68 comments on “Reagan Vs. Obama – Social Economics 101 .

  1. Davetherave says:

    Damn fine post Bull! Writing about Reagan on just about any issue makes me a happy man. The only comparison I believe fits between Reagan and the Sumbitch is the God and Satan. I’ve watched so many Reagan YouTube speeches it’s almost scary about how he knew exactly where the idiots of our country would lead us past his time. He knew mankind’s weaknesses, that the Traitor Party plays up to those weaknesses to get control and we’d end up with enough dipshits to roll out the welcome mat. We finally ended up with over half our country being occupied with people slowly dying of a fatal case of the dumb ass, so usher in the era of King Sumbitch.

    Hell; I only took two economic classes in college and my dumb, redneck ass can see the foundation of our economy is eroding away and will totally collapse, if the Traitor Party keeps making all the policies. Sad thing is I believe we are already so screwed not even Reagan could save it now. We are in a much deeper hole than so many realize with debt it’s now literally impossible to prevent our nation from going bust. We are in debt so much more than the little, pissy $16T people love to throw around there is nothing funny about it….

    Like

    • bullright says:

      Dave, great one LMAO. Reagan was prophetic, man was he. Funny that bad half is not content though until they wreck the whole country. Yea, time had to witness enough of them infiltrate then infest it from top down. Someone did a good job with that video. LOL its classic.

      True, I don’t know either. We have to recalibrate the compass and all. Actually, it feels like we’re in a mutiny, something like pirates. I keep saying “there they go again”, even that was prophetic. No way they should be taking all the spoils but… No there is nothing really funny about it. They are only upset they couldn’t have “done more” — more spending, more pilfering. Redistribution is another word for demolition.

      Like

  2. pepperhawk says:

    Bull,

    I still can’t put a like on others’ blogs even though I tried fixing the problem.

    This is a great video and a great lesson. Unfortunately the commie crowd isn’t even interested in keeping things even, which never works anyway. But instead to rob everyone rich and poor alike.

    Great stuff, Bull.

    Like

  3. Michael says:

    Note to GOP: the class war started about 30 years ago, and the middle class is losing. The idea that Obama is “redistributing wealth” is laughable!

    Like

    • Davetherave says:

      Well look what crawled out of Obama’s ass to make a stupid ass comment…it’s a turd…no…it’s a socialist loving idiot Michael! You are one delusional POS Michael and I suggest your shrink up your dosage of Lithium and maybe…just maybe you will return to reality. Doubtful; but I’ve seen what a monkey can be trained to do, so there may still be hope for you.

      You’re not intelligent enough to debate, but you’re a damn fine target to just sit back and have fun insulting you moronic traitor…

      Like

  4. bullright says:

    Note to Michael, the middle class (a term I sort of resent) is Losing under Obama, in case you hadn’t noticed. But class war is about all the progs have, other than their Alinsky tactics. I normally don’t waste the time arguing with the Kool Aid Klan.

    Actually they(MC) are on the respirator.

    Like

  5. Michael says:

    I’ll happily debate anyone here, and I’ll back up everything I say with solid sources (like the CBO not an agenda driven think tank).

    Like

    • bullright says:

      Michael, just like you blew off Obama’s redistribution agenda calling it laughable. Joke is on you, of course you couldn’t see the people rolling their eyes and laughing. That’s what Kool Aid does to you.

      And by the way, I had to check, but no where on this blog does it say representative of the GOP. There’s a couple strikes against you and your integrity. Spare the biased info.

      And NOT agenda driven…. That my friend, and I use the term loosely, is strike three, You state right off your objective purpose is to oppose another blog and their info. Not agenda driven. Don’t make me laugh!

      Like

      • Michael says:

        Obama raised the top tax rate by 4% for those making over $450k (same as it was in the 90s and lower than the historical average). He has also kept spending growth at 1%/year the last few years – much lower than Reagan or either Bush. Where exactly is the “redistribution”?

        Like

        • bullright says:

          So comparing Obama to Clinton is supposed to win someone over? Second, spending Growth, another laughable asinine thing. After the cranked up spending he’s what decided he doesn’t need to do anymore increases. No, he’s happy right where he’s at. Right! And he’s handing the middle class the biggest increases in taxes they’ve ever seen. Middle class is taking a hit and will get a few kicks in the head forward, because he isn’t done. News flash: his agenda is spending money (or buying votes as I like to call it) Its the time honored tradition. And redistribution, or spreading the wealth as he likes to call it. But he’s all about raising taxes.

