Regan vs. Obama

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
we'd probably be better off if Obama really was as socialistic as the right thinks he is.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
we'd probably be better off if Obama really was as socialistic as the right thinks he is.

Agreed.

Spidey...Reagan single handedly dismantled our industrial complex overnight. He is the biggest reason why so many people are out of jobs in the first place.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Hard core marxist that displays socialist to disguise his real motives is more like it.
real life evidence seems to prove otherwise.

has Obama taken a principled stand on anything? he didn't even blink before throwing the public option under the bus.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
real life evidence seems to prove otherwise.

has Obama taken a principled stand on anything? he didn't even blink before throwing the public option under the bus.

You don't recall his main campaign promise of getting universal health care?
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
There really isn't a whole lot of difference between Obama and Reagan. Reagan was an internationalist socialist also. What he said, is a lot different from what he actually did; people need to remember that. The last President that was really any different from Obama was calvin coolidge.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
You don't recall his main campaign promise of getting universal health care?

I just laugh every time I see this. I have some issues with the parts of the healthcare bill, but universal healthcare is not socialism. We have had socialized medicine in this country for decades, just not extended to those 30 million he is talking about trying get coverage for. We have had medicaid, charity care, chip, medicare, free clinics, and hawaii is a full blown universal healthcare state. Now I don't like several parts of the proposal, but universal healthcare coverage doesn't equate to socialism. Especially seeing as though we have had some form of socialized medicine for ages.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,464
33,080
136
Spidey, we understand that your self interest lays with the continuation of the current private health insurance system. However, the interests of the nation do not. We simply can not afford to maintain today's grossly inefficient, ineffective health insurance scheme. American businesses can not compete in the global market place while carrying the dead weight of the private health insurance industry.

As for Reagan, the treasonous war criminal is dead, let's bury him.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
Incredible. Reagan predicted the encroachment of socialism, how it gains roots and what it looks like and what the country needs to do to reject it.

And we wind up with Obama. Awesome video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5lSbp31Cow

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00006/

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

From Mises..

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.

Do you really think there was that much difference? The image you have of the man is an illusion.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Not seen video yet, but while many Republicans have wet dreams about Regan at night we must recognize that he was a huge champion of spend and borrow, that concept in fact being the essence of the current problem.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I never did understand why people love Reagan. He was a spend/debt liberal.

Otherwise he didn't do anything major for this country and harmed it quite a bit. He took credit for an economic recovery and then boom that was Volcker's doing, started under Carter.

It is a "Republican" myth that Reagan was anything but a free spending liberal and was, in fact, more liberal than the "horrible" Carter he replaced. Carter wasn't even nearly as bad as many "Republicans" make him out to be.

The blowjobbery that occurs over Reagan is a joke.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I never did understand why people love Reagan. He was a spend/debt liberal.

Otherwise he didn't do anything major for this country and harmed it quite a bit.

You're a damn investment banker and I'd guess you're just a few years younger than I (38). You don't remember what happened in the mid 80s and how regan saved the economy?

Similar situation that obama is in and he's killing it every day?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
You're a damn investment banker and I'd guess you're just a few years younger than I (38). You don't remember what happened in the mid 80s and how regan saved the economy?

Similar situation that obama is in and he's killing it every day?

Reagan saved the economy? Bullshit. The economy was saved by Volcker. Reagan wanted to lower rates and battled with Volcker a lot over it. When he finally did get his way it paved the way for the S&L crisis.

Fortunately I have the benefit of an objective mind looking at history.

Killing it? ROFL.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Reagan saved the economy? Bullshit. The economy was saved by Volcker. Reagan wanted to lower rates and battled with Volcker a lot over it. When he finally did get his way it paved the way for the S&L crisis.

Fortunately I have the benefit of an objective mind looking at history.

Killing it? ROFL.

Demonizing profit. Controlling compensation *cough a fucking pay czar?* Raising health insurance costs. Mandating coverage and taxing good plans. Putting the fear of government penalties and taxes into every single business no matter what size.

Yeah, killing it.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I like Reagan a lot. Made me proud to be an American. But as an adult I've learned he made machine guns made after 1986 illegal so I'm stuck with a POS Vietnam relic I paid $10,000 for, made tax system regressive and set us on a path of spend now pay later, and demonized labor which I think is important to having unity.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
You're a damn investment banker and I'd guess you're just a few years younger than I (38). You don't remember what happened in the mid 80s and how regan saved the economy?

Similar situation that obama is in and he's killing it every day?

You mean like when he raised taxes to record levels and gave amnesty to illegal aliens? How about deficit spending?

It wasn't that Reagan's policies proved that government borrowing had no impact on the economy. But his administration's record -- particularly with some years of hindsight -- did give reason to question traditional thinking and provided a new context for future arguments about deficit spending.

"The lesson we should have learned [from those years] is that deficits have little or no short-term economic impacts," said William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers...

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

To some economists, the impact was clear. Interest rates rose in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the economy slowed, then slipped into recession, and productivity barely advanced. Americans feared their nation had slipped into the shadows of Japan and Germany.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
Washingtonpost = ignore. Next you'll post a NYtimes editorial.

You could read my post. I sourced American Conservative and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (pretty much as far away from modern liberal as you can get).
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Spidey, we understand that your self interest lays with the continuation of the current private health insurance system. However, the interests of the nation do not. We simply can not afford to maintain today's grossly inefficient, ineffective health insurance scheme. American businesses can not compete in the global market place while carrying the dead weight of the private health insurance industry.

As for Reagan, the treasonous war criminal is dead, let's bury him.

Not gonna happen ...

Copyofreagan-01.jpg






--
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
Washingtonpost = ignore. Next you'll post a NYtimes editorial.

:)

How about the Gipper's stance on terrorism? After the marine barracks in Beirut were bombed killing 241 brave American men and women by Hezbollah terrorists what did Regan do? He pulled out from Lebanon and fled like a coward.

When Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 he condemned it!

How about selling weapons to Iranian terrorists for American hostages?