Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Obama Recovery Versus Reagan Recovery

Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies. Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty. Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here). Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

In other words, Reagan pursued economic freedom while Obama has chipped away at it.

The results are clear. Growth averaged 5.9% during the Reagan recovery compared to only 2.4% during the Obama recovery. Also, employment rose much faster during the Reagan recovery. More on this here:

http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
From my debate:

221k jobs monthly gained after the recession of 1975.

285k jobs monthly gained after the recession of 1982.

89k jobs monthly gained after mild recession of 1991.

41k jobs monthly gained after 2009 recession. (10)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 5:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM, Ameriman wrote:
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies.

True

Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Straw man. Rising unemployment is one thing, but when you have huge job losses per month of -750,000 and GDP decline of 8% a quarter, you need to regard this much more seriously.

Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Stimulus was small, mostly tax cuts. Anti-business rhetoric has been moderate, but Obama has helped small business through numerous measures (numerous tax cuts, JOBS Act, etc).

Plus Bush has passed more regulations that Obama, but you aren't blaming Bush. Look up the facts first before making an intellectually bankrupt argument.

Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty.

The recession got worse after the tax cuts, a double dip recession actually.

Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here).

I agree.

Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

I agree with the ending of price controls. The reduction of regulations was a mixed bag, because the S&L deregulation caused the S&L Crisis which cost US taxpayers more than $500 billion. The permanent reduction in top rates was a bad idea. Although 90% or even 70% is too high, I think that 40% would be an acceptable rate. Before the tax cuts, 90% of Americans rated the tax system as fair. After the tax cuts at the end of the 80s, 80% of Americans believed that the tax system benefited the rich over the middle and lower classes.

In other words, Reagan pursued economic freedom while Obama has chipped away at it.

In other words, Reagan pursued big business policies, while Obama has not done much better, following neoconservative spending policies, and not pursuing more centre-left economic policies (higher taxes on rich [end all Bush tax cuts], free trade, job-retraining programs, etc).

The results are clear. Growth averaged 5.9% during the Reagan recovery compared to only 2.4% during the Obama recovery. Also, employment rose much faster during the Reagan recovery. More on this here:

http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:37:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 5:49:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM, Ameriman wrote:
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies.

True

Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Straw man. Rising unemployment is one thing, but when you have huge job losses per month of -750,000 and GDP decline of 8% a quarter, you need to regard this much more seriously.

Reagan was facing declining GDP, job losses, and monster inflation. Obama did not have monster inflation.


Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Stimulus was small, mostly tax cuts. Anti-business rhetoric has been moderate, but Obama has helped small business through numerous measures (numerous tax cuts, JOBS Act, etc).

This is what I am talking about. The tax cuts and small business measures were temporary and targeted. We need across the board and permanent tax reductions. Nothing at all is better than temporary stimulus measures. So, Obama has not helped small business so much as he has hurt the larger economy by engaging in a form of industrial policy by picking and choosing winners and losers.


Plus Bush has passed more regulations that Obama, but you aren't blaming Bush. Look up the facts first before making an intellectually bankrupt argument.

Who said I wasn't blaming Bush?

Although, Obama has done far more in terms of expanding the regulatory burden in just two years.


Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty.

The recession got worse after the tax cuts, a double dip recession actually.

Actually, the tax cuts were phased in. As soon as they were in place, we had a strong recovery. And, they helped lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next few decades. These tax cuts were permanent and accross the board.


Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here).

I agree.

Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

I agree with the ending of price controls. The reduction of regulations was a mixed bag, because the S&L deregulation caused the S&L Crisis which cost US taxpayers more than $500 billion. The permanent reduction in top rates was a bad idea. Although 90% or even 70% is too high, I think that 40% would be an acceptable rate. Before the tax cuts, 90% of Americans rated the tax system as fair. After the tax cuts at the end of the 80s, 80% of Americans believed that the tax system benefited the rich over the middle and lower classes.

Well, I think, economically speaking, the lowest possible is the best. Of course, we have to have tax rates to pay for vital services. But, 40% is too high in my view. I think somewhere in the mid 20s is appropriate and enough to pay for basic services... so long as we contain loopholes as Reagan did.