          Like

          • Michael says:

            Spending jumped in FY2009 – which started in October, 2008. Obama didn’t take office until 4 months later. He did increase spending about $200B that year for the stimulus, but the rest was passed when Bush was president. Don’t believe me? How about the Cato Institute?

            http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

            But a picture is worth a thousand words. Look at this graph of total government spending. Where is the increase under Obama? It’s never risen slower!

            http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=gVg

            Biggest tax increase? Huh?! It only affects the top 0.5%! Taxes on the middle class are now permanently set to the Bush rates!

            Most of the recent deficit reduction was accomplished with spending cuts, not tax increases. The Fiscal Cliff deal was 2-to-1 spending cuts to tax increases, and the Sequester was 100% spending cuts.

            Like

            • bullright says:

              I said cranked up spending, that is regardless what party.

              Just look at the chart… are we going to argue whether it is a full 75 degree trajectory or a 60 degree? A 1% slower rate is… now that is about laughable,

              His mantra was he would halve the deficit in his first term. No dice, But then they did not even get a budget through either.

              Like

            • Michael says:

              The way to balance the budget is by keeping spending growth lower than GDP growth. That’s what happened in the 90s. For the last 4 years, that’s exactly what’s been happening.

              Like

            • bullright says:

              But…
              GDP growth was up then though aprox 3.8 average. But he isn’t lighting a fire under the economy, if anything he’s holding a fire extinguisher.

              Like

            • bullright says:

              Gee did I forget to mention ObamaCare set to affect everyone, especially mid-class in the tax dept. Then there is the fine tuning in that meant to redistribute the wealth. but there is also the green agenda, chock full of the redistribution approach. (many other faucets as well) So much is self-evident by now. I’m only shocked libs would want to deny a redistributive agenda.

              Like

            • Michael says:

              ObamaCare stinks, I’ll agree with you on that. We could have just implemented the individual mandate (a conservative idea) and opened up Medicare to anyone that wanted to buy in (a liberal idea). Would have been much simpler.

              As far as redistribution is concerned, look at what FDR did during the Depression. He raised the top tax rate to 94%!! He did this to fund the New Deal which included unemployment insurance, social security and the minimum wage. Obama hasn’t done anything remotely similar.

              Like

            • bullright says:

              He isn’t done

              Like

        • Davetherave says:

          I see Michael loves to throw up partial facts and leave out some info. Where does spending start Michael? If you guessed the Legislative Branch, you get a gold star. What party controlled the entire Legislative Branch during Bush’s presidency? If you guessed the Democratic party, you get another gold star. So it’s a no-brainer, if Bush was going to get anything he wanted to have (like lower taxes) he had to give the Democrats just about everything they wanted. Bush also had 9/11, Katrina, war on Afghanistan (approved by Senate controlled by Democrats), and the war on Iraq (approved by Senate Controlled Democrats). Pretty expensive stuff that the Democrats approved the money. Obama’s used a few EO’s to bypass the Legislative Branch to spend money.

          You give Obama credit for raising the tax rate for those making over $450K. That was not what Obama wanted you dolt. He wanted anyone making over $250K (ring a bell Michael), but the Republicans refused that low of an income, because it would have hammered small businesses.

          Obama has laid more debt on us during his presidency than if you add up all the previous presidents combined. How did he pull that off? Oh maybe because the Democrats controlled both Legislative Branches his first two years (no budget passed) and he still has no budget he is required to follow.

          We now have more people on welfare than ever in history. Obama gives them free cell phones and TV’s, Obama is proud to be called the Food Stamp President. He himself stated, “I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,”…on a recording. Sure looks and sounds like wealth redistribution. How is Obama redistributing wealth? He raises taxes to pay for his freebie programs.

