Obama beating Reagan!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Obama beating Reagan!

I agree.

obama is beating Regan at being one of the worst presidents ever.

National debt skyrocketed under obama, just as it did with regan.

High wage jobs being replaced with low wage jobs, just like what happened with regan.

But hey, at least in the 1980s people were not being forced to buy a product.

Regan did not snub Thatcher. obama did not even send an official current state member to her funeral.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
When GDP growth and unemployment reaches Reagan levels, I'll be first in line to applaud Obama.

062712gdp.jpg


1001512reaganobama.jpg


Historical-US-Income-Inequality-Current-Dollars-2.jpg


obama.trend_.jpg


Obama-v-Reagan-Net-Jobs-1024x791.png


062712jobs.jpg
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
One thing Reagan had that Obama unfortunately hasn't was a Congress that was willing to put aside politics to help the nation.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
One thing Reagan had that Obama unfortunately hasn't was a Congress that was willing to put aside politics to help the nation.
Bullshit. The Congress under Reagan never put aside politics. Reagan negotiated with them and had to make many compromises with Democrats in order to meet his objectives.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Looks like you stopped a little short there:
Unemployment-Reagan-v-Obama.jpg
Remember how I mentioned Reagan's GDP and unemployment accomplishments in another thread....which you ignored and instead squealed about wealth inequity under Reagan? Why don't you hold Obama to the same standard? Why do you now chose to split hairs about unemployment numbers? Why do you avoid commenting on GDP numbers?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Bullshit. The Congress under Reagan never put aside politics. Reagan negotiated with them and had to make many compromises with Democrats in order to meet his objectives.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/

Not exactly pushing a Teahadist agenda huh?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,393
33,050
136
Remember how I mentioned Reagan's GDP and unemployment accomplishments in another thread....which you ignored and instead squealed about wealth inequity under Reagan? Why don't you hold Obama to the same standard? Why do you now chose to split hairs about unemployment numbers? Why do you avoid commenting on GDP numbers?
Well, I was just pointing out how you conveniently used a chart that stopped at a point in time that made it look favorable for your position. If you feel the need to deflect, well, in that thread I think I was complaining about the Reagan tax cuts which are still in place and even cut more by Bush Jr. Do you think Obama could raise tax rates right now? Think congress would do that for him? You are right though, I should blame Obama for the continuing damage these tax cuts are doing.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Well, I was just pointing out how you conveniently used a chart that stopped at a point in time that made it look favorable for your position. If you feel the need to deflect, well, in that thread I think I was complaining about the Reagan tax cuts which are still in place and even cut more by Bush Jr. Do you think Obama could raise tax rates right now? Think congress would do that for him? You are right though, I should blame Obama for the continuing damage these tax cuts are doing.
There was no intention to spin the unemployment numbers when I posted that chart.

Obama would be a fool to raise taxes right now...it would kill our economy which is already marginal as is and Republicans would be right to stop him. You understand that...right? Again, where is your outrage about wealth inequity being at historic levels under Obama?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,393
33,050
136
There was no intention to spin the unemployment numbers when I posted that chart.

Obama would be a fool to raise taxes right now...it would kill our economy which is already marginal as is and Republicans would be right to stop him. You understand that...right? Again, where is your outrage about wealth inequity being at historic levels under Obama?
Well sorry, but those tax cuts are a large part of the cause of the increase of wealth inequality we've seen over the last 3 decades. Yes, I understand that economists believe raising taxes during a weak economy would be a bad thing. I'm not sure why you think I should be blaming Obama. Did he create this economy where he cannot raise taxes? Sorry, I'm just happy he is digging us out of the hole.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Well sorry, but those tax cuts are a large part of the cause of the increase of wealth inequality we've seen over the last 3 decades. Yes, I understand that economists believe raising taxes during a weak economy would be a bad thing. I'm not sure why you think I should be blaming Obama. Did he create this economy where he cannot raise taxes? Sorry, I'm just happy he is digging us out of the hole.
When Reagan took office, the effective tax rate for the top 0.01 percent was 42.9%. When he left office it was 32.2 percent. The effective tax rate under Clinton was 41% during his 1st term. Why aren't you blaming Clinton for the reductions he allowed during his 2nd term? To blame most of our current wealth inequity problems on Reagan is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Bullshit. The Congress under Reagan never put aside politics. Reagan negotiated with them and had to make many compromises with Democrats in order to meet his objectives.

