Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here is an article that compares Reagan's economic results to obama's...Obama doesn't come out well...
PJ Media » Updating the Reagan v. Obama Economic Rout
Obamas economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and stimulate job growth. The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nations unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal governments regulatory apparatus to harass the economys productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur.
On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagans post-recession economy an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent did just that.
Reagans economic policy, conducted in the face of necessarily painful anti-inflationary Federal Reserve monetary policy, was premised on supply-side tax cuts and regulatory restraint. A third element, getting federal spending under control, didnt occur because (surprise) Democrats reneged on promises to cut spending made during budget negotiations. Today, Obamas crew anticipates annual budget deficits which will never fall below $450 billion and will balloon back to $1 trillion within a decade.
Five years after the early-1980s recession ended, the U.S. economy was almost 26 percent larger. The Obama economy, in the worst five-year recovery since World War II by miles, hasnt achieved even half of that.
The difference is, well, graphic, as the two images below highlight.
More effects of Reagans "Trickle Down" on the middle class
RW are you good with averages?
What would happen, for example, to your average of you had three As then got an F?
Now explain to the class what happens to someone's share of income when they have none, for example because we introduce a system of welfare handouts where the bottom 20% no longer have to have income to live.
Simple math question RW. If the bottom 20% had to work back in 1967, but don't have to work in 2014 what is going to change in that chart?
Didn't hear about Clinton's welfare reform and 5 year lifetime limit huh?
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Translation.... you can't answer the question. Why can't you answer the question RW? Why can't you answer the question regarding what happens to the bottom 20% when they are being paid to stay home? This is not hard RW you can do it. Or are you really trying to tell me the bottom 20% are really not below the poverty level? Really? What outlier percentile do you think the poverty level applies to if not the bottom 20% what % do you think it is? Why don't you think zeroes in the bottom 20% affect the bottom 20% ratio with the top 5%?RW are you good with averages?
What would happen, for example, to your average of you had three As then got an F?
Now explain to the class what happens to someone's share of income when they have none, for example because we introduce a system of welfare handouts where the bottom 20% no longer have to have income to live.
Simple math question RW. If the bottom 20% had to work back in 1967, but don't have to work in 2014 what is going to change in that chart?
We are not talking about outliers in the economy. We are talking about the ENTIRE workforce. You have no data supporting that the lower 20% were working in 1980. In fact, the unemployment rate was similar to what it is today. Go back and come up with a better example
NOT due to any great growth....mainly due to cost-cutting......whoopie...
So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?
I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?
War in Iraq? Katrina? 911? Expansion of medicare?
What part of these problems do you need an explanation for?
The reason we're not fully adhering to Keynesian principles today has to do with the way our economy has been sabotaged by such laissez faire capitalist exploitation as exported jobs, exported industry, minimal-tariff imports, and decimation of unions. These attacks on the middle class have been enabled by the incremental process of deregulation which began with Ronald Reagan's cessation of enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the sequence of repealed regulations that followed. The Savings & Loan industry scandal was the first major manifestation of the damage to follow.From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
That's what I said retard. That's my point. Zero income for the bottom 20% because they no longer need income because they are in the permanently disabled and/or on other types of welfare roles. Duh.Translation.... you can't answer the question. Why can't you answer the question RW? Why can't you answer the question regarding what happens to the bottom 20% when they are being paid to stay home? This is not hard RW you can do it. Or are you really trying to tell me the bottom 20% are really not below the poverty level? Really? What outlier percentile do you think the poverty level applies to if not the bottom 20% what % do you think it is? Why don't you think zeroes in the bottom 20% affect the bottom 20% ratio with the top 5%?We are not talking about outliers in the economy. We are talking about the ENTIRE workforce. You have no data supporting that the lower 20% were working in 1980. In fact, the unemployment rate was similar to what it is today. Go back and come up with a better example
So you DON'T know the shares of income ONLY comes from US wages and incomes, NOT Gov't transfer payments? lol
So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?
I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?
War in Iraq? Katrina? 911? Expansion of medicare?
What part of these problems do you need an explanation for?
SPENDING hurt US? REALLY?
PLEASE GIVE ME SOME DETAILS HOW THOSE OR OTHER PROGRAMS HAMPERED US DURING DUBYA'S TERM?