In other words, Reagan pursued economic freedom while Obama has chipped away at it.

In other words, Reagan pursued big business policies, while Obama has not done much better, following neoconservative spending policies, and not pursuing more centre-left economic policies (higher taxes on rich [end all Bush tax cuts], free trade, job-retraining programs, etc).

First, free trade is a neo liberal, free market economic policy. And, Obama has actually been the most pro big business president we've had in a while. But, that is very different from being for economic freedom.


The results are clear. Growth averaged 5.9% during the Reagan recovery compared to only 2.4% during the Obama recovery. Also, employment rose much faster during the Reagan recovery. More on this here:

http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 8:57:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:37:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 5:49:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM, Ameriman wrote:
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies.

True

Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Straw man. Rising unemployment is one thing, but when you have huge job losses per month of -750,000 and GDP decline of 8% a quarter, you need to regard this much more seriously.



Reagan was facing declining GDP, job losses, and monster inflation. Obama did not have monster inflation, just a near depression, global credit crunch, monstrous debt, and a major financial crisis caused by deregulation of housing, interest rates, and the creation and unregulation of derivatives, and declining GDP at disastrous levels, huge job losses, and the collapse of the auto industry.

Fixed ^




Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Stimulus was small, mostly tax cuts. Anti-business rhetoric has been moderate, but Obama has helped small business through numerous measures (numerous tax cuts, JOBS Act, etc).



This is what I am talking about. The tax cuts and small business measures were temporary and targeted. We need across the board and permanent tax reductions. Nothing at all is better than temporary stimulus measures. So, Obama has not helped small business so much as he has hurt the larger economy by engaging in a form of industrial policy by picking and choosing winners and losers.

Saving my state and the rest of the midwest and presiding over its revival back to the top of the auto industry in the world I call is a huge accomplishment. Michigan would've been dead.

http://www.debate.org...




Plus Bush has passed more regulations that Obama, but you aren't blaming Bush. Look up the facts first before making an intellectually bankrupt argument.




Who said I wasn't blaming Bush?

Although, Obama has done far more in terms of expanding the regulatory burden in just two years.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Nope, it must be the Bush tsunami of regulations, coupled with the deregulation of housing and banking.




Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty.

The recession got worse after the tax cuts, a double dip recession actually.




Actually, the tax cuts were phased in. As soon as they were in place, we had a strong recovery. And, they helped lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next few decades. These tax cuts were permanent and accross the board.

Until Reagan raised the top tax rate several times because they failed to produce enough revenue to fuel his overbloating of the munitions and defense industries.




Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here).

I agree.

Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

I agree with the ending of price controls. The reduction of regulations was a mixed bag, because the S&L deregulation caused the S&L Crisis which cost US taxpayers more than $500 billion. The permanent reduction in top rates was a bad idea. Although 90% or even 70% is too high, I think that 40% would be an acceptable rate. Before the tax cuts, 90% of Americans rated the tax system as fair. After the tax cuts at the end of the 80s, 80% of Americans believed that the tax system benefited the rich over the middle and lower classes.




Well, I think, economically speaking, the lowest possible is the best. Of course, we have to have tax rates to pay for vital services. But, 40% is too high in my view. I think somewhere in the mid 20s is appropriate and enough to pay for basic services... so long as we contain loopholes as Reagan did.

Reagan and the Democratic Congress removed most of the loopholes in the 1986 Tax Reform Bill. We need higher tax rates for the wealthy, and less loopholes. They can pay their fair share, because we the middle class paid for the infrastructure that they used to get rich in the first place. It is the moral thing to do.



In other words, Reagan pursued economic freedom while Obama has chipped away at it.

In other words, Reagan pursued big business policies, while Obama has not done much better, following neoconservative spending policies, and not pursuing more centre-left economic policies (higher taxes on rich [end all Bush tax cuts], free trade, job-retraining programs, etc).



First, free trade is a neo liberal, free market economic policy.

Centrist as well (I support free trade).

And, Obama has actually been the most pro big business president we've had in a while.