          Again; you try to down play the tax increase not being the biggest ever and not lay it on Obama. Once more time; he wanted to raise taxes on everyone making over $250K, but only got $450K out of the Republicans. The proposed $250 would have crippled our economy hurting the rich and poor. I’m not going to try and explain microeconomics and macroeconomics to you, but here some good reading for you that explains how Obama’s $250 desire would have hurt everyone;

          http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/11/obamas-tax-hikes-on-high-income-earners-will-hurt-the-poor-and-everyone-else

          Also; when you combine the Obamacare premiums plus the penalties people have to pay for not buying insurance that indeed makes it the biggest tax increase in US history. Remember; the SCOTUS said that part of Obamacare is legal due to it being a tax. Here some good reading for you on that issue:

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/06/29/is-obamacare-the-largest-tax-increase-in-u-s-history/

          Question off the cuff: If Obamacare is such a great deal, why is he giving exemptions to certain groups and or companies, so they do not have to comply?

          Please spend some time illustrating what our economy looked like when Reagan inherited it from Carter. How bad was EVERYTHING when Carter got voted out? I’m surprised Reagan didn’t have to spend more than he did to save our country from financial collapse and a revolution! You loons from the left most hated word in the English language is Reagan.

          Oh; I’m not a Republican. I’m a Libertarian and yes I get very unhinged when you loons crawl out of the woods trying to defend the worse president in our history. Our nation has gone no where but down since Obama took office. Bush wasn’t my favorite by far (I’m a big fan of Reagan on almost all his issues), but Obama sure has set a whole new high bar of sucking at running our country. Those of you that support Obama live in a world of suspended delusion and you’ll die before you admit your Savior is doing a bad job, so I’ll waste no more time on you. This is enough to prove you’re wrong on each issue anyway. Have a good day Michael and enjoy the Marxist country being ushered in by Obama.

          Like

          • Davetherave says:

            Sorry…error in my first paragraph. Bush got overwhelming approval from congress for both wars. Addition: Obama seems to prefer getting UN approval to use our military and spend our money. I’m pretty sure that Obama’s approach is not how our constitution is written.

            Like

            • bullright says:

              Dave, good one and I’m pretty sure too that it didn’t say “untill some world gov thingy comes along this is how it is…. after that all bets are off,.” No I don’t see that either.
              (sorry that first comment was delayed busy)

              Like

          • Michael says:

            Didn’t you see the part where I said “Obamacare stinks”?

            “What party controlled the entire Legislative Branch during Bush’s presidency? If you guessed the Democratic party, you get another gold star.”

            Actually, you get no star for that. The Dems only controlled congress the last 2 years…

            Like

    • bullright says:

      I’m not all that sure or trusting of the CBO (anal ysis) either.

      Like

  6. bullright says:

    Thanks but no thanks, all I heard was regurgitated talking points, factoids and numbers, meant to shine the obfuscation that is going on in the District of Corruption.

    Like

  7. bullright says:

    IN case one is not aware, the Cato piece(2009-above) did not let Obama off the hook even back then. But right up front stated: “The political class, needless to say, will choose the latter approach 99 percent of the time. A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa.”
    And
    “It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.” — i.e on spending.

    Like

  8. Davetherave says:

    Hey Bull, I sent you an email last night and haven’t heard from you. Just wanted to let you know in case you haven’t checked your email. Therave…

    Like

    • bullright says:

      Dave, sorry about that didn’t catch it!

      Like

      • Davetherave says:

        No prob Bull! I’ll always be around and will gladly debate any half truth spreader anytime. Michael is full of shit, but does a great job sticking to the “talking points.” Not the first parasite I’ve light up and I’m sure won’t be the last. Michael is no better than MSNBC!

        I took good notice of every time you took him to task he diverted to a different subject. The only thing lower than someone that is so low they spread around half the truth is someone that changes the topic when taken to task. If he has his own blog, I pity the more uninformed than he that swallows down his lies.

        Yep; I’m one take no bull shit redneck and everyone that has run into me knows that. Michael is as full of bull shit as Obama and he impresses me not. He couldn’t bring an “A” game, if he was in charge of the class!

        Like

        • bullright says:

          Dave, Let me also take the opportuinity to remind anyone this is not a politically correct zone. I make no bones about that. I don’t waste time on formalities. And both of those disclosures in a time when the very country and foundation is at stake, and our posterity, seem perfectly appropriate to me. Besides, file it under been there done that and lived to tell about it.