RW are you good with averages?
What would happen, for example, to your average of you had three As then got an F?
Now explain to the class what happens to someone's share of income when they have none, for example because we introduce a system of welfare handouts where the bottom 20% no longer have to have income to live.
Simple math question RW. If the bottom 20% had to work back in 1967, but don't have to work in 2014 what is going to change in that chart?
Didn't hear about Clinton's welfare reform and 5 year lifetime limit huh?
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
It wasn't Clinton's reform. It was the republican reform that was forced onto Clinton. Irregardless Obama turned off that reform. Oh and SS/Medicare are not welfare they are payments to the people who paid for them.
War in Iraq? Katrina? 911? Expansion of medicare?
What part of these problems do you need an explanation for?
SPENDING hurt US? REALLY?
PLEASE GIVE ME SOME DETAILS HOW THOSE OR OTHER PROGRAMS HAMPERED US DURING DUBYA'S TERM?
Is this really that hard for you to understand? When millions of people go out of work, due to death from bombs, displacement from floods, or to fight a war in the sands of the ME, those people are no longer producing goods and services that apply to the GDP. Duh.
That's what I said retard. That's my point. Zero income for the bottom 20% because they no longer need income because they are in the permanently disabled and/or on other types of welfare roles. Duh.Translation.... you can't answer the question. Why can't you answer the question RW? Why can't you answer the question regarding what happens to the bottom 20% when they are being paid to stay home? This is not hard RW you can do it. Or are you really trying to tell me the bottom 20% are really not below the poverty level? Really? What outlier percentile do you think the poverty level applies to if not the bottom 20% what % do you think it is? Why don't you think zeroes in the bottom 20% affect the bottom 20% ratio with the top 5%?
So you DON'T know the shares of income ONLY comes from US wages and incomes, NOT Gov't transfer payments? lol
Without demand there is no need for supply.It is only through the supply side that innovation can be spurred, Keynes was not so much wrong, as narrow minded in his views; yes, if labor controls the economy, the wealth of labor will increase. Without the markets & supply increasing however, there will be no re input of that wealth. Products & services must increase in order for earned wealth to be reinvested in the economy. Thus Keynes should be discarded, old theory, and incompete.
Weird,, RECORD Corp profits almost every quarter under Obama, record low share of wages for Corps and lowest tax burden in 40 years on Corps? Horrible Biz environment!
NOT due to any great growth....mainly due to cost-cutting......whoopie...
So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?
I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?
That's what I said retard. That's my point. Zero income for the bottom 20% because they no longer need income because they are in the permanently disabled and/or on other types of welfare roles. Duh.Translation.... you can't answer the question. Why can't you answer the question RW? Why can't you answer the question regarding what happens to the bottom 20% when they are being paid to stay home? This is not hard RW you can do it. Or are you really trying to tell me the bottom 20% are really not below the poverty level? Really? What outlier percentile do you think the poverty level applies to if not the bottom 20% what % do you think it is? Why don't you think zeroes in the bottom 20% affect the bottom 20% ratio with the top 5%?
So you DON'T know the shares of income ONLY comes from US wages and incomes, NOT Gov't transfer payments? lol
The reason we're not fully adhering to Keynesian principles today has to do with the way our economy has been sabotaged by such laissez faire capitalist exploitation as exported jobs, exported industry, minimal-tariff imports, and decimation of unions. These attacks on the middle class have been enabled by the incremental process of deregulation which began with Ronald Reagan's cessation of enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the sequence of repealed regulations that followed. The Savings & Loan industry scandal was the first major manifestation of the damage to follow.From what I remember of Keynesian economics, the main concept is government deficit spending can be used to fix an economic downturn. However what we currently do is not Keynesian because the theory states that you remove that debt during economic upturns, i.e. you use the surplus to pay off the debt.
We do not do that now, we use up any surplus to expand the size of government, so we only use the first part of the Keynesian cycle.
Of course it wasn't only Reagan who sabotaged the middle class. Clinton played a major role by repealing Glass-Steagall and turning the banks loose to do things which formerly would have been federal felonies.
If you'd like a more detailed look at how the process of de-regulation has wrecked our economy, take advantage of the offer in my Signature Line. It's free and very educational.