True

But, that is very different from being for economic freedom.






The results are clear. Growth averaged 5.9% during the Reagan recovery compared to only 2.4% during the Obama recovery. Also, employment rose much faster during the Reagan recovery. More on this here:

http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 9:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:57:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 8:37:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 5:49:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM, Ameriman wrote:
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies.

True

Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Straw man. Rising unemployment is one thing, but when you have huge job losses per month of -750,000 and GDP decline of 8% a quarter, you need to regard this much more seriously.



Reagan was facing declining GDP, job losses, and monster inflation. Obama did not have monster inflation, just a near depression, global credit crunch, monstrous debt, and a major financial crisis caused by deregulation of housing, interest rates, and the creation and unregulation of derivatives, and declining GDP at disastrous levels, huge job losses, and the collapse of the auto industry.

Fixed ^




Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Stimulus was small, mostly tax cuts. Anti-business rhetoric has been moderate, but Obama has helped small business through numerous measures (numerous tax cuts, JOBS Act, etc).



This is what I am talking about. The tax cuts and small business measures were temporary and targeted. We need across the board and permanent tax reductions. Nothing at all is better than temporary stimulus measures. So, Obama has not helped small business so much as he has hurt the larger economy by engaging in a form of industrial policy by picking and choosing winners and losers.

Saving my state and the rest of the midwest and presiding over its revival back to the top of the auto industry in the world I call is a huge accomplishment. Michigan would've been dead.

http://www.debate.org...




Plus Bush has passed more regulations that Obama, but you aren't blaming Bush. Look up the facts first before making an intellectually bankrupt argument.




Who said I wasn't blaming Bush?

Although, Obama has done far more in terms of expanding the regulatory burden in just two years.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Nope, it must be the Bush tsunami of regulations, coupled with the deregulation of housing and banking.

Not getting into your conversation, only this bit. Obama has altered the most federal rules. (more then bush)
http://www.npr.org...

Obama number one regulator
http://www.foxnews.com...

Even if he had "less regulation" then bush, his where more costly
http://www.cbsnews.com...





Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty.

The recession got worse after the tax cuts, a double dip recession actually.




Actually, the tax cuts were phased in. As soon as they were in place, we had a strong recovery. And, they helped lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next few decades. These tax cuts were permanent and accross the board.

Until Reagan raised the top tax rate several times because they failed to produce enough revenue to fuel his overbloating of the munitions and defense industries.




Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here).

I agree.

Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

I agree with the ending of price controls. The reduction of regulations was a mixed bag, because the S&L deregulation caused the S&L Crisis which cost US taxpayers more than $500 billion. The permanent reduction in top rates was a bad idea. Although 90% or even 70% is too high, I think that 40% would be an acceptable rate. Before the tax cuts, 90% of Americans rated the tax system as fair. After the tax cuts at the end of the 80s, 80% of Americans believed that the tax system benefited the rich over the middle and lower classes.




Well, I think, economically speaking, the lowest possible is the best. Of course, we have to have tax rates to pay for vital services. But, 40% is too high in my view. I think somewhere in the mid 20s is appropriate and enough to pay for basic services... so long as we contain loopholes as Reagan did.

Reagan and the Democratic Congress removed most of the loopholes in the 1986 Tax Reform Bill. We need higher tax rates for the wealthy, and less loopholes. They can pay their fair share, because we the middle class paid for the infrastructure that they used to get rich in the first place. It is the moral thing to do.



In other words, Reagan pursued economic freedom while Obama has chipped away at it.

In other words, Reagan pursued big business policies, while Obama has not done much better, following neoconservative spending policies, and not pursuing more centre-left economic policies (higher taxes on rich [end all Bush tax cuts], free trade, job-retraining programs, etc).



First, free trade is a neo liberal, free market economic policy.

Centrist as well (I support free trade).

And, Obama has actually been the most pro big business president we've had in a while.

True

But, that is very different from being for economic freedom.