          Like

  9. Davetherave says:

    Bull, low and behold dipshit Michael does have a blog and the most comments I saw was a grand total of 4! I was going to rag on him, but that would have given him 5 comments and I didn’t want to fill his head with delusions of grandeur! He’s a copy/paste, CA kinda, sorta, close to being creative blogger. I guess WordPress will let anyone start a blog just like any f*cking idiot is allowed to be a dad…

    Like

    • bullright says:

      Dave, true but back to the point when you mention Reagan the left gets so p/oed over it. Like a call of the wild.

      Like

      • Davetherave says:

        Bull my friend, you bring up an excellent point, Never heard for Michael the leftist until you put an article bringing up their most hated word…Reagan. The left despise success in the name of what our founders intended and no one president did a better job than that than Reagan, You sure don’t hear them brag about Carter.

        Nothing pisses them off more than the simple principles of conservatism of Reagan brought our nation back from the edge of destruction. They will never give credit where credit is due, if it doesn’t go along with their Alinsky beliefs. They can turn their heads on history all they want, tell half truths and change the subject when their asinine beliefs are taken to task, but those of us that pay attention will never be deceived by those traitors. They are not part of the cure, but a complete part of the disease!

        Like

        • bullright says:

          Dave,

          You know, its the same principle Christians ascribe to: ‘you can’t serve two masters’, it will be one or the other. Whether they admit and like it or not.

          Like

        • Michael says:

          The most conservative president in recent history was Bill Clinton – he raised taxes, kept spending in check, reformed welfare, implemented NAFTA and got the budget into surplus. Once in surplus, he cut taxes. Pretty conservative, if you ask me.

          Reagan was anything but fiscally conservative. But don’t take my word for it, I’m just an “unhinged CA liberal”. Maybe you will believe a Texas Libertarian?

          “If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.”

          http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Paul's_1987_Resignation_Letter_to_the_RNC

          Like

          • pepperhawk says:

            Michael,

            If taxes did not go up for the so called “middle class” which I detest any kinds of labels, then why are the libs on HuffPo cussing out Obama and wishing they had not voted for them. They opened their first paycheck of January and saw a huge increase in their taxes. They all thought a tax hike was for only the top percent, but they were wrong to believe him because he is a master with lies.

            Like

          • bullright says:

            Well, it only makes the case that Clinton was a hell of a lot more conservative than Obama will ever be.

            Like

  10. bullright says:

    I kind of chuckle at this endless number of people over time who claim to be objective, entirely fact-based, independent, or non-agenda driven; only to find that they are wrapped in a swaddling of agenda-driven factoids. (exclusive of others) However, on this blog I don’t claim “no bias” and do not provide or guarantee a politics free or politically correct zone. And oddly or ironically enough, no one on the left I know of seems to actually deliver that either, to spite claims to the contrary. No sense fighting under a false flag.

    Like

    • Michael says:

      If you took the time to ask me questions and debate instead of hurling insults, you would see that I am, in fact, objective, fact-based and non-agenda driven. Go ahead, ask me something.

      Like

      • bullright says:

        Michael,

        The point of the piece was the difference between Obama and Reagan. You are now out there talking about how similar Reagan and Clinton are, after Obama just ran saying he was the extension of Clinton. He is not, as hard as that is for Dem Libs to believe.

        Well, you made my case pretty good. You use the congress to explain the criticism of Obama. Then you herald Clinton as the most conservative president, while criticizing Reagan. And then you tell me its not biased but just unbiased facts?

        Clinton had a congress that largely handed him success. Reagan had a congress that opposed him and yet found a way to get things done to succeed in spite of it. That is not even remotely similar to Obama. And the congress did not keep their word to Reagan on immigration reform. That’s a better way of saying they lied.

        Like

      • bullright says:

        I’ll grant one similarity of Obama and Clinton, both have a problem being accountable for their actions.

        Like

      • Davetherave says:

        Michael, I’ll only speak for myself and your point is well taken. Please accept my apology for un-needed personal insults in lieu of a healthy debate and for a few errors I made in quoting statistics. I really am non-agenda driven also, but after Obama being president for over four years and seeing how shaky our economy is, the massive growth in debt that is larger than adding all previous presidents together, the cost of gas, unemployment…et al…I’m left with no other option than to believe he is the worst president we’ve ever endured.