A willingness to compromise is something the current Republicans in Congress have time and again proven they don't have. Putting aside politics mean that you ARE willing to compromise.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
A willingness to compromise is something the current Republicans in Congress have time and again proven they don't have. Putting aside politics mean that you ARE willing to compromise.
You blame only Republicans, yet Democratic leadership in the Senate won't give many good bipartisan bills from the House the time of day fearing that they will pass. Senate leadership doesn't give a crap about bipartisan legislation and have proven they are not willing to compromise as well. Objectivity on this particular issue does not appear to be your strong suit.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/

In the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.

Members of Congress recently decamped to their home districts for the August recess, but the never-ending partisan skirmishing on Capitol Hill continues.

Many readers told us they saw references on social media to a comment by Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., about House-passed bills dying on the doorstep of the Senate. They asked us to take a closer look, so we did.

Here’s the full text of Jenkins’ comments, made at a press conference on July 29, 2014, as the final week of the congressional session was winding down:

"The president is fond of referring to the House as the ‘do-nothing Congress.’ But we have 352 reasons why it’s a ‘do-Nothing Senate.’

"352 bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting action.

"98 percent of them passed with bipartisan support -- Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation.

"50 percent of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition.

"70 percent of the bills passed with two-thirds support in the House.

"And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats.

"352 bills. Why won’t Harry Reid act? These are good bills; bills that put the American people back to work, put more money in hardworking Americans pockets, help with education, and skills training. We call upon Harry Reid to get to work before he adjourns in August to pass some of these bills. The American people deserve better."

Jenkins offered a lot of statistics in a short statement, so to keep this fact-check manageable, we’ll focus on her claim that in the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.

Have 352 bills passed the House but await action in the Senate?

Basically, yes. We used the THOMAS congressional database to pluck out the 733 measures that have passed the House so far this year. We then weeded out a few categories of bills -- ones that, for procedural reasons, were never intended to go to the Senate (such as election of the Speaker, assignment of lawmakers to committees, and procedural motions) or ones that were subsequently taken up by the Senate (either being passed or rejected).

What remained were 342 individual bills. That’s 10 fewer than what Jenkins claimed, but we have no quarrel with her number, since the difference likely stems from additional bills being passed in the couple of days between when she spoke and when we looked through the database.

Are these bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action"?

Resolving this claim is murkier.

First, a technical problem. It’s an oversimplification to say that these bills are "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk." Many have been assigned to committees, where they would need to be approved before being taken up on the floor. While Reid has influence over what committee chairs do, a chair can -- using their own powers -- decide to either fast-track or stall a bill coming over from the House.

Another complication: In at least some cases, the Senate is working on a bill on the same topic, but without using the House bill as a starting point. "The disposition of a House bill is not particularly relevant to measuring Senate legislative activity," said Steven Smith, political scientist and Senate specialist at Washington University in St. Louis.

We should also note that in the Senate, one member -- either from the majority or the minority -- can stop a bill in its tracks by threatening to filibuster -- a delay that requires 60 votes to break. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Reid or Senate Republicans are the biggest offenders -- we previously addressed some of those issues -- but the experts we checked with said both parties share at least some of the blame.

"There's plenty of blame to go around," said Donald Wolfensberger, a former Republican House aide now studying Congress at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Wolfensberger sees Reid as the bigger offender by blocking bills and amendments "to protect his vulnerable members who are up for re-election in November. You can blame the threat of filibusters and politically sensitive amendments from Republicans, but politics ain't bean bag. Senators were sent there to cast the tough votes, not to be pampered, protected and coddled by their leaders."

Others see Republican threats as the bigger problem.

"It is true that some bills, including some of substance, are being blocked by Reid from action because he wants to avoid Republican amendments of the ‘gotcha’ variety that could work against some of his endangered incumbents up this fall," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "You can make a case that the role of the majority is to suck it up and do votes, even if some are uncomfortable. But on the balance sheet, the bigger reality is that very few of the bills passed by the House were aimed at compromise or agreement with the Senate."