The results are clear. Growth averaged 5.9% during the Reagan recovery compared to only 2.4% during the Obama recovery. Also, employment rose much faster during the Reagan recovery. More on this here:

http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 8:57:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 8:37:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 5:49:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM, Ameriman wrote:
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies.

True

Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Straw man. Rising unemployment is one thing, but when you have huge job losses per month of -750,000 and GDP decline of 8% a quarter, you need to regard this much more seriously.



Reagan was facing declining GDP, job losses, and monster inflation. Obama did not have monster inflation, just a near depression, global credit crunch, monstrous debt, and a major financial crisis caused by deregulation of housing, interest rates, and the creation and unregulation of derivatives, and declining GDP at disastrous levels, huge job losses, and the collapse of the auto industry.

Fixed ^

Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.





Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Stimulus was small, mostly tax cuts. Anti-business rhetoric has been moderate, but Obama has helped small business through numerous measures (numerous tax cuts, JOBS Act, etc).



This is what I am talking about. The tax cuts and small business measures were temporary and targeted. We need across the board and permanent tax reductions. Nothing at all is better than temporary stimulus measures. So, Obama has not helped small business so much as he has hurt the larger economy by engaging in a form of industrial policy by picking and choosing winners and losers.

Saving my state and the rest of the midwest and presiding over its revival back to the top of the auto industry in the world I call is a huge accomplishment. Michigan would've been dead.

http://www.debate.org...

This is called picking winners and losers. The fact is that companies that cannot make it on a free market should be able to fail. Our country would be better off without the Auto Bailout.





Plus Bush has passed more regulations that Obama, but you aren't blaming Bush. Look up the facts first before making an intellectually bankrupt argument.




Who said I wasn't blaming Bush?

Although, Obama has done far more in terms of expanding the regulatory burden in just two years.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Nope, it must be the Bush tsunami of regulations, coupled with the deregulation of housing and banking.

That is from thinkprogress. Plus, just look at the 2700 page HC billl and the 2000 page financial regulatory bill. A lot of those regulations haven't technically taken effect yet, but they will.





Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty.

The recession got worse after the tax cuts, a double dip recession actually.




Actually, the tax cuts were phased in. As soon as they were in place, we had a strong recovery. And, they helped lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next few decades. These tax cuts were permanent and accross the board.

Until Reagan raised the top tax rate several times because they failed to produce enough revenue to fuel his overbloating of the munitions and defense industries.

Reagan never raised the top rate. He recognized the economic harm that that would do. He instead cut loopholes and deductions.





Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here).

I agree.

Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

I agree with the ending of price controls. The reduction of regulations was a mixed bag, because the S&L deregulation caused the S&L Crisis which cost US taxpayers more than $500 billion. The permanent reduction in top rates was a bad idea. Although 90% or even 70% is too high, I think that 40% would be an acceptable rate. Before the tax cuts, 90% of Americans rated the tax system as fair. After the tax cuts at the end of the 80s, 80% of Americans believed that the tax system benefited the rich over the middle and lower classes.




Well, I think, economically speaking, the lowest possible is the best. Of course, we have to have tax rates to pay for vital services. But, 40% is too high in my view. I think somewhere in the mid 20s is appropriate and enough to pay for basic services... so long as we contain loopholes as Reagan did.

Reagan and the Democratic Congress removed most of the loopholes in the 1986 Tax Reform Bill. We need higher tax rates for the wealthy, and less loopholes. They can pay their fair share, because we the middle class paid for the infrastructure that they used to get rich in the first place. It is the moral thing to do.

We need less loopholes and lower rates. There is a virtual consensus among economists that, all else equal, lower tax rates are better.




In other words, Reagan pursued economic freedom while Obama has chipped away at it.

In other words, Reagan pursued big business policies, while Obama has not done much better, following neoconservative spending policies, and not pursuing more centre-left economic policies (higher taxes on rich [end all Bush tax cuts], free trade, job-retraining programs, etc).



First, free trade is a neo liberal, free market economic policy.

Centrist as well (I support free trade).


Fair enough, but Obama doesn't.

And, Obama has actually been the most pro big business president we've had in a while.

True

But, that is very different from being for economic freedom.






