10 years after Reagan’s death: How does Obama's record compare to Reagan's?

[Conservative]

10 years after Reagan

10 years after Reagan’s death: How does Obama's record compare to Reagan's?

Buoyed by BLS.gov, BEA.gov, Treasury, HUD Data the numbers are in and for you Reagan and Conservative haters the picture isn't a pretty one. Obama is a disaster especially for the people he claimed he wanted to help and yet still has the low information voter support. The facts are in the numbers so how about it liberals refute the official data?

 

[Jango]

It's hard to compare the two, actually.

One killed the 4th amendment, among other things and the other killed the automotive industry, among other things.

 

[Conservative]

It's hard to compare the two, actually.

One killed the 4th amendment, among other things and the other killed the automotive industry, among other things.

Your Opinion noted, the auto industry was killed by the Unions and I don't recall anyone searching and seizing my property.

 

[Jango]

Your Opinion noted, the auto industry was killed by the Unions and I don't recall anyone searching and seizing my property.

1) A conservative blaming the unions you say? Never.

2) There's more to the 4th than that.

 

[Sababa]

I all can say is the under Reagan unemployment got higher than it did under Obama.

 

[MTAtech]

10 years after Reagan



Buoyed by BLS.gov, BEA.gov, Treasury, HUD Data the numbers are in and for you Reagan and Conservative haters the picture isn't a pretty one. Obama is a disaster especially for the people he claimed he wanted to help and yet still has the low information voter support. The facts are in the numbers so how about it liberals refute the official data?

I know you don't want to hear this because your thread's objective is to reinforce your belief that Obama is worse. However, Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression caused by systemic problems in the economy. Reagan had a recession, that was caused by the Fed tightening money to starve inflation. Once the Fed relaxed, the economy bounced back.

But how did the two differ? Reagan increased government spending and government hiring. Obama did not.

 

[Conservative]

I all can say is the under Reagan unemployment got higher than it did under Obama.

No it didn't, Reagan's numbers included discouraged workers and Obama's didn't. That is another liberal myth and lack of understanding of the changes made to the unemployment numbers. There is nothing Obama has done that is better than either Bush or Reagan so suggest you get the facts and stop letting the left make a fool out of you

 

[Conservative]

I know you don't want to hear this because your thread's objective is to reinforce your belief that Obama is worse. However, Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression caused by systemic problems in the economy. Reagan had a recession, that was caused by the Fed tightening money to starve inflation. Once the Fed relaxed, the economy bounced back.

But how did the two differ? Reagan increased government spending and government hiring. Obama did not.

That is the typical myth promoted by the left and cheered by the low information voter. You ought to know better. Reagan inherited a double dip, didn't get his economic plan passed until August 1981 and as the article points out gave the stimulus to the American people not conditional money to the American people. If you were around when Reagan took office the attitude and morale in the country was the worst since the Great Depression but the media won't tell you that. I lived during both and understand completely which recession was worse. How did this current recession affect you? I can tell you what a 20 plus misery index did to me and my family

 

[APACHERAT]

I know you don't want to hear this because your thread's objective is to reinforce your belief that Obama is worse. However, Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression caused by systemic problems in the economy. Reagan had a recession, that was caused by the Fed tightening money to starve inflation. Once the Fed relaxed, the economy bounced back.

But how did the two differ? Reagan increased government spending and government hiring. Obama did not.

Government spending under Reagan increased because Reagan had to rebuild our military that the Democrats allowed to fall in disrepair during the 1970's.

As you may remember, the Groucho Marxist (New Left aka radical leftist) had joined the Democrat Party and in 1975 they decided to surrender and refused to continue fighting the Cold War.

 

[MTAtech]

That is the typical myth promoted by the left and cheered by the low information voter. You ought to know better. Reagan inherited a double dip, didn't get his economic plan passed until August 1981 and as the article points out gave the stimulus to the American people not conditional money to the American people. If you were around when Reagan took office the attitude and morale in the country was the worst since the Great Depression but the media won't tell you that. I lived during both and understand completely which recession was worse. How did this current recession affect you? I can tell you what a 20 plus misery index did to me and my family

I was around during the Reagan years. His "economic plan" was essentially lowering top tax rates and believing in the now discredited theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. To Reagan's credit, when he saw that those tax cuts resulted in unprecedented deficits, he raised taxes. But in any case, the economy didn't recover for years -- when the Fed relaxed money and brought down interest rates.

