PDA

View Full Version : How does Obama's record compare to Reagan's?



Mr. Mensch
06-09-2014, 12:28 PM
So, what are the facts?

For starters, both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama inherited miserable economies, but they responded very differently.
In Reagan’s first year, he sought to stimulate economic growth via large cuts in marginal income tax rates. Reagan believed this would allow Americans to keep their money and spend and invest it better than government could; this was, in effect, private-sector stimulus. It was a stark contrast to President Obama’s massive $800 billion public-sector (i.e., government) stimulus in his first year.

The Reagan tax cuts helped initiate an economic boom, highlighted by 92 consecutive months of interrupted economic growth, far surpassing the previous record of 58 months. The bogeymen of the 1970s—chronic unemployment and the deadly combination of double-digit inflation and interest rates—were vanquished. The poverty rate dropped. Incomes (median earnings) and standard of living soared. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which, in real terms, had declined 70 percent from 1967-82, nearly tripled from 1983-89.

And what about minorities?

Real income for a median African-American family had dropped 11 percent from 1977-82; from 1982-89, coming out of the recession, it rose by 17 percent. In the 1980s, there was a 40 percent jump in the number of black households earning $50,000 or more. Black unemployment under Reagan in the 1980s actually fell faster than white unemployment. The number of black-owned businesses increased by almost 40 percent, while the number of blacks who enrolled in college increased by almost 30 percent (white college enrollment increased by only 6 percent).

There were likewise impressive numbers for Hispanics, who saw similar to higher increases in family income, employment, and college enrollment. The number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the 1980s grew by an astounding 81 percent, and the number of Hispanics enrolled in college jumped 45 percent.

Liberals often decry the income gap between men and women. Well, under Reagan, women went from earning 60 cents for every dollar a man earned to 71 cents, and their employment and median earnings outpaced their male counterparts. Women enrolled in college in record numbers.

Of course, these are the constituencies that twice elected Barack Obama, thereby giving the green light to policies that are the antithesis of what Ronald Reagan pursued to their advantage.

For that matter, the youth vote also twice elected Barack Obama. And here, too, the data is quite eye-opening.

The peak period of youth unemployment for 16-24 year olds under Reagan was 1982, when it was 17.3%. Reagan reduced it to 10.9% by 1988. Under Obama, the peak for that same group was 19.1%. By 2013, the number was 16.3%.
The unemployment data for 16-19 year olds is even more pronounced. Under Reagan, it fell from 24% in 1982 to 14.8% in 1988. Under Obama, it declined from a high of 25.9% in 2010 to only 22.9% in 2013. The numbers for black Americans aged 16-19 are even stronger in Reagan’s favor. They fell from 49.4% in 1982 to 31.9% in 1988—a vast improvement. Under Obama, they declined from 43.0% in 2010 to only 38.8% in 2013.

Economist Stephen Moore has examined the change in household income for the four primary demographic groups that carried the electoral day for Obama in 2008 and 2012: African-Americans, Hispanics, single women, and young voters. These groups, shows Moore, have experienced the worst declines in household incomes from 2009-13.

Even then, those numbers don’t convey the current catastrophe. Many of today’s unemployed have simply become wards of the welfare state. There are an astounding 48 million Americans on food stamps under Barack Obama, far higher than under Reagan (and under George W. Bush). Reagan had reduced the number of Americans on food stamps to 18 million. The number of Americans on food stamps under Obama has jumped by 43% since his first year as president.

For the record, the total U.S. population under Reagan was 236 million, compared to 317 million under Obama. Yes, Obama has a higher population, but even then, the percentage of the population on food stamps is far higher than under Reagan.
Barack Obama once heralded what he called “redistributive change.” That’s exactly what we now have.

Finally, consider the data on another group of Americans that liberals often tout as victims of conservative economic policies.
Liberals tried to blame Ronald Reagan for the homeless in the 1980s. They did so with hysteria and viciousness. With the help of sympathetic media, their castigations had notable success, mainly because the matter of trying to quantify the total number of homeless (and the reasons for their plight) is extremely complicated.

The homeless do not register like the unemployed do, or like those filing for welfare benefits. Calculating the homeless requires careful study.

In the 1980s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to do just that. In 1984, HUD released its report, estimating 250,000-350,000 homeless. Even by the late 1980s, most studies placed the homeless around 300,000.
By comparison, the number of homeless under Barack Obama by his fourth year was double the number under Reagan. A study by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, titled “State of Homelessness in America 2012,” listed 636,017 homeless. Unlike Reagan’s reelection, the press was completely silent in associating Obama with the homeless during his reelection. It was a non-issue.