The results are clear. Growth averaged 5.9% during the Reagan recovery compared to only 2.4% during the Obama recovery. Also, employment rose much faster during the Reagan recovery. More on this here:

http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:32:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 8:57:45 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 8:37:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 5:49:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 12:28:38 AM, Ameriman wrote:
Here is a simple comparison. The Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. There are a lot of similarities here.

Both presidents inherited terrible economies.

True

Actually, Reagan inherited a worse economy because he faced both high inflation and rising unemployment, not just rising unemployment like Obama.

Straw man. Rising unemployment is one thing, but when you have huge job losses per month of -750,000 and GDP decline of 8% a quarter, you need to regard this much more seriously.




Reagan was facing declining GDP, job losses, and monster inflation. Obama did not have monster inflation, just a near depression, global credit crunch, monstrous debt, and a major financial crisis caused by deregulation of housing, interest rates, and the creation and unregulation of derivatives, and declining GDP at disastrous levels, huge job losses, and the collapse of the auto industry.

Fixed ^




Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Availability of credit is definitely a macroeconomic indicator. Microeconomic indicators are things such as prices for coffee, etc.






Furthermore, there responses to the problems have been very different. For Obama, the response has been discretionary, activist, old fashioned Keynesian responses. Temporary stimulus, massive quantitative easing, massive expanding of regulations, strong anti business rhetoric, and other policies that pay no heed to the uncertainty they cause.

Stimulus was small, mostly tax cuts. Anti-business rhetoric has been moderate, but Obama has helped small business through numerous measures (numerous tax cuts, JOBS Act, etc).



This is what I am talking about. The tax cuts and small business measures were temporary and targeted. We need across the board and permanent tax reductions. Nothing at all is better than temporary stimulus measures. So, Obama has not helped small business so much as he has hurt the larger economy by engaging in a form of industrial policy by picking and choosing winners and losers.

Saving my state and the rest of the midwest and presiding over its revival back to the top of the auto industry in the world I call is a huge accomplishment. Michigan would've been dead.

http://www.debate.org...





This is called picking winners and losers. The fact is that companies that cannot make it on a free market should be able to fail. Our country would be better off without the Auto Bailout.

A talking point that is unproved. The bailouts saved over 1 million jobs, saved Michigan and the midwest, saved over $100 billion in personal income from going away, and make the Big 3 alive again.








Plus Bush has passed more regulations that Obama, but you aren't blaming Bush. Look up the facts first before making an intellectually bankrupt argument.




Who said I wasn't blaming Bush?

Although, Obama has done far more in terms of expanding the regulatory burden in just two years.

http://thinkprogress.org...

Nope, it must be the Bush tsunami of regulations, coupled with the deregulation of housing and banking.


That is from thinkprogress. Plus, just look at the 2700 page HC billl and the 2000 page financial regulatory bill. A lot of those regulations haven't technically taken effect yet, but they will.

That doesn't mean it isn't true. Besides, your right wing ally here is using Fox News, a much better source (lol).







Reagan, on the other hand, pursued policies that emphasized incentives and certainty.

The recession got worse after the tax cuts, a double dip recession actually.




Actually, the tax cuts were phased in. As soon as they were in place, we had a strong recovery. And, they helped lay the foundation for a strong economy for the next few decades. These tax cuts were permanent and accross the board.

Until Reagan raised the top tax rate several times because they failed to produce enough revenue to fuel his overbloating of the munitions and defense industries.



Reagan never raised the top rate. He recognized the economic harm that that would do. He instead cut loopholes and deductions.

http://www.rollingstone.com...

http://money.cnn.com...







Letting the fed slow the money growth so as to stop inflation (although Paul Volcker deserves a lot of credit here).

I agree.

Permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. Getting rid of regulations and price controls.

I agree with the ending of price controls. The reduction of regulations was a mixed bag, because the S&L deregulation caused the S&L Crisis which cost US taxpayers more than $500 billion. The permanent reduction in top rates was a bad idea. Although 90% or even 70% is too high, I think that 40% would be an acceptable rate. Before the tax cuts, 90% of Americans rated the tax system as fair. After the tax cuts at the end of the 80s, 80% of Americans believed that the tax system benefited the rich over the middle and lower classes.