 

[MTAtech]

Government spending under Reagan increased because Reagan had to rebuild our military that the Democrats allowed to fall in disrepair during the 1970's.

As you may remember, the Groucho Marxist (New Left aka radical leftist) had joined the Democrat Party and in 1975 they decided to surrender and refused to continue fighting the Cold War.

How does that explain the sharp increase in government workers? Rebuilding the military is essentially buying hardware and contractors.

 

[Conservative]

I was around during the Reagan years. His "economic plan" was essentially lowering top tax rates and believing in the now discredited theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. To Reagan's credit, when he saw that those tax cuts resulted in unprecedented deficits, he raised taxes. But in any case, the economy didn't recover for years -- when the Fed relaxed money and brought down interest rates.

Really? Discredited how? Do you think we would have generated 17 million new jobs without those tax cuts? Explain to me how FIT revenue increased 60% under Reagan? Only a true liberal believes allowing the taxpayer to keep more of what they earn is an expense to the govt? The reality is those tax cuts more than paid for themselves with the increase in FIT revenue, 17 million jobs created and doubling of GDP.

If you were around during the Reagan years you would remember the malaise we were in and the euphoria generated by a positive, upbeat leader who took his message to the American people

 

[Conservative]

How does that explain the sharp increase in government workers? Rebuilding the military is essentially buying hardware and contractors.

When you talk about government worker increases you ignore that states have most of those employees and the states were growing their economy as well as their obligations to the taxpayers. An increase in govt. employees at the state level isn't bad because states have to balance their budgets and cannot print money. If they start losing money due to the economic downturn they cut employees and that is reflected in govt. jobs.

 

[MTAtech]

Really? Discredited how? Do you think we would have generated 17 million new jobs without those tax cuts? Explain to me how FIT revenue increased 60% under Reagan? Only a true liberal believes allowing the taxpayer to keep more of what they earn is an expense to the govt? The reality is those tax cuts more than paid for themselves with the increase in FIT revenue, 17 million jobs created and doubling of GDP.

If you were around during the Reagan years you would remember the malaise we were in and the euphoria generated by a positive, upbeat leader who took his message to the American people

Unless you are saying that Reagan's force of will lifted the economy, we need to point to actual policy. But if we look at economic performance during the 1980s and include the bad years too, it isn't as stellar as Reagnites remember.

It’s not just that more jobs were created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the rich, than under Reagan; I wonder how many people know that more jobs were created under Jimmy Carter than under either Bush?

But, on revenue and tax cuts paying for themselves, I'll let Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman explain it to you:

Reagan and revenue
January 17, 2008 7:03 pm

Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:

Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.

Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.

Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

And then we get BushII's performance (remember, he lowered taxes too), resulting in revenue drops, measured in real revenue per capita:

at the same time GDP was growing:

 

[code1211]

It's hard to compare the two, actually.

One killed the 4th amendment, among other things and the other killed the automotive industry, among other things.

The Fourth amendment seemed to have been functioning pretty well until 9/11.

It was not entirely revoked until Obama and his Conciliary, Holder, decided to use the departments of government to win elections.

 

[Lord of Planar]

But in any case, the economy didn't recover for years -- when the Fed relaxed money and brought down interest rates.

So how much more do we need to relax interest rates for Obama?

 

[code1211]

Your Opinion noted, the auto industry was killed by the Unions and I don't recall anyone searching and seizing my property.

The Auto Industry was killed more by the Auto Industry than by anything else.

The Bloated incomes and low productivity of the American Firms is being amended to a closer match with the foreign competition.

The Salaried folks in the American Firms are still getting comparatively bloated paychecks.

 

[code1211]

1) A conservative blaming the unions you say? Never.

2) There's more to the 4th than that.

