line in the sand. I suspect it was early on in the standoff.

"Eat Sand, Saddam!"

Does it have him blowing it up? If so, it is funny as FR was a coward, bith personally and militarily. What did FR do after the beirut barracks were bombed, killing 300+?