Well, I think, economically speaking, the lowest possible is the best. Of course, we have to have tax rates to pay for vital services. But, 40% is too high in my view. I think somewhere in the mid 20s is appropriate and enough to pay for basic services... so long as we contain loopholes as Reagan did.

Reagan and the Democratic Congress removed most of the loopholes in the 1986 Tax Reform Bill. We need higher tax rates for the wealthy, and less loopholes. They can pay their fair share, because we the middle class paid for the infrastructure that they used to get rich in the first place. It is the moral thing to do.



We need less loopholes and lower rates. There is a virtual consensus among economists that, all else equal, lower tax rates are better.

Fine, a compromise of lower rates for the middle and lower classes, and higher rates for the rich (36% with no loopholes, but I think 40% is fine).






"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 10:57:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.

+100

You get it
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:45:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.

Convenient how you just assume that Obama inherited a contry on the brink of depression.

You know, that has to be proven. It is some some a priori truth.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:50:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:45:41 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.


Convenient how you just assume that Obama inherited a contry on the brink of depression.

You know, that has to be proven. It is some some a priori truth.


GDP was -8% a month
Job losses were over -700,000 a month.
Big 3 Auto Industry was on brink of collapse
Stock Market was plummeting
Financial Credit was difficult to acquire (worse than now)

^ Starters
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:50:53 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:45:41 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.


Convenient how you just assume that Obama inherited a contry on the brink of depression.

You know, that has to be proven. It is some some a priori truth.


GDP was -8% a month
Job losses were over -700,000 a month.
Big 3 Auto Industry was on brink of collapse
Stock Market was plummeting
Financial Credit was difficult to acquire (worse than now)

^ Starters

Do you believe that in the absence of Obama's response to the downturn, there would have been another great depression?
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:54:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:52:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:50:53 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:45:41 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.


Convenient how you just assume that Obama inherited a contry on the brink of depression.

You know, that has to be proven. It is some some a priori truth.


GDP was -8% a month
Job losses were over -700,000 a month.
Big 3 Auto Industry was on brink of collapse
Stock Market was plummeting
Financial Credit was difficult to acquire (worse than now)

^ Starters


Do you believe that in the absence of Obama's response to the downturn, there would have been another great depression?

Um, yes

I would enjoy trying to convert a Conservative to the Liberal side.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:55:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:54:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:52:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:50:53 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:45:41 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.


Convenient how you just assume that Obama inherited a contry on the brink of depression.

You know, that has to be proven. It is some some a priori truth.


GDP was -8% a month
Job losses were over -700,000 a month.
Big 3 Auto Industry was on brink of collapse
Stock Market was plummeting
Financial Credit was difficult to acquire (worse than now)

^ Starters


Do you believe that in the absence of Obama's response to the downturn, there would have been another great depression?

Um, yes

I would enjoy trying to convert a Conservative to the Liberal side.

Okay, convince me. The BoP is on your side.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:56:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/27/2012 11:54:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:52:54 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:50:53 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/27/2012 11:45:41 PM, Ameriman wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:48:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/27/2012 10:17:40 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Um, we're talking about macroeconomic indicators. In terms of declining GDP and inflation, Reagan inherited worse.

Convenient how you define "worse" in your terms instead of reality. Reagan inherited a country in the midst of a deep recession, Obama inherited a country in danger of a great depression. A great depression is worse.


Convenient how you just assume that Obama inherited a contry on the brink of depression.

You know, that has to be proven. It is some some a priori truth.


GDP was -8% a month
Job losses were over -700,000 a month.
Big 3 Auto Industry was on brink of collapse
Stock Market was plummeting
Financial Credit was difficult to acquire (worse than now)

^ Starters


Do you believe that in the absence of Obama's response to the downturn, there would have been another great depression?

Um, yes

I would enjoy trying to convert a Conservative to the Liberal side.

So increasing debt
The stimulus that should have been given to aid bankruptcy (and then save them so the money is not wasted) helps?