        I still stand behind that Obamacare is the largest tax increase per capita (one must combine the premiums and penalties based on it was made law due to it being a “tax” by the SCOTUS) in the history of our country. The data can be somewhat twisted (if someone has a specific agenda), but I have no agenda on this subject except I do believe that data proves it to be the highest tax increase in our history. FYI: My comment on Obamacare got caught up in the system and I actually made that comment before you commented on Obamacare, so at least we both agree it stinks.

        Reagan also lowered taxes his first year in office (that history shows got our economy in recovery mode from the Carter presidency), where Clinton raised taxes his first year. I only bring up Clinton now due to seeing you and Bull discussing Clinton. Can I assume you agree with me our economy is still on very shaky ground based on unemployment, gas prices, cost or groceries…etc?

        There has to be a happy medium in spending and revenues and to me that is one thing Obama does not understand or care about. We cannot keep raising taxes on people (remember Obama wanted to raise taxes on anyone making over $250K that would have hit a ton of small businesses, but had to settle for $450 due to the Repukes forcing him), but it’s like pulling teeth from a live and awake lion to get him to cut any spending except Defense. There probably is some room to cut defense, but why isn’t Obama or anyone else talking about cutting foreign spending? I sure hope we agree on that point.

        We are not a granny state per our constitution (no where does it state we are to take care of anyone from cradle to grave), but we now have an all time high of people of welfare, food stamps, so much job growth that has been accomplished has been in the public sector not private and millions upon millions blown on none proven and failed green energy. Obama is purely driven by a liberal bias and we (including you and I) are paying the price for it and we can’t afford it.

        I’ll stop here, allow you to reply and we can continue a civil debate if you so chose….Dave

        Like

        • Michael says:

          Hey Dave, thanks for the comments. Haven’t been online in a while, wish I could have responded earlier.

          I agree with you that Obamacare is a tax increase, although I’m not sure it’s the biggest in history. But even with those tax hikes, the effective tax rates on just about everyone are lower than historical averages. There is plenty room for more tax increases, and I actually think they would help the economy. Whenever rates have been this low, the result has been stagnating worker pay, high income inequality, high household debt and asset bubbles. The last two times tax rates have been this low were the 1920s and over the last 15 years. Both periods ended very badly.

          But when rates have been above 50%, the economy has been strong, wages increased with productivity and everyone prospered. That’s what happened in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. When I was growing up, people were able to have a good standard of living on one paycheck. This allowed most mothers to stay home and raise the kids, and families didn’t need to rely on debt. That’s all changed since the 1980s.

          I also agree that there are too many people on government assistance. But the solution isn’t to cut them off. That will only result in millions of homeless/hungry/desperate people. That’s the sort of environment that leads to extremism, civil unrest and revolution. The real solution is to pay people more. There is plenty of money in the economy, it just isn’t being distributed well. Look at CEO pay and corporate profits – all time highs. FDR addressed the income inequality problem in the 1930s by raising the top income tax rate to 94%!

          Like

  11. Davetherave says:

    Michael, here is a bit more I thought you may be interested in, because I don’t know when you’ll be back on this article.

    Let’s get back to the point of the article Reagan v Obama:

    Median income under Reagan grew to the highest in our nations history. Below is the a link for your convenience:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110423022932AA7zrEK

    Median income has dropped under Obama. Below is a link for your convenience:

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/

    I hope we can agree that Reagan inherited a much dire economic problem from Carter than Obama did from Bush? I’ll certainly say we were crashing prior to Obama taking office, but it never got as bad as it did under Carter and what Reagan had to deal with.

    The above links is one of the key factors of how strong our economy is or is not. The median incomes are after taxes and people put more in their pockets under Reagan than under Obama where under Obama it has actually decreased. Obama certainly put more debt upon on nation that Reagan as well and I surely hope we can agree on that, if we are both non-agenda driven.

    Like

    • Michael says:

      This recovery is weaker because we don’t have the same options/flexibility today that Reagan had. When Reagan took office:

      The top tax rate was 70% – Reagan was able to cut it to 28%.
      Government debt was only about 35% of GDP and falling – Reagan didn’t need to cut spending.
      Household debt was less than 70% of income – people were able to borrow and spend.

      When Obama took office:

      The top tax rate was 35% – not much room for cuts.
      Government debt was over 80% and rising fast – Obama not able to increase spending much.
      Household debt was over 120% of income – people are now paying down debt.

