Skip to comments.Reagan vs. Obama: A Tale of Two Economic Recoveries
Posted on 04/28/2014 1:03:14 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
Reagan Turned It Around in Two Years;
Obama Has Made It Worse in Five Years
Its a tired and shopworn refrain, but the Obama administration still claims that the so-called economic recovery that started in 2009 is struggling because of the mess the president inherited when he took office. So how does he explain a jobless recovery with no economic growth?
Well probably never see it in the mainstream media, but thanks to political observer Michael Hausam, we can make a comparison of policy and politics that pits 2009 against 1981. That would directly compare the economy Ronald Reagan inherited against the one inherited by Barack Obama.
Reagan was handed a bigger mess than Obama. When Reagan took office, unemployment was 10.8 percent; inflation was 13.5 percent; the prime interest rate was 21.5 percent. The economy was on the ropes.
When Obama took office, unemployment was 7.7 percent; inflation was 2.7 percent; the prime interest rate was 3.25 percent.
The economy was sputtering.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...
Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend The brightest heaven of invention! A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, And monarchs to behold the swelling scene! Then should the warlike Ronnie, like himself, Assume the port of voodoo, trickle down, Reaganomics...
Reagan's was BECAUSE OF Reagan. His wealth-creating tax-cut polices lead to an historic 25-year economic expansion.
Obama's is IN SPITE OF Obama and his poverty-producing big government policies.
When Reagan was elected there were enough Americans still interested in reason and common sense. Now the balance has been tilted to those who are only interested in what a candidate promises to take from others to give to them. In 1980 Reagan would have easily defeated Obama. In 2012 Obama would have crushed the greedy old white guy.
Both were doing what they were trying to do!
“..WHAT ECONOMIC RECOVERY?!..”
Exactly...There was/is only one ECONOMY in this discussion. That was Reagan of course. Zero is about as anti-capitalism, pro-confiscatory taxation, as any Marxist is.
Cutting taxes was only one leg of Reagan’s economic program and maybe not one that would do much at this time.
A more important Reagan policy for today was his program of regulatory relief. Reagan didn’t ‘create jobs’, he unshackled private business so that they could create jobs.
Obama is doing exactly the opposite. He is as hostile to the free economy as any President we have ever had and he’s burdening us with more and more regulation every day. The non-recovery is the result.
Reagan inherited a mess, but instead of whining, he got to work and fixed it. It took a couple of years for his policies to take affect, but when they did, the economy did very well.
barry inherited a smaller mess and has made it much worse.
IF we ever get an American president back in the white house, it will take drastic measures to get the economy back on a growth track.
Reagan’s intention was to make America great again after the cluster fork created by Carter.
barry’s intention is to destroy this country.
It took Obamao to undo what Reagan did?
Tax cuts are hardly Keynesian. Keynes is used by the socialists to justify INCREASED SPENDING, never tax cuts.
More stupid government-speak. The government views everything in terms of government. If you keep you own hard-earned money, the government thinks that's money that somehow the government allows to "trickle down" from government to you. What lunacy. Letting people keep their own hard-earned money is not "trickle -down", it's freedom. Less government is more freedom and unleashes the wealth-creating free market economy.
I see Galbraith is an elite Fabian Progressive socialist - a sort of economist version of George Bernard Shaw. Theoretically and historically, socialism creates poverty and failure.
I would like to have seen the Reagan GDP vs today’s globalized world. They had it pretty easy back then in terms of competition.
If you spend some time over at DU, you will find that a lot of them blame the economic woes of TODAY on Ronald Reagan. No, I’m not kidding.
What is DU?
I’m not kidding either...
Reagan’s tax reform didn’t actually lower the revenue collected by government. It merely changed the math.
For example, there was a graduated tax system. Different rates for different levels on the same return...
Democratic Underground... a moonbat forum. Wear HAZMAT gear if you visit.
But just as important and critical is cutting the $4 trillion government by at least 80% (still too big, but it's a start). The federal government must be put back in its constitutional cage. That means MUCH LESS regulation, to which you alluded. Hopefully, the Convention of States by Citizens for Self-Governance will succeed in forcing this.