Didn't hear about Clinton's welfare reform and 5 year lifetime limit huh?
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
It wasn't Clinton's reform. It was the republican reform that was forced onto Clinton. Irregardless Obama turned off that reform. Oh and SS/Medicare are not welfare they are payments to the people who paid for them.
So this is GOP's economy, NOT Obama's? And the Dems had the 1980's?
PLEASE link how Obama 'turned off' the reform? Pretty please?
WHO SAID WELFARE? Oh YOU dd. Small part of the moocher class. Corp tax breaks are probably #1 and tax breaks for 'job creators' are probably #2. Like you say, Medicare/SS paid into the system for their parents and grandparents generation. Their kids and grandkids are taking care of the current moocher class on those programs!
NOT due to any great growth....mainly due to cost-cutting......whoopie...
So more efficient isn't better? Weird, WHY WASN'T THE US BOOMING AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP 'JOB CREATOR' POLICIES? PLEASE explain?
I guess tax rates on Corps don't matter much either then right?
efficiency is good but creating new jobs for America would be better...
firms based in the U.S. have 2 trilion dollars sitting overseas.....cutting our high corporate tax rate would bring alot of that money back to our country where it would do some GOOD for Americans....it would kickstart our failing economy....so what the hell is stopping BO....?
That's what I said retard. That's my point. Zero income for the bottom 20% because they no longer need income because they are in the permanently disabled and/or on other types of welfare roles. Duh.So you DON'T know the shares of income ONLY comes from US wages and incomes, NOT Gov't transfer payments? lol
now the bottom 20% of this countrys wage earners don't have jobs ..
no need to raise the minimum wage, nobody makes min wage. ... who knew?
It wasn't Clinton's reform. It was the republican reform that was forced onto Clinton. Irregardless Obama turned off that reform. Oh and SS/Medicare are not welfare they are payments to the people who paid for them.
So this is GOP's economy, NOT Obama's? And the Dems had the 1980's?
PLEASE link how Obama 'turned off' the reform? Pretty please?
WHO SAID WELFARE? Oh YOU dd. Small part of the moocher class. Corp tax breaks are probably #1 and tax breaks for 'job creators' are probably #2. Like you say, Medicare/SS paid into the system for their parents and grandparents generation. Their kids and grandkids are taking care of the current moocher class on those programs!
No retard, this is OUR ECONOMY. Yours and mine. The leaders of this POS ship are just captains that do or do not provide some amount of steerage. However this is ship is powered by the people who row it... and if they are not rowing they are dead weight.
Obama Administration Ends Welfare Reform as We Know It
SS recipients are not moochers you retarded POS.
It wasn't Clinton's reform. It was the republican reform that was forced onto Clinton. Irregardless Obama turned off that reform. Oh and SS/Medicare are not welfare they are payments to the people who paid for them.
So this is GOP's economy, NOT Obama's? And the Dems had the 1980's?
PLEASE link how Obama 'turned off' the reform? Pretty please?
WHO SAID WELFARE? Oh YOU dd. Small part of the moocher class. Corp tax breaks are probably #1 and tax breaks for 'job creators' are probably #2. Like you say, Medicare/SS paid into the system for their parents and grandparents generation. Their kids and grandkids are taking care of the current moocher class on those programs!
No retard, this is OUR ECONOMY. Yours and mine. The leaders of this POS ship are just captains that do or do not provide some amount of steerage. However this is ship is powered by the people who row it... and if they are not rowing they are dead weight.
Obama Administration Ends Welfare Reform as We Know It
SS recipients are not moochers you retarded POS.
That's what I said retard. That's my point. Zero income for the bottom 20% because they no longer need income because they are in the permanently disabled and/or on other types of welfare roles. Duh.
now the bottom 20% of this countrys wage earners don't have jobs ..
no need to raise the minimum wage, nobody makes min wage. ... who knew?
The requirement for a single person to receive welfare is to keep your wage under 30hrs at minimum wage in most states. I don't consider that to be a real job. To me that's a job of a child in high school. Not the job of an adult. Back in the 60s one would be ashamed to only be an adult bread winner working 30hrs a week at minimum wage. Nutz. This nanny state has made it the norm for people who don't give a shit.