      Like

      • bullright says:

        Mickey, wasted away in Margaritaville.

        Interesting spin/analysis, calling what Carter did and gave us “flexibility”. That’s a riot.

        Like

      • bullright says:

        Michael, when Obastid took office: > “The top tax rate was 35% – not much room for cuts.”<

        That's good, not that he was looking to cut it anyway. Spending was all he cared about.

        ObamaCare = tax increases, redistribution, and drenched in classwarfare….

        Oh, and SPENDING on streroids.

        Like

        • Michael says:

          Look at “actual” spending during the Reagan and Obama recoveries. 51% increase for Reagan, 22% increase for Obama. Thoughts?

          http://econopolitics.com/2013/04/08/reagans-recovery-vs-obamas-recovery-update/

          Like

          • bullright says:

            Where do you think the recovery in the economy, and later to the economy Clintion enjoyed, came from?

            Like

            • Michael says:

              Initially, it was from the Reagan tax cuts and spending increases. In other words – government stimulus. It was a good idea in the 80s, but it should have stopped by 1990. It didn’t. As a result, the economy was then powered by rising household and government debt..

              In 2007, debt hit a limit. Now, here we are implementing household and government austerity. That’s a big reason why this recovery is so weak.

              Like

            • bullright says:

              Definition of ‘Austerity’
              “A state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits.”

              —“Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.”

              Government austerity at its finest.

              Like

          • Michael says:

            That $6.2T bogus number is coming from right-wing spin sources only. If you read the actual GAO report, you will see it estimates Obamacare will *reduce* health care costs:

            “The effect of PPACA on the long-term fiscal outlook depends largely on whether elements designed to control cost growth are sustained. Overall, there was notable *improvement* in the longer-term outlook after the enactment of PPACA under our Fall 2010 Baseline Extended simulation,”

            Click to access 651702.pdf

            The CBO also estimates that Obamacare will reduce the deficit slightly:

            “On net, CBO and JCT estimate, repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2013-2022 period. Repealing the coverage provisions discussed in this report would save $1,171 billion over that period, but repealing the rest of the act would increase direct spending and reduce revenues by a total of $1,280 billion.”

            Click to access 43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf

            Like

      • Davetherave says:

        Hey Michael, good to hear from you and I’m glad you returned for further exchange of ideas.

        You wrote…”This recovery is weaker because we don’t have the same options/flexibility today that Reagan had. When Reagan took office:” and I totally agree with you more! Carter sucked horribly and I believe Bush II did fairly well, but not great. Let’s visit the facts:

        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.

        All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

        During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

        The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

        Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

        These facts cannot be disputed Michael. I also notice the only thing you have chosen to take a stance on that Obama has done wrong is Obamacare. Can I assume by that you agree with everything else Obama has done? Is there nothing else you believe Obama has done incorrectly? I look forward to hearing from you again….Dave

        Like

        • bullright says:

          Dave, Excellent summary.

          Like

          • Davetherave says:

            Thanks Bull. The facts I presented really cannot be disputed…they are the pure, cold hard facts, I’m not going to insult Michael again; but I truly believe I’m on the winning side of debating Reagan economics v. Obama economics. Reagan inherited an absolute nightmare from Carter and while Obama may not of inherited the idea situation from Bush II there is absolutely no comparison IMO that Obama got the better end of the deal and we’ve seen zero recovery from Obama’s game plan even into his second term.

            NO budget he must follow, so he’s had a blank check and Obama has done nothing to help our country. I.E. over 1 3/rd of our country under Obama is unemployed and have gotten so frustrated they stopped looking for jobs, I’ll let you do the math to quantify my calculations, but I believe that is around 90 million. Inflation is much higher than the gov states due to they don’t factor in cost of food or gas…that’s brilliant! Gas is outrageous and regulations are at all time high, more folks on welfare than in our history…etc. We are not set up per our constitution to be a granny state! Michael also says taxes should go higher on the richer…why? Just because they have done better in our style of economy? I would ask Michael how that has worked out for the European countries…especially Greece. No nation can afford to make everyone equal no matter how wealthy their society may be. Like it or not; in any society that will thrive some will get left behind. Not a pretty picture, but reality in any society that has ever prospered.

