Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Reaganomics vs Obamanomics

Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 6:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Brilliant.

Also, it is important to point out how much more successful Reaganomics was than Obamanomics.
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
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 6:47:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/3/2012 6:44:29 PM, Ameriman wrote:
Brilliant.

Also, it is important to point out how much more successful Reaganomics was than Obamanomics.

So much more successful. Infinitely so almost.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2012 11:38:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Accurate video.

I recently saw a video from Obama's earlier campaign days. A journalist pointed out data showing tax revenues would drop if tax rates on the wealthy were increased. Obama agreed hey would, but reasserted it ought to be done nonetheless, for "fairness."
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 12:30:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is so incredibly ignorant:

Let's see....what is Obama's position on the tax rates of the wealthy? And Reagan?

Second, you imply that the Reagan recession and the Bush Recession that Obama inherited are comparable and the same. This is dishonesty used by the right praying on the ignorant who believe Reagan policy to be more successful.

Third, what was Reagan's policy?

He INCREASED government spending.
He INCREASED national debt.
He INCREASED public sector employment.
He INCREASED costs of regulation.

http://mises.org...

How very conservative of him....
Yet the ignorant will label him the conservative Messiah and then in the same breath demonize Obama for not cleaning up the mess they created. The term "mindless fvcks" comes to mind...

FUN FACT: If republicans had allowed Obama to increase public sector hiring at the same percent Reagan did, unemployment would be at 6.7%.

Funny how Republicans oppose policy Reagan imposed and then tout the effects of that policy.

But ya.... "Vote fer 'Merka!!!1 "Merka'!!!! F YA!!!! Vote da da-m nigga out of da white house!!!!"
Sapere Aude!
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 7:04:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 12:30:57 AM, Apollo.11 wrote:
That is so incredibly ignorant:

Let's see....what is Obama's position on the tax rates of the wealthy? And Reagan?


Second, you imply that the Reagan recession and the Bush Recession that Obama inherited are comparable and the same. This is dishonesty used by the right praying on the ignorant who believe Reagan policy to be more successful.

Third, what was Reagan's policy?

He INCREASED government spending.
He INCREASED national debt.
He INCREASED public sector employment.
He INCREASED costs of regulation.

http://mises.org...

How very conservative of him....
Yet the ignorant will label him the conservative Messiah and then in the same breath demonize Obama for not cleaning up the mess they created. The term "mindless fvcks" comes to mind...


FUN FACT: If republicans had allowed Obama to increase public sector hiring at the same percent Reagan did, unemployment would be at 6.7%.

Funny how Republicans oppose policy Reagan imposed and then tout the effects of that policy.

But ya.... "Vote fer 'Merka!!!1 "Merka'!!!! F YA!!!! Vote da da-m nigga out of da white house!!!!"

+10000000000

BTW Roy, to think that Reagan's recession was worse is just ignorant. Reagan DID NOT inherit a global credit crunch, the near death (would've been w/out bailouts) of the auto industry, a massive debt crunch, massively declining GDP and job losses, and skyrocketing home forclosures and Wall Street falling rapidly.
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:54:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 12:30:57 AM, Apollo.11 wrote:
That is so incredibly ignorant:

Let's see....what is Obama's position on the tax rates of the wealthy? And Reagan?


It's pretty clear from various policies what each President's opinion on taxing the wealthy was. To say otherwise is ridiculously ignorant.

Reagan cut the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%.

Obama has proposed a "Buffet Rule," which would increase the top income tax rate for most millionaires to 30%

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Second, you imply that the Reagan recession and the Bush Recession that Obama inherited are comparable and the same. This is dishonesty used by the right praying on the ignorant who believe Reagan policy to be more successful.

"When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse."

"As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed."

"Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn't happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data."

"Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much."

http://www.forbes.com...

Third, what was Reagan's policy?

He INCREASED government spending.
He INCREASED national debt.

Ronald Reagan tried to decrease government spending and national debt but was stymied by Congress. Not to mention that Reagan did cut spending to many welfare programs at that time, but increased government spending in a time of conflict with the Soviet Union.