Overall, the Reagan boom not only produced widespread prosperity but—along with the attendant Soviet collapse—helped generate budget surpluses in the 1990s, thus reversing the increase in the deficit under Reagan. Carter-Ford era terms like “malaise” and “misery index” vanished. Only during the Obama years, and specifically in 2011, has America re-approached similar misery-index levels, reaching a 28-year high.

The record is indisputable: the Reagan economy was vastly preferable to the Obama economy. And worst of all for liberals, the Reagan years were far better for all the groups they purport to care about more than conservatives: African-Americans, Hispanics, women, the youth, the homeless.

That’s a gut-check for liberals. If they want to help these groups progress, at least with jobs and money in their pockets, they need to look to Reagan policy, not Obama policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/05/10-years-after-ronald-reagans-death-how-does-reagans-record-compare-to-obamas/?intcmp=obnetwork

Winner: Reagan. Obama isn't even close. Too bad that left wingers are either too dumb or too hate-filled to understand this. Everything that Liberals touch is ruined. They are incompetent and useless.

Captain Obvious
06-09-2014, 12:31 PM
I wonder what a truly objective comparison would look like.

The O'bama isn't building any legacies by any stretch but I doubt Faux is going to give him any credit for the stuff he's actually done.

del
06-09-2014, 01:50 PM
he hasn't traded a single missile for a hostage yet, nor has he set lose death squads in central america

he has killed via drone, though

still, i gotta give it up for reagan- he turned talking the walk into an art form

Libhater
06-09-2014, 01:50 PM
I wonder what a truly objective comparison would look like.

The O'bama isn't building any legacies by any stretch but I doubt Faux is going to give him any credit for the stuff he's actually done.

Forget about the #1 cable TV outlet FOX (Fair and balanced) for a moment; lets get a leftist source to give us all of those magnificent achievements of the obummer administration. So for anyone to give obummer credit for something worthwhile--we will need for you or other leftists to give us the details of those accomplishments. Remember, by accomplishments---I mean positive growth oriented ones, not total failures.

The Xl
06-09-2014, 01:51 PM
Both are/were shitty progressives that got cult of personality'd by their clueless bases.

Mr. Mensch
06-09-2014, 01:52 PM
I wonder what a truly objective comparison would look like.

The O'bama isn't building any legacies by any stretch but I doubt Faux is going to give him any credit for the stuff he's actually done.

Then why don't you go dig up your own numbers that refute Fox's?

del
06-09-2014, 01:53 PM
reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals and he ran away after 241 marines were murdered in lebanon

point: reagan

Libhater
06-09-2014, 02:09 PM
reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals and he ran away after 241 marines were murdered in lebanon

point: reagan

Rather than take shots at our greatest most productive president, why don't you give us a list of obummer's accomplishments so as to stay in tuned with the theme of this thread, and also perhaps to give us further reason as to not believe a word you say on any given topic.

escalier
06-09-2014, 02:16 PM
Reagan is being painted as a victim. I don't feel sorry for him.

Captain Obvious
06-09-2014, 02:21 PM
Both are/were shitty progressives that got cult of personality'd by their clueless bases.

I think there's some truth to that.

Captain Obvious
06-09-2014, 02:23 PM
Then why don't you go dig up your own numbers that refute Fox's?

Why would I want to do that? Waste of time.

It's kind of a silly concept however now that it's brought to my attention it's something I would have liked to have seen. Unfortunately it's Faux's creation which means it's going to be bullshit and a waste of time, completely unproductive.

darroll
06-09-2014, 02:26 PM
One was smart enough to research problems.

Libhater
06-09-2014, 02:32 PM
One was smart enough to research problems.

Which would be FOX NEWS, while the other one obliviously wormed his way out of doing research. Typical of a lefty!

del
06-09-2014, 03:12 PM
Rather than take shots at our greatest most productive president, why don't you give us a list of obummer's accomplishments so as to stay in tuned with the theme of this thread, and also perhaps to give us further reason as to not believe a word you say on any given topic.

obama's greatest accomplishment?

winding up wingnuts like you for my amusement

Captain Obvious
06-09-2014, 03:15 PM
I heard what I thought was a credible analysis of the O'bama's successes and failures based the agenda he outlined on the radio I dunno, a month or two ago. I tried to find a clip of it but couldn't.

Reading anything like this from a hack RW source is just more wingnut mental masturbation.