            I’m patiently waiting for anyone (including Michael) to tell me we are better off under Obama than we were under Reagan, but I’m open minded to give him a chance. I’ll not hammer the fact that under Bush we had the longest months in our history of economic growth due to him following Reagan’s game plan. It’s simply and H.G Wells or pie in the sky European theory to theorize every one can be economically the same. One that thinks that must believe in communsim, socialism or Marxism and not what our country was founded upon….

            Like

        • Michael says:

          Hey Dave.

          I agreed that the Reagan recovery was stronger. But I gave some reasons for that which you haven’t addressed. Reagan was able to cut taxes dramatically and increase spending significantly due to our healthier fiscal situation. Obama hasn’t been able to do those things. Almost every economist – liberal and conservative – agree that spending increases and tax cuts improve a struggling economy. The household debt situation is also much worse today – as is worker pay.

          If you want to see the biggest problem with the economy – check out the high correlation between wages, household borrowing and GDP. Wages have been falling since around 1980, and household debt took off because of this. Now that households can’t borrow, the economy is being driven by those low wages. This graph also shows that the drop in GDP has been much more severe that Reagan faced.

          http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=hks

          Some other problems I have with Obama?
          1. He hasn’t presented a serious entitlement reform plan.
          2. He hasn’t pushed for real green, domestic energy development – nuclear.
          3. Instead of explaining why tax increases would be helpful, he says “The rich need to pay their fair share”.

          Like

          • Davetherave says:

            Hi Michael, good to hear from you again to continue our debate…

            I didn’t address Regan’s tax reductions, because I thought it was obvious but I’ll be glad to do so now. Obama as a senator voted against the Bush tax cuts (which for the most part has always been a main stay for republican presidents and Bush II took them straight from Reagan’s play book), but picked up an ran with them like they were his original idea to keep them in place. As president; even Obama (or the brains behind Obama) know that tax cuts associated with less spending boost our economy every time.Why do I believe he did this? Purely to get re-elected. Now that he has his second term he could care less about tax increases, but refuses to look at true spending reductions.

            I also provided to you that Obama wanted to raise taxes on all making over $250K and you never addressed that. Repukes forced him to go with $450K or higher, due to $250 would have hit too many middle class business owners. So shall we call that a draw or do you want another shot at addressing that issue?

            You also did not address that under Bush (with TAX CUTS) we achieved the longest stretch of monthly economic growth (in consecutive months) in our history…even better than Reagan. Once again this was achieved by TAX CUTS and you continue to promote there is further room to raise taxes. With the Bush Tax Cuts in place; that left little to no room for Obama to cut taxes, but he sure would have liked to done so as proven by his current stance.

            I totally agree with the points you laid out in #1 and #2, but surely to God you have seen all the stats that show the tax increases Obama proposed (even at $450K) wouldn’t pay for a month worth of spending. The key is not increases taxes…the key is cutting spending and allow me to give you a few examples to see if you agree.

            How much did the US donate to the UN last year and exactly how did that benefit the United States? Obama sent over $500 million to Egypt in one lump sum due to them being hungry. How did that benefit the United States? Obama spent billions for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Libya and exactly how did that benefit the United States? The US cannot afford to take care for the world or even all it’s own citizens. No country has even been so wealthy it could be a granny state to every one and not go bankrupt. It may be sad, but it’s true.

            You do make some very good points Michael, but I’ve yet to see you take a serious “hind sight” to see that perhaps…just perhaps…you may be wrong on some issues. Good hearing from you…Dave

            Like

          • Michael says:

            “As president; even Obama (or the brains behind Obama) know that tax cuts associated with less spending boost our economy every time.”