Obama, on the other hand, is trying to increase government spending and debt (through Congress), and succeeding quite well.

He INCREASED public sector employment.

A policy focused directly on eliminating public sector employment increased it? I don't think so.

He INCREASED costs of regulation.

"Ronald Reagan's departure from the presidency invites conjecture about whether the policies of his administration will endure. Among the policies most clearly identified with the Reagan administration are those relaxing government regulation of business. Although nearly all recent regulatory reforms had their origins in earlier administrations, many were implemented and had their first visible consequences during the Reagan era. For example, the Reagan administration dismantled the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), implemented the near-deregulation of surface freight transportation, and broke up the nation's largest public utility, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), in order to enhance the prospects for competition and deregulation in communications. It also undertook the task of designing workable market processes for interstate transactions in natural gas and electricity, and adopted lotteries rather than comparative fitness investigations to award licenses for new television stations and mobile telephone services."

http://www.cato.org...

http://mises.org...

How very conservative of him....

About as conservative as you can get in politics.

Yet the ignorant will label him the conservative Messiah and then in the same breath demonize Obama for not cleaning up the mess they created. The term "mindless fvcks" comes to mind...

LOL

Economic growth and recovery skyrocketed during the Reagan presidency, as I have proved before. Obama, on the other hand, pursued a direct policy which stymied economic growth and recovery.



FUN FACT: If republicans had allowed Obama to increase public sector hiring at the same percent Reagan did, unemployment would be at 6.7%.

FUN FACT: Where do you get your facts?

Funny how Republicans oppose policy Reagan imposed and then tout the effects of that policy.

Say what?

But ya.... "Vote fer 'Merka!!!1 "Merka'!!!! F YA!!!! Vote da da-m nigga out of da white house!!!!"

?
"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."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 11:49:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like conservative/small government/laissez faire economics, but Reagonomics is the idea that you can cut taxes - for the wealthy at least - without really cutting government spending and without regard for the debt (although Reagan did say the debt was the most disappointing failure of his presidency). Under Reagan, the U.S. moved from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

"How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone's life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing government expenditures."

"The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions."

- Murray Rothbard, The Myths of Reagonomics (http://mises.org...)

Reagan failed to slow the growth of government and increased it in every single way: debts, deficits, spending, regulations... and even taxes. As Rothbard points out in that article:

"Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases? The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall.

Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore, taxes have gone up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan administration."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 12:23:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 7:04:27 AM, Contra wrote:

BTW Roy, to think that Reagan's recession was worse is just ignorant. Reagan DID NOT inherit a global credit crunch, the near death (would've been w/out bailouts) of the auto industry, a massive debt crunch, massively declining GDP and job losses, and skyrocketing home foreclosures and Wall Street falling rapidly.

Try to make a post without a personal insult. Just try it to see what it's like.

The 1980 recession was quite different, which is all you are arguing. Consumer interest rates were 22% and mortgage rates were 13%. the high mortgage rates shut down the housing market as thoroughly as the present. Unemployment was higher was out of control. Gas rationing was put into effect. Confidence in the future of the U.S. was extremely low. Time Magazine ran an article on how inherently impossible for any president to run the country, and the government ought to be reorganized into three executive branches with three different leaders.

Since 1980, the government has changed the way it calculates inflation and unemployment that makes it difficult to compare with back then, but the situation looked every bit as dire. The dominant problem was inflation.

Consider what would happen if you landed a $1 million dollar job next week. Your spending would increase. Your debt would increase. Your overhead would grow, with a lot more money spent on services. So, would that be terrible? Would you conclude that what made you better off was not the job, but the fact that you borrowed and spent more?

The relevant statistic is that at this point Obama is down five million jobs and Reagan was up six million. Reagan instituted tax reform that simplified the tax code by eliminating many deductions, but at the same time lowered the average rate. Obama's rate of producing new regulations is 2.5 times that of Bush, and Bush was hardly a shining example of deregulation. Reagan implemented entitlement reform and ended a whole bunch of farm subsides. The policy difference are enormous, as the video points out.