A spokesman for Jenkins, Thomas W. Brandt, told PolitiFact, "Only Sen. Reid can bring these bills up for a vote, and if he did, it would go a long way in ending the legislative gridlock currently plaguing Washington."

Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Reid, countered by noting that there are 50 bipartisan Senate-passed bills awaiting House action. (Here's the list.)

Do the House-passed, Senate-stalled bills include 55 introduced by Democrats?

On the number, Jenkins is basically right -- we counted 54. But if this statistic is intended to communicate how generously the House treats its minority caucus, Jenkins’ talking point is somewhat overblown.

Unlike the Senate, where the minority party and individual lawmakers hold notable leverage, the House is structured -- regardless of which party is in power -- as a tyranny of the majority. Whoever has the most votes and holds the Speaker’s gavel determines which bills get considered, and precisely how they get considered. Minority-party preferences are granted, if at all, as a favor from the majority.

The number of Democratic-sponsored bills Jenkins mentions -- 55 -- accounts for just 16 percent of all House-passed bills now awaiting consideration in the Senate. But even that figure is misleadingly high.

When we took a closer look at the 55 Democratic-sponsored bills that passed the House, we found that fewer than half -- 24 -- could reasonably be described as substantive. And many of these were the kinds of measures lawmakers would be hard-pressed to vote against -- for instance, the National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013, the Homes for Heroes Act of 2013, the Traumatic Brain Injury Reauthorization Act of 2014, the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013, the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act and the Human Trafficking Prevention Act.

The remainder of the 55 Democratic-sponsored bills -- a majority -- aren’t exactly the most high-profile measures pending in Congress. Thirteen were technical changes to local federal lands; five approved honorific names for postal or other buildings; four addressed federal studies or advisory committees; three were bills sponsored by a non-voting territorial delegate; three concerned narrow technical corrections to existing legislation; one concerned U.S. coinage; and one was a private bill granting an immigrant visa to an individual.

So House bipartisanship lives, but let’s not oversell it.

Why the numbers don’t tell the whole story

Experts say this bill counting merits a grain of salt. As the breakdown of the 55 Democratic-sponsored bills suggests, many of the measures that pass the House -- and some that go on to pass the Senate -- are noncontroversial bills. Wolfensberger crunched the numbers for us and found that of the 570 bills and joint resolutions that have passed the House in the current Congress, 377, or 74 percent, originated as suspension bills -- a streamlined process used for non-controversial measures that requires two-thirds approval. And of the 142 measures signed into law by Obama, 118, or 83 percent, were approved by that same two-thirds requirement.

Meanwhile, many of the other bills that pass the House in today’s environment are bills that are intended to make a statement, not a law.

Ornstein contrasted bills that are "designed to lay the predicate for action via compromise" or consensus, which are declining, and those "designed for show or as a political statement, where there is neither intention nor expectation that the other house will act on them."

Where substantive, contentious legislation is concerned, the odds of passage are poor. One example is the Senate-passed (and bipartisan) immigration bill, which remains stuck in the House. Another sign is the fact that the Senate has not yet passed any of the 12 annual appropriations bills -- even though the House has passed seven and the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved eight.

By contrast, the second category of "show" bills includes dozens of full or partial repeals of the Affordable Care Act passed by the Republican House.

Sarah Binder, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, said a fundamental reality of today's political landscape is that "the two chambers' majorities have different agendas and priorities and different ideas of what constitutes a 'problem.' And even when the parties agree on the need to address an issue, their prescriptions differ. That complicates the legislative process, and in the current period of high partisanship, it seems most often to bring the legislative process to a halt."

Our ruling

Jenkins said that in the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.

In some cases, committee chairs -- not Reid -- may be blocking or moving slowly on these bills. In other cases, senators are working on their own alternative bills on the same topic. Meanwhile, the claim oversells the degree of bipartisanship in the House; a majority of the Democratic-sponsored bills she cites are relatively minor pieces of legislation.