Great fodder for the dim of wit, not much substance.

nic34
06-09-2014, 03:18 PM
Rather than take shots at our greatest most productive president, why don't you give us a list of obummer's accomplishments so as to stay in tuned with the theme of this thread, and also perhaps to give us further reason as to not believe a word you say on any given topic.

Why don't you start by naming 5 for Reagan first....

And.... um, freeing the hostages was Carter, so you can't use that one.

midcan5
06-09-2014, 04:14 PM
Reagan raised taxes many, many times, some say 13 times, are you wingers all five years old? Reagan crashed the economy even with the attempt to fix his awful tax policies, and he wasted billions building a star wars defense system that never worked. 'It's the economy stupid,' that's where Reagan got us. He is a myth of great proportion I've grant you that - but I do give him credit for helping Social Security, but his economic project went to defense and it died there as did the economy.

"....there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed"- presidents of the 1970s--Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter--may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ronald-Reagan-Worst-Presi-by-Robert-Parry-090605-584.html


"Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives–and probably cost Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection–Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84." http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/





reagan v clinton clinton v reagan http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm


http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20090213_allen_barra_on_the_myth_of_ronald_reagan/

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/07/did-president-ronald-reagan-cause-1982-recession-and-raise-taxes-working-people-11-tim

The Xl
06-09-2014, 04:28 PM
Right, Reagan raised taxes and signed off on big government legislation.

The fiscal conservative Reagan who talked strong libertarian sounding ideals never existed.

Cigar
06-09-2014, 04:50 PM
Only Republicans give a shit, BTW, Reagan is still Dead and Gone.

So chances are, Reagan can't add to has Record :laugh:

nathanbforrest45
06-09-2014, 04:54 PM
I wonder what a truly objective comparison would look like.

The O'bama isn't building any legacies by any stretch but I doubt Faux is going to give him any credit for the stuff he's actually done.


So, Fox News is lying?

del
06-09-2014, 04:56 PM
So, Fox News is lying?

only when they're on the air

nathanbforrest45
06-09-2014, 04:56 PM
obama's greatest accomplishment?

winding up wingnuts like you for my amusement

Yes, there is a huge market for dumb asses being amused.

nathanbforrest45
06-09-2014, 04:57 PM
I heard what I thought was a credible analysis of the O'bama's successes and failures based the agenda he outlined on the radio I dunno, a month or two ago. I tried to find a clip of it but couldn't.

Reading anything like this from a hack RW source is just more wingnut mental masturbation.

Great fodder for the dim of wit, not much substance.


so, actual comparisons of the standard markers of economic health are mental masturbation?

del
06-09-2014, 04:57 PM
Yes, there is a huge market for dumb asses being amused.

oooooooh

that's gonna leave a mark :rofl:

Mainecoons
06-09-2014, 05:02 PM
I wonder what a truly objective comparison would look like.

The O'bama isn't building any legacies by any stretch but I doubt Faux is going to give him any credit for the stuff he's actually done.

Why don't you give us what you think is one? Your constant ad homs about Fox News proves nothing. Hard information is what we're looking for.

Obviously, Fox is going to spin the bad news about Obama for all its worth. It's interesting though that his advocates are really having a hard time coming up with good news. Other than the stock market bubble and the unprecedented enrichment of the mega rich, I don't see much positive about this regime.

About all I come up with is that he's extricating us from Afghanistan, but projecting weakness in doing so.

Unless you favor making the rich richer, the reality of his economic policies is that over 70 percent of the jobs created have been part time. The data show a consistent erosion of the earning of the middle class while the 0.1 percent are really riding high.

Do you think that driving interest rates to zero, wiping out small savers is an accomplishment? Will it be an accomplishment when the banks start charging small savers to have accounts?

Is there more racial harmony since he took office, or less? Do you honestly believe his conduct and that of Eric Holder has supported racial harmony?

Today, there are reports that there are more indigents going to the emergency rooms than ever before. Reasons cited for this include the fact that they may have insurance (?) but exactly as predicted, they can't find doctors. We also are reading that millions of the sign ups may have IRS problems because their applications don't agree with government data. Do you really think ObamaCare is workable? If not, how could you call this an accomplishment?

How about the current crisis on the southern border? Do you see any connection between his deliberate ignoring of immigration laws and this situation?

Give us your opinion on what his accomplishments are. I'd really like to see your thinking on this.

Libhater
06-09-2014, 05:12 PM
Good luck with any of you reasonable and intelligent Conservatives in dealing with these leftist lightweights. Not one could produce a single achievement of obummers. I mean its no surprise that they couldn't since obummer has an almost 6 years of total failures to contribute to his legacy.