The pattern is that sharp recessions usually produce sharp recoveries. This is slowest recovery in recent history. Recoveries are usually led by small business, typically providing 70% of the new jobs. Obama wouldn't even talk to the small business organization for two year. Small business is not creating jobs; they are being killed by regulation.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 9:04:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 12:23:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/4/2012 7:04:27 AM, Contra wrote:

BTW Roy, to think that Reagan's recession was worse is just ignorant. Reagan DID NOT inherit a global credit crunch, the near death (would've been w/out bailouts) of the auto industry, a massive debt crunch, massively declining GDP and job losses, and skyrocketing home foreclosures and Wall Street falling rapidly.

Try to make a post without a personal insult. Just try it to see what it's like.

I learn from the master.

The 1980 recession was quite different, which is all you are arguing. Consumer interest rates were 22% and mortgage rates were 13%. the high mortgage rates shut down the housing market as thoroughly as the present. Unemployment was higher was out of control. Gas rationing was put into effect. Confidence in the future of the U.S. was extremely low. Time Magazine ran an article on how inherently impossible for any president to run the country, and the government ought to be reorganized into three executive branches with three different leaders.

I admit that I wasn't alive then, but I highly doubt that the mortgage crisis was as severe then. The early '80s recession was caused by high inflation, and when the Fed adjusted interest rates, all was well. The tax cuts for the middle class probably stimulated the economy, because many middle class citizens were unfairly taxed at higher rates. The tax cuts for the rich did probably have a minimal effect (the Laffer Curve proved it gained revenue). However, the Laffer Curve has shown that more revenue is collected at the Clinton-era rates.

Since 1980, the government has changed the way it calculates inflation and unemployment that makes it difficult to compare with back then, but the situation looked every bit as dire. The dominant problem was inflation.

^

Consider what would happen if you landed a $1 million dollar job next week. Your spending would increase. Your debt would increase. Your overhead would grow, with a lot more money spent on services. So, would that be terrible? Would you conclude that what made you better off was not the job, but the fact that you borrowed and spent more?

The relevant statistic is that at this point Obama is down five million jobs and Reagan was up six million. Reagan instituted tax reform that simplified the tax code by eliminating many deductions, but at the same time lowered the average rate.

1986 Tax reform. A bipartisan accomplishment, only because Democrats cared about America and not putting their party first. They worked with Reagan to achieve successes.

Obama's rate of producing new regulations is 2.5 times that of Bush, and Bush was hardly a shining example of deregulation.

I don't know the specifics, but we can cut regulations in some areas, 80,000 pages is just ridiculous.

Reagan implemented entitlement reform and ended a whole bunch of farm subsides. The policy difference are enormous, as the video points out.

I can't watch the video.

I applaud Reagan for his entitlement reform, although his welfare cuts were just bad. Ketchup is not a vegetable. The cuts harmed many lower class Americans for no real gain. If you are going to cut welfare, have a social programs still, such as job retraining programs, educational opportunities, financial assistance, so that people can legitimately reach the middle class of the American Dream. Not only is this key to making sure everybody gets a fair shot at success, it works.

http://evidencebasedprograms.org...

The pattern is that sharp recessions usually produce sharp recoveries. This is slowest recovery in recent history. Recoveries are usually led by small business, typically providing 70% of the new jobs. Obama wouldn't even talk to the small business organization for two year. Small business is not creating jobs; they are being killed by regulation.

I have a feeling Roy that you work in business, so I bet that your clue with Obama is not fully off. However, Obama has helped small business by reducing regulations (the recent JOBS Act signed and passed), numerous tax cuts, and promoting health care tax credits.

Plus, Reagan's recession was caused by inflation, so a typical recession that was exacerbated. Obama's inherited recession was a financial disaster. Financial crisis' taking longer to recover from.
"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
5/5/2012 7:38:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
"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