Really, if we did LESS it would be better, in other words deregulate and cut taxes and kill useless government programs. When we did this, economies flew.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 11:59:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So increasing debt
The stimulus that should have been given to aid bankruptcy (and then save them so the money is not wasted) helps?

I don't get what you're talking about.

Really, if we did LESS it would be better, in other words deregulate and cut taxes and kill useless government programs. When we did this, economies flew.

Deregulate --> be very prudent
Cut taxes --> simplify tax code instead
Kill useless government programs --> agreed, but they must be useless by a practical, not a ideological standpoint
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 2:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) First, we are not out to get your beloved money. We also love our money.

2) Helping others help themselves ultimately helps you and me and all of society.

3) We are all in this together, which helps you and everybody.

4) I like that you conservatives are generally nice people up close. I also want criminals put in jail, I don't like freeloaders, and want businesses to thrive while helping Americans. Conservatives are usually dependable people.

5) The Left has mistakes. Men and women are different (obvious). Drugs suck. It's a bad idea to have sex before you're 18. MTV and new music sucks. People who commit dangerous crimes should be locked up. Yes, we should have rehabilitation, and attack the root causes of crime. But nobody has the right to assault anybody. Many unions suck and are lousy. Getting back to nature is a dumb idea. Many liberals are wimps at saying the right thing. Animals don't have rights. They should be treated humanely, but freeing chickens from their factories is idiotic. They will just get hit by a truck.

"Opportunity-driven initiatives are the best idea for a better future."

People will strive to improve their education, and then businesses can hire and use these skills to help make their businesses flourish, the same will occur with the people, and their communities. You will enjoy a better society, you will enjoy greater prosperity. You will enjoy all the societal benefits.

Single Payer healthcare will help you and the rest of us.

A Universal, Improved Medicare for All will let anybody who needs medical care get it. Rationing would be low, and not harmful. YOU would save thousands of dollars. YOU would enjoy a healthier society. YOU would see businesses and the economy flourish since they yield the billions of health care savings.

Big Business and free enterprise has its flaws. The past few years have brought to our attention the ruthless and corrupt nature of some Big Businesses and the unfairness of widely divergent incomes. It is hard to ignore the suffering of the poor. Government can help level this playing field so that all of us are better off.

Conservatism is not for small government. They advocate for government intrusion in personal lives.

Liberals support a limited degree of economic intervention. The advantage of this type of market allows competition amongst providers with regulations in place to protect society as a whole. With the government being present in the economy it brings a sense of security to sellers and buyers. This security helps maintain a stable economy.

Progressive Principles:

Equity
Equality
Democracy
Smart Government
Ethical Business
Values-Based Foreign Policy

With equity, all have a chance to succeed (level playing field). With equality, everybody gets equal rights. Liberal democracy to make government for and from the people. Smart government to work with the private sector to create the best prosperity, instead of one verses the other. Ethical business so that we can enjoy quality products and the benefits of Capitalism without suffering at the hands of greedy businessman. Values-Based Foreign Policy so that other nations become more progressive, and guarantee human rights for their citizens.

Policy Directions of Progressives

Economy: Innovative, well paying jobs, fair opportunity for all
Security: Military strength, strong diplomatic alliances, wise foreign/domestic policy
Health: Universal Health Care so that all Americans have access to affordable and state of the art health care
Education: A well funded, vibrant and high standards education system. Teachers nurture the student's minds and children themselves, and are honest about America, both its blemishes (and how we broke them) and America's wonders.
Environment: A clean, healthy, safe environment for everybody to enjoy, including water you can drink and air you can breathe. Polluters pay for the damage they cause.
Nature: We should preserve the wonders of our nature for future generations.
Energy: A major investment in clean, renewable energy for the sake of millions of well paying jobs, energy independence, a clean and preserved environment, halting global warming, and improvements in public health.
Transparency: An open, efficient, smart and fair government that is honest with citizens and earns the trust of all Americans.
Equal Rights: We support equal rights for all Americans regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
Protections: We support keeping and extending good protections for consumers, workers, retirees, and investors, and reforming those that need it.