Ultimately, Jenkins places all the blame on the Democrats and the Senate, but experts agree that it takes two to tango. Both parties and chambers have played a role in creating the current legislative dysfunction. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
GOP should lead by example and start filibustering, if they are really concerned about bills not moving through the Senate.
 

TreVader

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2013
2,057
2
0
I've got a new idea, they should shut down the government again. That was a good time
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
GOP should lead by example and start filibustering, if they are really concerned about bills not moving through the Senate.
When they take the Senate, the first order of business should be to finish what the Democrats started and eliminate the filibuster in its entirely.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
One thing Reagan had that Obama unfortunately hasn't was a Congress that was willing to put aside politics to help the nation.

It's an interesting if not the heart of the matter type point.

Division for division sake hurts the country because it obscures solutions in favor of playing politics for personal gain or to suit an agenda. Obama has a role in this dance from what i've seen. It really can't be all conservative's fault, just as it obviously isn't all Obama's or the liberals fault, but it seems to be the common fallback for Obama's failures is "conservatives" I suppose it fits as a solution to quell unrest of some of the nations lightest thinkers and politically minded hacks.

Obama is divisive and excels at using corruption of political thought and language to a degree i'm not accustomed to seeing except for leaders in banana republics. That's his Achilles heel for finding real solutions to help the nation. Though something changed with Obama during his presidential terms. The agitating question is what don't we know about what he's encountered being president?

Personally I think the problem is that Obama as surrounded himself by sycophants and corrupt assholes. Obama's echo chamber has undermined his ability to effectively lead to the degree he's capable of. Here's a guy who posseses keen intellect and insight into the issues, but he just can' figure out how to gracefully be wrong on issues and then look to new solutions. The government fucked him on this last point, it's how government operates.

Obama was a huge hope of finally upsetting the status quo, but he has been bent merely to serve the status quo. That's the conundrum of good folks who find themselves in positions of power, they are undeniably changed/corrupted by it.

The recovery talk is partisan, reverse the letters in front of those in power and the discussion remains the same, as well as the truth, but the players merely change sides.

Typically the party not in power is more keenly aware and honest about issues. It's why we need a strong third party.
 
Last edited:

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Government doesn't create jobs? Tell that to the 21+ million government workers in this country!

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/p...hly-government-employment-changes-totals.html

Let's not even try to talk about contractors and businesses that provide goods and services for the government!

"Government doesn't create jobs!" What a truly ignorant comment!

This is liberal la la logic. A private business which does not take money out of the economy produces something of worth and employs people in the process. The various federal, state, and local governments must take money from the economy to be able to employ all these workers. The only revenue these government entities earn is from regulations which take more money out of the economy.

So you can say the "government creates jobs," but does so at a cost to the economy. If a huge government was so good for the economy then why does the government just put all unemployed people on the payroll?

And yes... obama is beating reagan with the number of low wage jobs created...

http://news.investors.com/economy/090514-716193-worst-job-stat-keeps-getting-worse.htm
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Reagan was a damn good President...I don't get why so many liberals are so fixated on trying to demonize him.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,562
17,090
136
This is liberal la la logic. A private business which does not take money out of the economy produces something of worth and employs people in the process. The various federal, state, and local governments must take money from the economy to be able to employ all these workers. The only revenue these government entities earn is from regulations which take more money out of the economy.

So you can say the "government creates jobs," but does so at a cost to the economy. If a huge government was so good for the economy then why does the government just put all unemployed people on the payroll?

And yes... obama is beating reagan with the number of low wage jobs created...

http://news.investors.com/economy/090514-716193-worst-job-stat-keeps-getting-worse.htm


Yeah, that's not true at all. Like most righty logic you try and simplify something that's not so simple. Feel free to read this to see how government can and does affect the economy.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/government-unique-situation.html
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Yeah, that's not true at all. Like most righty logic you try and simplify something that's not so simple. Feel free to read this to see how government can and does affect the economy.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/government-unique-situation.html

Reading comprehension fail on your part. I thought we were talking about government jobs. Your link has nothing to do with what I said. It does reference taxation and the governments ability to raise or lower taxes (no shit sherlock article)... so I ask you where does a government entity get the money to employ someone?