            This is wrong. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, but less spending slows it down. As I’ve pointed out, the Reagan recovery was fueled by tax cuts and big spending increases – mostly defense. Every economist knows that government stimulus works. Bush had his own stimulus plan in 2008. Here is how Bush/Romney economic advisor Greg Mankiw put it:

            “Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy.”

            http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html

            Do you really think people that make over $250k are middle class? I don’t. Only about 2% of taxpayers make that much. Personally, I think all the Bush tax cuts should have been gradually phased out as the economy strengthens. While tax cuts stimulate over the short term, low tax rates have no effect on long-term growth. In fact, higher tax rates have corresponded to higher growth in the past. The myth of tax cuts creating growth is being pushed by right-wing think tanks that are funded by wealthy individuals. The only real effect low tax rates have is increasing income inequality.

            http://econopolitics.com/2012/10/26/do-tax-cuts-hurt-growth/

            I think Reagan’s first tax cut in 1982 was the right thing to do. Income inequality was too low, which created a lack of investment capital which led to high interest rates and a supply-side economic slow down. Bush 1 and Clinton did the right thing unwinding some of those cuts, but Clinton and Bush 2 were wrong to cut taxes in 1997, 2001 and 2003, IMO. They helped create the dot-com and housing bubbles. The same thing happened in the 1920s when Coolidge dramatically cut the income tax rates.

            Your statement about growth during Bush 2 is just completely wrong. Here is the actual data:

            http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=hlY

            And the worst thing about the growth during Bush 2 is that is was all fueled by debt.

            http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/01/mews-impact-on-2007.html

            Like

            • bullright says:

              As the Cato source earlier said:
              “A higher tax burden, however, simply means that debt-financed spending is replaced by tax-financed spending, which is akin to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire, or vice-versa.”

              Like

          • Davetherave says:

            Michael, you took such a broad paint brush approach with your comment stating “less spending slows down the economy.” Surely you and I can agree that “wasteful” spending does NOTHING to help the economy, but just the opposite and surely you would agree there is PLENTY of wasteful spending that has always existed in DC.

            Wasteful spending may create useless jobs, but that does not mean DC should continue wasteful spending just for the sake of creating jobs. It is not really DC’s job to create jobs IMO. The private sector has always done a much better creating “real” jobs. Government only adds to the cost of big government with wasteful spending that for the most part only creates public sector, union jobs. I believe we already have way too many public sector, union jobs.

            I also take issue with your statement wanting to raise taxes on those making $250K and over would be a good idea. Many, many small businesses make that much easily and small businesses are the backbone of job creation. Cutting into their revenue is only going to have one effect and that is they will not have the available assets to grow and create jobs.

            I will take your word for it that you are not a liberal, but you certainly seem to be promoting big government with raising taxes and not cutting spending. Our nation was not built on the back of big government and their approach of creating public sector jobs. Also; Obama has spent over a trillion every year in office and unemployment has budged, but only gotten worse. You seem intelligent, so please don’t tell me you believe the bogus unemployment number the gov shoves in our face. We all know that is skewed by the their tracking methods. I.E. Unemployment benefits run out that person drops off the unemployment calculation, while still not having a job.

            I ran a business for 25 years and I was very fortunate to have been so profitable I retired at the age of 47. I know business, I know P/L statements and I know all about small business job creation and the horrible cost of wasteful spending. If I’d ran my business like DC runs our country, I’d been bankrupt in less than two years!

            The business of America is business and I know business like the back of my hand, so I’ll gladly debate you on this issue all day long. Any business owner wants to make as much money as possible and the more he makes the larger his business grows and the more people he needs to hire to keep up with demand. Then there is the trickle down effect of all the merchandise a business owner purchases. The more his business grows the more he buys creating jobs for other companies. This is simple Economics 101 that I personally experienced, live and breathed for 25 years.

            Small business must be allowed to grow and the idea that taxing anyone over $250 it not going to effect small business just proves to me you are not a businessman…not insult intended, but that’s what I see.

            Cutting “wasteful” spending ALWAYS helps every business and our government is a business, so the same rule applies. Cutting wasteful spending creates a situation where the government does not need as much revenue through taxes, which leave more money in the hands of small business owners to thrive, grow and create more jobs.

            Obama’s strategy has now been in place for over four years and we are no better off than when he took office. The only sector that is doing better are public sector, union jobs and that cost our country a fortune. Is there room to cut cost in military spending? I do believe there is, because there is a portion of wasteful spending there as well.

            Nothing, absolutely nothing ever comes from wasteful spending and I sure hope you and I can agree on that.

            Like

  12. clyde says:

    Congrats, bull. You’ve made the big-time. Your very own Soros-paid troll.

    Like

  13. bullright says:

    For over 8 years I heard the left screaming loud and clear we cannot afford the tax cuts. But I never hear them say we can’t afford this Government.

    Like

Comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s