Under Obama, the 4th Amendment has ceased to exist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Under Obama, the 4th Amendment has ceased to exist.

That's OK. We can let the liberals blame Lincoln for losing the 10th amendment.

 

[code1211]

I all can say is the under Reagan unemployment got higher than it did under Obama.

A brief history of U.S. unemployment - The Washington Post

 

[Kal'Stang]

Has anyone had thier rights violated Rights under Reagan? Not that I'm aware of. Has anyone had thier rights violated under Obama? Millions of people had their right to privacy violated when he allowed and still allows the NSA to do what they did and passed the Mandate in Obamacare.

 

[code1211]

I know you don't want to hear this because your thread's objective is to reinforce your belief that Obama is worse. However, Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression caused by systemic problems in the economy. Reagan had a recession, that was caused by the Fed tightening money to starve inflation. Once the Fed relaxed, the economy bounced back.

But how did the two differ? Reagan increased government spending and government hiring. Obama did not.

Figures lie and liars figure.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

$1828.9 Billion was the highest Federal Outlay during the Reagan years using constant 2009 dollars.

$3234.0 Billion is the highest Federal Outlay SO FAR during the Obama years using 2009 constant dollars.

Under Reagan, the personal financial situation of almost every American improved. Under Obama, the exact reverse is true.

The two inherited very similar situations. Both entered office in a time of plummeting national prestige, failing economy and increased competition from Abroad.

Under Reagan the trajectory reversed and Under Obama it has remained about the same.

Under Reagan the Median Household Income increased by about $6000 per year and under Obama it fell by about $2000 per year.

If a foreign power had done to the USA what Obama has done, it would be considered an act of war.

 

[code1211]

No it didn't, Reagan's numbers included discouraged workers and Obama's didn't. That is another liberal myth and lack of understanding of the changes made to the unemployment numbers. There is nothing Obama has done that is better than either Bush or Reagan so suggest you get the facts and stop letting the left make a fool out of you

Reagan was saddled with an unfriendly Congress. Bush was a minor league version of Obama.

Obama is a test of the Constitution.

The Founders did not contemplate the idea of a lawless Chief Executive with a complicit Media and Congress.

 

[code1211]

I was around during the Reagan years. His "economic plan" was essentially lowering top tax rates and believing in the now discredited theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. To Reagan's credit, when he saw that those tax cuts resulted in unprecedented deficits, he raised taxes. But in any case, the economy didn't recover for years -- when the Fed relaxed money and brought down interest rates.

The first two years of the Reagan Administration were sluggish, but the hope was returning even then.

The last 6 years of the Reagan administration were marked by robust growth and a return to the preeminent standing in the world that the USA enjoyed until the ill advised military excursions led by W.

 

[Conservative]

Unless you are saying that Reagan's force of will lifted the economy, we need to point to actual policy. But if we look at economic performance during the 1980s and include the bad years too, it isn't as stellar as Reagnites remember.

It’s not just that more jobs were created under Clinton, who raised taxes on the rich, than under Reagan; I wonder how many people know that more jobs were created under Jimmy Carter than under either Bush?

But, on revenue and tax cuts paying for themselves, I'll let Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman explain it to you:


And then we get BushII's performance (remember, he lowered taxes too), resulting in revenue drops, measured in real revenue per capita:

at the same time GDP was growing:

Wow, what revisionist history, Reagan inherited a double dip recession, Clinton an economy that was growing at 4+%. Reagan had a Democrat House, Clinton gave us a Republican Congress. Reagan cut taxes and won the biggest landslide in U.S. History, Clinton raised taxes and gave us a GOP Congress

Paul Krugman? LOL, now there is a credible source, a man who never saw a govt. program he didn't like. Only in the liberal world is human behavior never considered and that tax cuts are an expense to the Federal Govt. Sorry, but you are out of touch with reality. Tell me how you know that tax cuts didnt pay for themselves with those 17 million jobs created and that we would have those jobs were it not for the tax cuts and consumer spending increases?

As for Bush, the Bush tax cuts were not fully implemented until July 2003 and we had record revenue at the time in 2007. It isn't surprising that liberals are out of touch with reality and ignore actual history