A stronger America, with a better future, broad prosperity, Effective and smart government, and mutual responsibility will create the America Dream for all that pursue it.

Democrats aren't against our military, we bring them home. We don't hate Americans, we just don't define what it is to be one. We don't lack faith, we just don't force others they to follow ours. We don't hate family values, we just don't tell others what theirs should be. We don't envy the rich, we just don't want their bigger bonus to come at the expense of middle class jobs.

"We need smart government, a government strategy in which the government and the private sector work together to produce prosperity.

There is simply no evidence that we can succeed in the twenty-first century with an anti-government strategy. It has proved to be good politics but bad policies. Based on a philosophy ground on 'you're on your own' instead of 'we're all in this together'.

The results have yielded high income inequality, a weak economy with not enough jobs, more poverty, and a less competitive position in the world. In the real world, cooperation works better than conflict, and Americans need victories in real life."


- Bill Clinton

The free market will not heal the sick, help the poor, and care of the elderly. The free market will not protect the environment. The free market will not build the roads and our infrastructure. The free market will not create drugs voluntarily at a loss to improve the public health. Progressives seek to remedy the negatives of the market and promote the idea that all Americans are in this together, we should fight for the common good and soul of America.

Maybe you understand the Progressive point of view.

- Contra
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 7:24:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thank you Contra, for your thoughtful and substantitive defense of progressivism.

In response, I feel obligated to offer my own defense of my own conservative beliefs.

First, let me say, that we agree on many points. First, we are all in this together. I certainly don't deny that. And, I certainly don't believe in any type of "you're on your own" society.

I also agree that we have many problems in our society. I live in the USA. Health care here is expensive and complex, there are too many people who are unemployed, and education seems to be something of a mess. These are just a sample of the problems that the USA faces.

Perhaps most concerning is the fact that the USA seems to be in decline. Military decline, economic decline, cultural decline, and virtually every kind of decline that you could imagine.

If things continue the way they are going, we will not maintain our superpower status for too long. I assume you agree with at least a good portion of what I have said so far.

However, where we disagree is why these problems exist and how they need to be adressed. You explained the progressive view in your post. Now, let me lay out my own conservative view.

I argue that the root cause of our ills is, in fact, a deviation from the principles and values that have historically allowed the USA to prosper. The values are hard work, responsibility on the part of individuals and institutions that are not governmental, a strong faith in God, and a strong patriotism.

Governmental policy, in my view, needs to get back to trying to promote, or at least not stifle, these values. This translates into a government that encourages and promotes free enterprise instead of inhibiting it. We've had enough leaders who demonize successful enterprises and the free enterprise system in general. Taxes, and especially marginal tax rates, need to be simpler and lower.

Government needs to stop trying to pursue these silly policies of "stimulus" by injecting temporary payments into the economy either in the form of tax rebates or checks. Likewise, the Federal Reserve needs to stop trying to manage the economy through discretionary policies. Instead, the government needs to pursue clear policies that are focused on both the long term and short term and take the uncertainty they might create into account.

In terms of health care, it needs to be recognized that government distortions have played a large role in the high price of health care. These include tax distortions that pushed individuals away from the consumer based health care market, numerous governmental regulations that encourage hospital monopolies, defensive medicine, and limit the supply of doctors, and governmental health programs that have exploded in terms of costs.

Once these are recognized as the core drivers of our health care woes, health care reform can focus on restoring a degree of freedom and decentralization to health care.

These same principles of decentralization fo decision making and a focus on restoring the principles that made the USA great can be applied in education, finance, and virtually every other sector that is struggling.

In terms of the military, we need to have a military that is capable of defending our large nation. Our military power has been a source of greatness historically. Quite simply, in order to maintain our status as the most powerful country in the world, we must maintain a strong military.

All in all, the conservative view, or at least the view I hold, is that the USA's greatness lies in it's founding principles, and that the recent decline of the USA is due to a deviation, not a reliance, on these principles.

I hope you can at least see where I am coming from on this. Thank you for reading.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan